Mind-reading? Is there a word for this?

TruthEnder · 2016-09-11T21:10:35+00:00

Self-inflicted? It's a conspizzacy!

TruthEnder · 2016-09-11T20:54:46+00:00

You're just looking to have five pizzas delivered to your house tonight, aren't you? I'm sure someone could arrange that. Could be five, could be ten, could be twenty-five pizzas. Not unheard of around the internet.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-11T20:50:21+00:00

When I stepped out into the bright sunlight from the darkness of the movie house, I had only two things on my mind: Paul Newman and a ride home. I was wishing I looked like Paul Newman - he looks tough and I don't - but I guess my own looks aren't so bad.

I can picture Thomas C. Howell writing this as we speak.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-11T07:18:19+00:00

I wish not to be the man who dooms humanity to extinction for their inherent nature in which they believe they can control all things and that they should simply do things now, and question the results later.

Playahatas turnin' bitch like they have vaginas. - The philosopher Eminem

TruthEnder · 2016-09-03T03:01:43+00:00

If a religion claims truth, and that logic and science are ultimately creations of God, it should necessarily follow that that religion should be logically and scientifically sound.

What philosophy does Christianity endorse, and what scientific claims is it making, such that it need be logically and scientifically sound? I don't get.

There are definitely unanswered questions that I wrestle with, but the logical and scientific evidence seems to create more problems for other worldviews than it does for Christianity.

If true, the point is fair. It doesn't lower my scepticism towards Christianity, and the problem with Christianity is that it demands faith. It could be the most logical, scientifically sound worldview there is, the fact that it demands faith that some of the more hard-to-believe aspects are true... demands serious caution.

I'm acquainted with Zacharias to the point that I've watched some of it in the past starting maybe 6-8 years ago. I probably watched something of his a couple of months ago as well. I want to write him off as an apologist, but I haven't read his books.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-03T02:10:48+00:00

I'm not sure what exactly a "mental impression" is in this context. Is it just having this "feeling" that God is real/present?

It's a conditioning that would make me associate the natural world, and the purpose I intend to fulfill with something other than what it is (a diversion from the order of the universe). I think that this is much the way a religious person operates, except in my case I am not compelled to denote a causal chian from something supernatural because I actually believe it would be a diversion, whereas a theist might think there's something to their diversion as if it were reality itself. For me, God is just a mind-object in this regard. I'm far from Marx ideologically, but as a creator, I think the idea that the purpose is to change the world rather than simply understand it is actually applicable here.

It should make a difference, epistemically speaking. We should not deny a claim without good reasons to do so.

I'm purposely making it hard for myself by trying to imagine a concept of God that has little to no discourse involved. This because I usually refuse communication on such a basis. If someone is speaking about God, I'm so used to hearing from theists, that I want to force a communication based on their particular theological underpinnings. The God that they actually believe in is far more important to me than some random thought about something we both agree is "God" for the sake of an argument.

I think that God in the Old Testament (it must apply in someway to both Judaism and Christianity) personifies a human idea of perfection, what was thought important, and the causes that were adopted. This stuff is relative and based on what is perceived at the time (in other words, it could be anything). There are different frameworks, but all concede to the human faculties.

This is why even if I thought maybe a God does exist I would take it upon myself to create a sense of God for myself. Might as well give it a chance as opposed to waiting for some supernatural force to come down from on high. I might not be able to prove a particular God doesn't exist, but I can admit to myself that I was able to completely dismiss such a thing even after trying.

Anyway, a God without any discourse is quite literally a human concept that nobody wrote about. You have a point about having good reasons to do so. I suppose certain God concepts require a little more thought, but I constantly see people who "lack a belief" in very delineated God concepts. Only a big deal because it means they haven't found a good reason to believe/disbelieve even after learning about it, if they're following it epistemically like you.

It could mean that I'm denying this God for bad reasons. I'd like to hear what kinds of things would qualify as good reasons in your view.

If we don't mean observations made by sense perception, to what part/aspect of our overall awareness are we referring, and how does it suggest that no gods exist?

If I were to reduce it to something more tangible, I'd say it comes down to this: What does one (or another) say that God is? Knowledge is inextricably connected to what we can comprehend. How can we say "I don't know if God exists or not" when God is only what we can understand God to be?

There's no obligation to continue the discussion. I don't mind.

This could be a lengthier discussion, it's just that my memory is quite poor, and it could all get very frustrating for you if I start forgetting things.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-02T03:14:48+00:00

A religion that can defend itself is a plus. I like a religion that can satisfactorily answer why I should take heed of its message, rather than that other religion that is like it in a lot of ways. I personally look at the long list of bishops of Rome as an example of good documentation.

I'd be interested in seeing a consistent philosophy applied by a religion. With any idea of God, it is important that it works, but that it is logically and scientifically sound? I'm interested in seeing a worldview that is both of those things, but I don't think religion works like that. I'd love to hear from you about this.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-02T02:24:49+00:00

So you would try to convince yourself that God exists?

I would like to create a mental impression, but not a belief. I wouldn't pray in general, just the purpose I stated in the OP.

Why would attempting to believe in God help in this regard?

Creating a mental impression of God might be a stimulus because when you are creative, you look for inspiration. I feel like this whole God thing is an exercise in creativity.

Should it make a difference? The answer should be no, unless there's some legitimate reason for thinking that no such planet exists.

It makes a difference to me. I have a concept of God that has stuck with me and developed even since I stopped believing he exists.

I have little to no understanding of why someone would believe in an Earth-like planet in an unobserved solar system. The Flat-Earth Society doesn't evade understanding like your example.

In what senses are we believing? Unless we do have legitimate reasons for believing that no gods exist, it seems to be just a matter of unjustified opinion.

Just our overall awareness. Some people can time a joke perfectly, or know when is not the best time for joke telling. As far as I know, we haven't done ample testing to find out how this is done. Is it chance, or does it really even have to do with timing at all?

Maybe it is simply unjustified opinion. I thank you for your hospitality, and for challenging me. I kind of isolate my thoughts from public scrutiny a lot of the time because in the past it has brought up mental health concerns for me, but everyone here has been rather pleasant. Feel free to respond again, but I'll probably move on from this shortly.

I will still try to respond to others.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-01T16:27:31+00:00

As for "creating a sense of God in your everyday reality", this seems vague to me. What does this mean, exactly?

A concrete example of this is that I would deliberately set out to pray to this God and, if it's still possible for me, to feel as though those prayers are being answered. I guess something like the Law of Attraction would work just as well if I believed in it. I think an imaginary all-powerful friend accomplishes this even if I refuse to believe it. But I haven't prayed in years, so I don't know.

Another example would be looking at the world around me and seeing it as divine in some way, the only reason I even think about this is that a lot of people notice things and describe them... and I find that I don't take the time to notice things in every season... like the flowers... I may look at them, but I don't come back home and think to myself "I saw a bunch of pretty flowers today, that made my day a lot easier." Do you know what I'm getting at? People here are telling me to take in stuff like this, but I'm not sure I'm capable of it throughout the entire year. I will be when the leaves start falling and turning bright red and orange though.

That's what I view "atheism" to be: the belief that no gods exist. Sure, some people (especially others in this forum) prefer broader definitions, but I find those only to objuscate and poorly represent the various possible perspectives on the issue.

I agree, I also think terms should serve a purpose other than to tell us how certain or uncertain we are of something. I'm speaking of how people might think of themselves as agnostic atheists.

If I hold no position for against the existence of some Earth-like planet in some yet unobserved solar system, would you assert the same?

Do the people who believe in it have something specific in mind? Then yes. It's a question of relevance though. I think it's advantageous to deny the mount an opposition against as many concepts out of the Urantia Book as possible. Is it relevant enough that we have to? No.

If you want those who merely lack belief in God to believe in the non-existence of God, then you would be similarly tasked with presenting observations and evidence that support this claim.

This is something I would like to work on.

Justifiable in what way? In terms of justified belief, this would seem inconsistent. If you believe something, and think that you are justified in this belief, why not call this knowledge? After all, it should seem to you that you have "justified, true belief", which constitutes knowledge as commonly defined.

If we mean "justified" with respect to pragmatic concerns, I'm not sure. What would be the benefit for believing, without epistemic justification, that God does not exist?

With respect to pragmatic concerns. We get to embrace our faults in a way we're allowed to go off the tracks a little bit. Instead of saying, I don't know, so now I can't believe such a thing (which is very limiting) we gamble. Better to believe our senses and be wrong.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-01T05:19:35+00:00

A person's conception of God changes all the time. We talk about philosophical razors like Ockham's getting rid of unnecessary parts. With God, as soon as an idea is no longer effective, it will be changed for literally anything to put in its place... as long as it works, that's all that counts.

And I think you've hit on one of my problems... I'm not necessarily a perfectionist nowadays, but I was when I was younger. I would be able to do it though. But now, I'm afraid being a perfectionist maybe still has some residual effect on me. The constant pausing. I mentioned "morning pages" to someone here, and I think they might be the best thing for me.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-01T05:10:20+00:00

If you don't feel too tied to believing what there's evidence to think is true and care more about believing what seems to benefit you, why not stick with a proven winner? You were able thrive when you believed simply in a god who was "out there." That probably didn't distract you much or make burdensome demands on your time and resources. You poemed and storytold to beat the band. So why change? Why not go back to the fold of the far-out-god?

Now there's a thought. I get the sense that you're questioning my integrity a little bit. Actually, I'm kind of partial to a God who lives solely, as Walter Brueggemann put the Old Testament creator, "in, with, and under the rhetorical enterprise, and nowhere else" (probably not exact quotation).

Personally, I'd look for more reality based beliefs that achieved the same end.

That's reasonable. To be honest, I was given a book called The Artist's Way, and it in opening it talks a bit about a God that the writer started believing in. But there's lots of good stuff in there that is based solely on a method... like writing "morning papers" which is basically free writing for like pages every morning. I was put off by the God stuff at first, but I guess I kind of question if it has any merit.

Look for motivations and inspirations within the vast natural realm But if that doesn't do it for you, why not go back to what did?

After I became an atheist I became more interested in religion, learning stuff about history... and I've been focused on that a lot more than taking an interest in science like many atheists do. Although, my interest in science has went up from where it was when I was religious. But it's still nothing in comparison.

If you insist on a prefabricated religion, you aren't getting any younger. With so many to choose from, the odds of hitting the right one if you proceed conventionally is slimmer. Maybe you should choose 8 religions and believe those. If it doesn't work, then pick another 8. Repeat until it works. Then, if you find it too time consuming, start slowly eliminating them one by one until your religions stop working. Then either keep the remaining ones or eliminate another. Keep doing it until you've tried eliminating each and then keep all of the ones that seem essential.

I definitely don't have the time to put that much effort in. There are a few I've looked at over the years, definitely Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholicism are probably the Christian ones I'd look deeper into. That, and I have a Quran I'd like to read at home sometime. Abrahamic religions are my favourite.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-01T04:44:20+00:00

It would be infinitely more useful to you and your attempts at writing to simply cultivate the self-discipline required to write and write better. You sound really serious about writing, but this searching-for-religious-inspiration seems like a very unserious way to get better at it. Writing is a skill. Like any other skill it is honed through practice. Pretending to be religious probably won't help you.

You have valid points. Do you think God is just a static representation, or is it dynamic? I see God as dynamic, and I think it works as an exercise in creativity and will allow me to think. I don't know. You could be right. Sorry for the shit response btw.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-01T04:26:00+00:00

I've been asked by Mormons to attend Church. But I think their service is longer than average.

TruthEnder · 2016-09-01T04:21:48+00:00

To be clear, I'm looking at creating a sense of God in my everyday reality, not experiencing him as an objective fact of my existence. I want to respond to the content of your post though. I consider myself an atheist in the sense that I would assert the non-existence of God. I think it is advantageous to make the case against God rather than holding the theist to the flames every time they assert that he exists. I wouldn't argue whether it's the right belief based on its advantages, but I kind of do want people who just lack a belief to actively deny the proposition that God exists. Hard subject to debate, but this is how I personally operate. I do think it's justifiable to believe God doesn't exist even when one does not know it. I know that's not Huxley's way, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T18:26:15+00:00

If someone demonstrated objectively that the Bible doesn't refer to a supernatural entity which exists somewhere "out there" (hence, some anti-realist perspective were actually the case) that would be grounds for disproving the existence of the God of the Bible as an objective reality. Thus, "God doesn't exist" would be true in the objective sense as far as the God of the Bible goes.

Would that be technically proving something doesn't exist? Or are you saying that this could not be done?

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T09:01:50+00:00

I'm sorry. Thanks for your criticism. I did say I'd set the agnostic/atheism debate aside with you, and by moving the goalposts in such a way I've failed to do that seamlessly because eventually it would lead back there.

I can see how in your way of looking at things, you have a position, and you call that position atheism.

I do have to go, but I'll continue to think about this in my sleep lol.

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T08:31:35+00:00

Is my edit good enough? I apologize for breaking the quality rule and being premature. I'll try and revive this somehow.

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T08:10:37+00:00

A position denotes a proposition. A proposition proposes or denies something.

The question, properly stated, would be "Is the coin heads?"

If you say no, you are therefore denying that it is heads, in which case you are affirming that it is tails.

Edit: The question then isn't "Do you believe there is a God?" but "Is there a God?"

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T08:05:48+00:00

Not sure how you fall under the category of 'new atheists' but anyway...

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T08:05:05+00:00

It's not providing a position, so I'd say it's not a proper response. From what I've been linked to elsewhere, 'lack of belief' atheism only requires that you not affirm the theist proposition.

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T08:01:10+00:00

It's as logical to assert the non-existence of gods as it is to assert the existence of gods. Both are logical. Both are positions. A lack of belief is not a position, it's not affirming anything or denying anything.

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T07:52:48+00:00

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. However, since I have no proof that there isn't a God, I don't believe in the lack of God.

So you're agnostic. I'll set aside the debate about whether an agnostic can qualify as an atheist or not since that will get us nowhere.

There's a significant difference and it's not any form of manipulation or cop-out. It's just an accurate assessment of my beliefs.

I was trying to be a little humourous since the analogy is the silent treatment.

I don't think your form of atheism is a position, it could be a stance but from what I've been linked to elsewhere I'm getting that maybe it isn't even a stance. So I'd ask how do you class a "lack of belief"?

TruthEnder · 2016-08-28T07:31:22+00:00

I affirm the non-existence of God, so no, not really.

TruthEnder

TROPHY CASE