John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Sorry deegee but for me there are just two options left: Catholicism or oblivion (nihilism and atheism).

  Spiritism/Spiritualism is BS.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  It seems that this is our ultimate proof that the soul does not exist if no one has been able to contact the dead who are presumed to be still conscious.

  I don't think this is a proof.

  Pity we aren't able to contact the "conscious" dead to hear about what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God.

  Actually there's such possibility. But it's a very rare event.

  The most famous in recent times is the miracle of the sun in Fatima. Witnessed by thousands of people. Including some photos.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  It seems to me that you believe that life can only have meaning if you can "live on" after to death.

  Sure.

  It seems to me that you are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that you are no more at death.

  But in my worldview there's something more dreadful than oblivion. It's called perdition.

  So in a psychological level I think oblivion is literally infinitely better than perdition. So my view it's not a psychological defense against the possibility of oblivion.

  But I admit if I'm wrong the only possibility left is oblivion. Ironically if I'm wrong I will never know.

  P. S. Sorry but I really think Spiritism and/or Spiritualism are complete BS. I can't even bother to discuss things like that.
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Well, I'm saying that science is the only way to get knowledge that is objective. (won't change depending on who seeks the knowledge)

  What you mean by objective?

  Thus making the scientific method, the only way, that I know of, for an individual to determine the accuracy of a claim.

  A claim? Like any claim? Or just "objective" claims?

  You clearly are confusing the restrict scientific method with general philosophy.

  Philosophy is the only human activity that can verify any claim.

  In fact the scientific method is philosophy applied to the physical world.

  Additionally, I would argue your assertion that the scientific method can only be applied to the physical world is flawed.

  So you don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method is only applicable to the physical world.

  
  

  After all the scientific method is simply a question to which someone applies systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation and then formulates, tests, and modifies a hypothesis to that question.

  Right.

  
  

  In principle, the scientific method can be applied to study things that aren't directly perceivable, energy for example.

  Energy is physical.

  I will grant that the scientific method is better with some subjects than it is with other subjects, and there are some questions it can't answer,

  There are subjects that the scientific method is not applicable at all.
  
  

  but anything that has an impact on the physical world can be measured, and directly or indirectly observed.

  This is positivism. How do you scientifically measure the potential of an idea before it's execution? Even dreams have an impact on the physical world.

  The scientific method says nothing about it being a universal tool. Giving the universal application to it is a positivist idea (which is a metaphysical assertion BTW).

  The scientific method only was possible inside the Abrahamic tradition (especially Christianity, thank you William of Ockham). Actually the scientific method was born entirely inside the Abrahamic tradition, you can't change this fact. Because it was the only system that didn't consider the physical world as equal to God (like Chaos in Greek mythology). Any other philosophical system considered the physical world being a god, or a limb of a god, etc. In this worldview you don't study the physical world but you worship it just like every pagan really did.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  I have thunk....very deeply.....about these matters and what you say really comes over as bonkers.

  OK.

  So did you have found meaning in nihilism (oblivion)?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  As I have stated before, in invoking "spiritual" or "metaphysical", we know no more than when we started; we have not answered the question, merely moved it beyond the realm of the answerable. This only muddies the waters, adding additional levels of complexity and mystery without actually explaining anything.
  In essence, these claims are a smokescreen to protect unsatisfactory assertions from further questioning.

  The scientific method is based on metaphysical principles too. So what?

  In fact you are just opposing my metaphysical assertions with another metaphysical assertions. Can you see that?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  So when a spirit medium claims to have contacted the dead during a séance, whom/what has the medium contacted?

  BS.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  There is no mention of an immaterial soul in this definition so obviously there is no known mechanism by which an immaterial soul could possibly alter the state of the body or affect the brain which are both made of matter.

  Positive thinking creates neuroplasticity. How can you detect which neurons are making positive thinking?

  How can you detect in my brain if I'm thinking about a banana or an apple?

  The mind works in some ways that are totally unrelated to the brain. You can't say what I'm thinking just looking to a top notch brain scanner.

  So you have an undetectable event (positive thinking) changing the material structure of the brain (neuroplasticity).

  
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Not quite sure I understand this statement but are you saying that a person's intuition is their soul?
  Last time I checked, intuition is a function of the material brain:
  Meditation and relaxation exercises quiet your rational left brain and awaken the perceptive faculties of your intuitive right brain. This opens the way to the unlocking of a deep level of consciousness where psychic and extrasensory perception can be done.

  The intuition is not the soul but it's a function of it.

  There's correlation in mind/brain of course. But correlation doesn't mean causation.

  Even though the spiritual soul is not the mind but a part of it. Our mind is the collective of three souls and mechanisms of the brain.

  My position is the consciousness and the higher perceptions in humans are functions of the spiritual soul. The performance of this soul depends on the "hardware" just like a driver can run faster and better with a better car. But the same driver cannot perform the same way with a crappy car. If you change the car it doesn't mean you affect the driver in anyway just give him a different medium.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The claims of believers would just make more sense. They would be self- evidently true. The natural world, the history of life, revelation, miracles, prayers, prophecy, ethics, and more would all resonate with the claims of theism.

  That's right.

  I just don't know why some people (the overwhelming majority) conclude the theistic claims are exactly what you described.

  While others, like you, get the opposite conclusion.

  Both groups base their conclusions in a metaphysical approach though.