Still no atheist logic being shown here

[Chris OConnor]

Robert, I was wondering the same thing. What does that even mean?

[Robert Tulip]

Robert, I was wondering the same thing. What does that even mean?

Thanks - see new thread
http://www.booktalk.org/wave-function-o ... 14016.html

[ant]

The logic of infinity, the same logic being used by astrophysicists to predict millions, possibly billions of earth-type planets where higher consciousness beings could evolve, predicts that some day, humanity (and it may very well be beings who don't look like us now) will have developed the technology to turn thought into matter. When that happens, we will in essence have reached the power of God and the goal of God's Plan according to the Gospel of Humanity. Humanity evolving into God at the "End of Days". The archetypal thought has been with us since the Gnostics first articulated it in their Gospels 1600-1700 years ago and the proto-Star Trek movie, Forbidden Planet presented the idea as well back in the 1950's with the Krell Machine that ran off the nuclear core of the planet and powered human minds into creating material reality by their thoughts. This is our destiny. To evolve into God. And the reason for the Christ is to present the Humanitarian Model through the generations needed to bring the prophesy to fruition, "Verily I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father." (to reestablish the Archetypal Messiah meaning: the wise and compassionate Good Son who becomes Sage King who obeys his wise and compassionate Good Father as Humanitarian Model for all humankind for evolving humanity from human beings into humane beings. Without the Sacrifice of Power for Love Humanitarian Model you get the power struggle of the Warrior Kings for control and the history of the world as we know it because only the Christ Sacrifice of Power over humanity for Love of humanity really works to change alpha leadership that rules the world.

I'll have to admit, this is some pretty interesting stuff.

I'll take a dose of whatever you're on.

[sonoman]

It's called spiritual consciousness and unfortunately you can't take anything to get it if you don't believe it exists. If you do, there are many ways to alter "normal" consciousness so that spiritual reception can take place. Meditation which I don't recommend as it never did anything for me or anyone I know who found Christ consciousness but others find spiritual value in it. There are drugs of course, like the psychedelics which I have tried long ago and found they too for me had no spiritual value, just fabulous picture shows but again others have found spiritual consciousness with them. They are too strong for me to think of using on any regular basis unless you're really set on a shaman path or doing psychedelic experimentation. I do think the weakest of the psychedelics, marijuana does have superb qualities for increasing spiritual reception by expanding the brain's association networking bringing more areas of the brain together to give a more holistic p.o.v. I must say I doubt if I would have gotten so many spiritual visions without my daily thc intake. But as you should be able to see and judge by my writing quality, I don't let it run my daily life but wait until evening and very early morning to imbibe my sacrament. I am a medical marijuana patient, btw, as it is most excellent for back pain and many other medical uses. Jesus was said to fast 40 days in the wilderness. That would do it. Certainly alter your consciousness pretty good but we also know "40" days is an astrological symbol but then so was John the Baptist's baptisms and yet I was doing an Aquarian baptismal ritual without knowing a thing about the astrological connections between John the Baptist and Aquarius when I was doing them. Which is to me, proof that these astrological Archetypes really are working through us as Jung believed and I do as well.

[sonoman]

Follow the logical trail that starts over 4000 years ago.

The word logic doesn't apply here. Not even in the sense that you're stretching an underused connotation of the word. It's the wrong word, plain and simple. Have you ever actually checked the definition?

Please, no diversions with nit-picking semantics. "Logic", derived from "Logos" meaning "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." -American College Dictionary.

1) explain how human beings as the successful top species in the food chain, successfully meeting every environmental challenge which means each evolutionary advance has been successful, come to have their brains hardwired to receive and process spiritual phenomena if spiritual phenomena is non-existent?

The question assumes a premise. You're assuming there are spiritual phenomena. That assumption must be supported first, before there is any meaning to your question. The problem is, you're attempting to use the question as support. It's circular.

That's not an answer. It's another diversion because you don't have an answer to a very specific question which like all questions, assumes a premise-this one being the established scientific fact that human brains are hardwired to experience a particular stimulation. Your argument could apply to hearing voices or music just as well and just as absurdly inappropriate. You haven't answered the question but dodged it.

2) explain why there is at least 40,000 years of human beings paying great amounts of attention to these same supposedly non-existent forces if it is a delusional state of mind shared by the vast majority of human beings still today?

There are many books that answer this. For example. We are not plugged directly into the truth of the universe. We believe things that are false, we see false patterns, and we come to false conclusions. All the time, all across history. That fact answers this question.

No it does not. False beliefs lead to erroneous social and personal behavior that creates social discord and there is a continual process in human society to correct erroneous beliefs, even ones forced down society's throats by terrorism of governments or religious bodies. You haven't even begun to distinguish between secular false beliefs and religious ones or shown what "true" beliefs are. You've only thrown out another blanket diversion because you have no answer to why human beings spend such enormous amounts of time and energy on what you think are made-up fantasies. Still waiting for an answer that addresses the specific question./b]

3) Answer why any rational person would accept atheists answers to the question of God and the existence of spiritual reality when science is still virtually in its infancy stage of knowledge of the way the universe works, i.e., it's illogical to make judgments on phenomena that is opaque to us now

You're erroneously assuming that atheist answers are synonymous with scientific answers. You're excluding the entire field of philosophy, where the question belongs. Which means the questions is nonsensical.

Again, you don't show rational thinking. We are talking about the logic of history that shows an undisputed progression of human knowledge acquisition as human social development evolves through time and space. I am addressing your atheist non-starter idea that you atheists can really state anything with absolute conviction about any complex human behavior because science is still in its infancy and what is unknown today may very well become known in the future. It's simple logic but as we see, logic is not the atheist strong point.

[Interbane]

Please, no diversions with nit-picking semantics. "Logic", derived from "Logos" meaning "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." -American College Dictionary.

The etymology of the word does not define it. The definitions of most words are associated with their etymological roots, but are not the same. It is not nit-picking semantics. "Logic" is not defined as "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." The definition is different from it's etymological root.

That's not an answer. It's another diversion because you don't have an answer to a very specific question which like all questions, assumes a premise-this one being the established scientific fact that human brains are hardwired to experience a particular stimulation. Your argument could apply to hearing voices or music just as well and just as absurdly inappropriate. You haven't answered the question but dodged it.

The argument is not that the stimulations aren't real. It's that our interpretations of those stimulation are mistaken. Each of the links I provided are examples of how we misinterpret environmental input. Not only is it an answer Stephen, it's the correct answer.

Here is an example:
I'd once thought I was seeing a ghost in my old house. The sense datum were very real. But my interpretation was incorrect. I found that the hazy glow was from headlights in a neighboring turnabout reflecting off the bathroom mirror. But my belief that it was a ghost before I discovered the truth was unshakeable. It was only a fluke that I discovered the true cause, otherwise I'd still believe.

Again, you don't show rational thinking.

There couldn't been a better example of rational thinking than that post. That human knowledge is progressive and cumulative does not mean you didn't commit fallacies in all the quotes. I agree that human knowledge is progressive and cumulative. However, that doesn't mean much of the knowledge we have now or have had in the past is true. In fact, most of the progression has been in weeding out false information. The examples are manifold.

I am addressing your atheist non-starter idea that you atheists can really state anything with absolute conviction about any complex human behavior because science is still in its infancy and what is unknown today may very well become known in the future.

No one can state with absolute conviction anything about complex human behavior. If you state that as "our position", you're committing a Straw Man Fallacy. In fact, I'm one of the most vocal Booktalk members when it comes to the evils of overly strong conviction on any subject. So not only is it a straw man, but it's the exact opposite of what I believe.

It's simple logic but as we see, logic is not the atheist strong point.

What you posted was an example of a failure of logic, in the form of the straw man fallacy. This cannot get any more clear. Your arguments, rather than being logical, are illogical, by definition.

[sonoman]

Please, no diversions with nit-picking semantics. "Logic", derived from "Logos" meaning "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." -American College Dictionary.

The etymology of the word does not define it. The definitions of most words are associated with their etymological roots, but are not the same. It is not nit-picking semantics. "Logic" is not defined as "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." The definition is different from it's etymological root.

Nit-picking, a diversionary tactic. My dictionary's second meaning of the word "logic" states this: "reasoning or argumentation or an instance of it." And that's exactly what Celestial Torah Christianity presents: a very logically presented historical pattern using astrological imagery showing a religious theme going back 4000 years.

That's not an answer. It's another diversion because you don't have an answer to a very specific question which like all questions, assumes a premise-this one being the established scientific fact that human brains are hardwired to experience a particular stimulation. Your argument could apply to hearing voices or music just as well and just as absurdly inappropriate. You haven't answered the question but dodged it.

The argument is not that the stimulations aren't real. It's that our interpretations of those stimulation are mistaken. Each of the links I provided are examples of how we misinterpret environmental input. Not only is it an answer Stephen, it's the correct answer.

It's illogical thinking, Interbane. If the stimulations are spiritual as you admit by saying they are real, then your whole premise is destroyed about how we misinterpret spiritual stimulations. Think again.

Here is an example:
I'd once thought I was seeing a ghost in my old house. The sense datum were very real. But my interpretation was incorrect. I found that the hazy glow was from headlights in a neighboring turnabout reflecting off the bathroom mirror. But my belief that it was a ghost before I discovered the truth was unshakeable. It was only a fluke that I discovered the true cause, otherwise I'd still believe.

And I used to be afraid of the dark as a kid yet loved scaring myself by deliberately watching horror movies like millions of other kids. And most all of us grew up not having that fear any longer as adults. And not a one of the people I know grew up to worship a complex ideology tied in with similar human community ideologies stretching back thousands of years where billions of human beings are worshiping the boogiemens of their childhood fears. Even the Christian fundies I know wouldn't place the Devil in such childish terms as fear of unknown shapes in the dark. They've got a whole complex theology wrapped around that Character. You are an atheist so you make guesses, wrong ones, about the way theists think about theology for the simple reason you have no experience in spiritual consciousness so naturally you don't know what you're talking about when you argue with a theist.

Again, you don't show rational thinking.

There couldn't been a better example of rational thinking than that post. That human knowledge is progressive and cumulative does not mean you didn't commit fallacies in all the quotes. I agree that human knowledge is progressive and cumulative. However, that doesn't mean much of the knowledge we have now or have had in the past is true. In fact, most of the progression has been in weeding out false information. The examples are manifold.

Again, illogical thinking. Most progress in the accumulation of human knowledge has come from discovery of new facts, invention of new ideas, creation of new forms, not culling of known facts. You confuse scholarship with in-Spiration like so many atheists do which explains why they don't understand the spiritual language symbols used by the theists they study.

I am addressing your atheist non-starter idea that you atheists can really state anything with absolute conviction about any complex human behavior because science is still in its infancy and what is unknown today may very well become known in the future.

No one can state with absolute conviction anything about complex human behavior. If you state that as "our position", you're committing a Straw Man Fallacy. In fact, I'm one of the most vocal Booktalk members when it comes to the evils of overly strong conviction on any subject. So not only is it a straw man, but it's the exact opposite of what I believe.

It's simple logic but as we see, logic is not the atheist strong point.

What you posted was an example of a failure of logic, in the form of the straw man fallacy. This cannot get any more clear. Your arguments, rather than being logical, are illogical, by definition.

Do you really think that directing me or anyone to an atheist definition website answers my critique of your lack of understanding the logic of history or the logic of infinity as I have defined it for you? You have to actually give an answer to the question why a person who makes absolute statements about the truth of spiritual reality without ever experiencing it thinks that because he doesn't recognize any scientific proof of spiritual experience in classic fundamentalist denial of any facts contradicting the belief system, while evolutionary behavioral science shows spiritual reception hardwired into the human brain and human beings dealing with spiritual experiences going back 40,000 years, facts still to be explained by you or any atheist here. As is why our knowledge of the world should be frozen at this time in history, never to be exceeded in discovery of new facts thus allowing absolute statements to be made about what we know now. Directing us to atheist propaganda sites where stock "answers" to stock atheists questions are posted does not answer my specific questions like how we are hardwired to receive and process non-existent spiritual stimulation admitted was real in your mixed mind about these matters. Of course you atheists will be mixed up and resorting to slander and name-calling as your first line of "reasoned argument", then to these atheist website where slander is given a "scientific" and "reasoned" explanation for attacking theistic beliefs as your second line of defense. You're not resorting to your third line yet as you did in prior years, you know what I'm talking about, censorship and banning me because you couldn't out-think me and didn't want others to see what I've been doing here, demolishing every one of your arguments which all share the same basic flaw: addressing atheist strawmen because that's all atheists have to work with, not knowing anything personally at all about the theistic subject matter they are so adamantly sure they are experts in.

[Vishnu]

Please, no diversions with nit-picking semantics. "Logic", derived from "Logos" meaning "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." -American College Dictionary.

Since sonoman referenced this in another thread, I am linking my response here so as to avoid redundancy-

http://www.booktalk.org/post114264.html#p114264

[Dexter]

As I've explained before, your arguments are actually undermining your point

while evolutionary behavioral science shows spiritual reception hardwired into the human brain and human beings dealing with spiritual experiences going back 40,000 years, facts still to be explained by you or any atheist here.

The fact that there have been thousands of distinct and necessarily contradictory "spiritual revelations" shows that this must be an extremely unreliable guide to knowledge. They weren't all about Aquarius and the urns, were they? You do acknowledge that all religions can't be true at the same time, right? So how does this prove your point?

I am addressing your atheist non-starter idea that you atheists can really state anything with absolute conviction about any complex human behavior because science is still in its infancy and what is unknown today may very well become known in the future.

But you're talking about yourself, not atheists. You're saying it's all about Aquarius. Atheists say you haven't provided the slightest reasoning as to why this should be true. It's because science progresses that "God of the gaps" arguments had to be embarrassingly forgotten.

[Interbane]

I was hoping to refrain from saying this. Stephen, the THC is getting to you. You are truly delusional. I've shown how your points are irrefutably fallacious, but you bludgeon onward oblivious to it.

To everyone else, I'm done feeding the troll.