Derail from "God Can't Pick Up A Piece of Paper"

[Keith&Co.]

To answer the first thing in your response: I don't care what other people think of me.

No? Shall we count how many words you've used on this board to defend and define your self image?

To answer your last question: It should be apparent that I don't endorse the 'basic Christian model'.

once you've had a chance to explain how you're not really a Christain, sure. So why even bother with the word?

In fact I think most people who call themselves Christians don't understand anything Christ said or is reported to have said, don't care, and have boiled His teachings down to two things: self-preservation and self-aggrandizement.

So you distinguish yourself from such people by identifying yourself as someone who tries to follow what the Christ really allegedly may have actually said, using the term 'Christain.'
Makes as much sense as any other religious belief, i guess.

 

[Kharakov]

An omnipotent god can give each and every one of his creations the benefit of his complete and undivided attention. With no problem.

Stop making sense. Stop being rational.

Yeah. The being the thread title and thread itself refers to, "God", is obviously not tri-omni.

This is a discussion simply about someone asking you to pick up a piece of paper to demonstrate that you are real enough to pick up the piece of paper. Once you pick up the paper we can move along. Nothing happens unless you pick up the piece of paper.

You're totally right. You won't learn anything useful about reality, enjoy life, or slowly acquire wisdom if the God (this thread refers to) doesn't pick up the piece of paper. If you're intelligent and have kids, you won't learn that letting the wrong thing slide, or giving in to the wrong demand results in fractally wrong immaturity, as kids with certain dispositions try to manipulate things out of you by screaming and acting out in public.

If you're a good parent, and have seen the bad consequences of indulging an unimportant childish whim a 1000 times before, you definitely would do it again. Why not? After all, who cares if the bad consequences of indulging a childish whim outweigh the good? A good parent does not consider these things, they do what the child demands to prove to the child that they care for the child.

 

[The Paul]

Someone who'd say "pick up a piece of paper to prove yourself to me" doesn't even understand their own nature, and definitely hasn't thought this through.

Hah. If you think that's something, just imagine the level of self-ignorance necessary to think that a desire to only believe in real entities is a "childish whim"

 

[ideologyhunter]

Invisible is the same color as imaginary.

 

[The Paul]

Imagine, just as a thought experiment, that you were God. You've got what? Billions of people praying to you, asking you for things, for things for other people, etc. Plus, you've got atheists asking you to do things, let's say at least several millions of those. Even if you could answer every single request from every single person who asked something from you, whether it were in faith, or as a temptation for proof of existence, would you do it, just because you could? Or would you not?

Of course I would. So would you or anyone else. The answer to your question is obvious, and had you stopped to think about it for a moment you'd have realized what it was.

If I didn't respond it would be as if I was currently looking at my watch and you asked me what time it was and I was all insecure about how you wouldn't believe my answer or some stupid thing, so I just quietly slunk away without saying anything.

Except that depending on the specific theology it might be more like I was looking at my watch and you asked me what time it was and if you didn't find out what time it was you would be horribly tortured forever and I said, "Fuck you, you shoulda bought a watch."

The reality is that people are egocentric. The universe revolves around them. So, when they ask God for something, they assume they've got a direct line to the Big Kahuna and His absolute, undeviating attention. Their disappointment (or triumph) in not having their prayers or requests granted - and some people have the audacity to expect an immediate response - is an indication of how important they think they are in the Grand Scheme. It works that way for people of faith and for atheists alike.

No, it's an indication of the power and willingness to actually imagine the great and terrible sky-beasts you people are always on about.

Atheists posses this ability more frequently than theists, though the cause and effect is reversed when put that way. If you have the power to imagine the sky-beast then you can probably imagine the consequences of such a thing existing, and if you can imagine the consequences of such a thing existing, you probably notice how those consequences aren't in effect. It's the ability that drives the atheism, not the other way around.

 

[Kharakov]

Someone who'd say "pick up a piece of paper to prove yourself to me" doesn't even understand their own nature, and definitely hasn't thought this through.

Hah. If you think that's something, just imagine the level of self-ignorance necessary to think that a desire to only believe in real entities is a "childish whim"

You're completely right. Imaginary entities are extremely useful in our dealings with reality. Without imagination and  thought experiments involving imaginary entities, humanity would still be a few thousand years from accomplishing anything.

We'd have to be completely ignorant about the usefulness of imaginary entities to want to only believe in real entities, especially since our subjective experience of reality is completely unified with out imagination.

When 2 imaginations overlap, we consider something to be slightly more real (or objective)- when a billion imaginations overlap, something is even more real. When all imaginations overlap... then you know a kid who doesn't understand agrees with you.

 

[The Paul]

Hah. If you think that's something, just imagine the level of self-ignorance necessary to think that a desire to only believe in real entities is a "childish whim"

You're completely right. Imaginary entities are extremely useful in our dealings with reality. Without imagination and  thought experiments involving imaginary entities, humanity would still be a few thousand years from accomplishing anything.

We'd have to be completely ignorant about the usefulness of imaginary entities to want to only believe in real entities, especially since our subjective experience of reality is completely unified with out imagination.

When 2 imaginations overlap, we consider something to be slightly more real (or objective)- when a billion imaginations overlap, something is even more real. When all imaginations overlap... then you know a kid who doesn't understand agrees with you.

I suppose someone who can't tell the difference between "imagine" and "believe in" would think all that was terribly relevant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When 2 imaginations overlap, we consider something to be slightly more real (or objective)- when a billion imaginations overlap, something is even more real.

I suppose someone who can't tell the difference between "imagine" and "believe in" would think all that was terribly relevant.

Not to mention someone who thinks a popularity argument is compelling.

 

[Kharakov]

You're completely right. Imaginary entities are extremely useful in our dealings with reality. Without imagination and  thought experiments involving imaginary entities, humanity would still be a few thousand years from accomplishing anything.

We'd have to be completely ignorant about the usefulness of imaginary entities to want to only believe in real entities, especially since our subjective experience of reality is completely unified with out imagination.

When 2 imaginations overlap, we consider something to be slightly more real (or objective)- when a billion imaginations overlap, something is even more real. When all imaginations overlap... then you know a kid who doesn't understand agrees with you.

I suppose someone who can't tell the difference between "imagine" and "believe in" would think all that was terribly relevant.

Imaginary entities exist in our imaginations. We use them to simulate various things. I believe in their existence as imaginary entities.

I understand what you're saying- that you only want to believe in real beings having physical existence. In other words, it is good to be able to delineate between real beings and imaginary beings.

However, I don't think it is pragmatic to eliminate knowledge of the existence of imaginary beings- we must believe they exist in order to truthfully say "the tooth fairy is an imaginary being", "the Paul is probably a real being".

The real measure of whether a being is imaginary or not is whether or not it wills something independently of the will of another or not. And certainly we will various things independently of one another. AFAIK, the tooth fairy does not. AFAIK, the one who didn't pick up a piece of paper does.

 

[Kharakov]

Not to mention someone who thinks a popularity argument is compelling.

It's not a popularity argument, it's an observation.

If a super-majority of adults imagine a certain thing (creationists AND atheists both imagine that getting hit with a rock would probably suck), it's probably true. Well, in some cases it might be funny. But in the majority of cases it would suck.

 

[Mageth]

Not to mention someone who thinks a popularity argument is compelling.

It's not a popularity argument, it's an observation.

If a super-majority of adults imagine a certain thing (creationists AND atheists both imagine that getting hit with a rock would probably suck), it's probably true. Well, in some cases it might be funny. But in the majority of cases it would suck.

Nope. What makes it true that getting hit with a rock sucks is the fact that getting hit with a rock demonstrably does suck. You can do the science. The actual "observation" here is that, well, getting hit with a rock really does suck.

Asserting that the fact that many people imagine God is real makes it more likely that God is real was, is, and will remain an argument from popularity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nope. What makes it true that getting hit with a rock sucks is the fact that getting hit with a rock demonstrably does suck.

This.
Being hit by a rock doesn't suck BECAUSE many people believe it to be true, or imagine it to be true.
People believe it to be true based on the experience or watching others have the experience.

If many people believe or imagine that a hyperspace drive is possible, that doesn't make a hyper-field envelope any more objectively real. It doesn't hyperspace physicist an objectively real profession.
Dammit.

 

[The Paul]

I suppose someone who can't tell the difference between "imagine" and "believe in" would think all that was terribly relevant.

Imaginary entities exist in our imaginations. We use them to simulate various things. I believe in their existence as imaginary entities.

I understand what you're saying- that you only want to believe in real beings having physical existence. In other words, it is good to be able to delineate between real beings and imaginary beings.

However, I don't think it is pragmatic to eliminate knowledge of the existence of imaginary beings- we must believe they exist in order to truthfully say "the tooth fairy is an imaginary being", "the Paul is probably a real being".

The real measure of whether a being is imaginary or not is whether or not it wills something independently of the will of another or not. And certainly we will various things independently of one another. AFAIK, the tooth fairy does not. AFAIK, the one who didn't pick up a piece of paper does.

I feel like I pretty strongly insinuated that you don't know what "imagine" or "believe in" mean or what the difference between them is. I thought I was clear on that.

I do not require further demonstration.

 

[WAB]

No? Shall we count how many words you've used on this board to defend and define your self image?

To answer your last question: It should be apparent that I don't endorse the 'basic Christian model'.

once you've had a chance to explain how you're not really a Christain, sure. So why even bother with the word?

In fact I think most people who call themselves Christians don't understand anything Christ said or is reported to have said, don't care, and have boiled His teachings down to two things: self-preservation and self-aggrandizement.

So you distinguish yourself from such people by identifying yourself as someone who tries to follow what the Christ really allegedly may have actually said, using the term 'Christain.'
Makes as much sense as any other religious belief, i guess.

To explain: I don't care if people know I call myself a Christian and have a problem with it. What I care about is that they understand why I do that. You seem to understand. So, whatever your opinion of me beyond that is your right to hold and to express, but since I believe you understand me, I don't care about the fact that you disapprove of me. I hope this makes some sense. Your disapproval of me and or my beliefs and how I express those beliefs is not something I'm concerned with. However, if I've explained myself at length and continue to be misrepresented (ie, the idea that I endorse the 'basic model of Christianity' when I've made it clear many times that I don't) then I will try to clear that up.

I want to be understood here, if I can. I don't care if anyone agrees with me or approves of me. I hope this clears things up a little better. If not, then so be it.

Since there's been a warning about the nature of this particular forum, I won't be explaining myself further in this thread. Actually I'm going to unsubscribe to this thread so I can resist the temptation to continue in it. I give in easily to temptation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To explain: I don't care if people know I call myself a Christian and have a problem with it.

That's not really 'explaining' it's more...repeating your

I don't care about the fact that you disapprove of me.

But that's not a fact. I don't disapprove of you.
I wore the uniform for 20 years expressly to defend religious freedom.
I do lump you with all the other cherry pickers and i feel you've got absolutely no leg to stand in on saying others are wrong, but i still support your right to believe any damned way you want to. I don't respect the beliefs, but you? You're fine.

 

[Kharakov]

I feel like I pretty strongly insinuated that you don't know what "imagine" or "believe in" mean or what the difference between them is. I thought I was clear on that.

Yup. You're wrong if you imagine that is true.

 

[Kharakov]

It's not a popularity argument, it's an observation.

If a super-majority of adults imagine a certain thing (creationists AND atheists both imagine that getting hit with a rock would probably suck), it's probably true. Well, in some cases it might be funny. But in the majority of cases it would suck.

Nope. What makes it true that getting hit with a rock sucks is the fact that getting hit with a rock demonstrably does suck. You can do the science. The actual "observation" here is that, well, getting hit with a rock really does suck.

Not in all cases (we can all imagine scenarios in which getting hit by a rock doesn't suck- it leads to something good).

But yes, I was simply being lazy when I said what I said, and it ballooned into the straw man you and Keith are attacking because sometimes I attempt to defend sloppy statements I make, because I love a challenge. However, it's distracting from the point I was trying to make.

If 10000000 people believe something, it is real, because of the effect their belief has upon reality. Our imaginations are real- you cannot deny their existence (nor will you).

The other thing I mentioned was that we need to believe in the existence of imaginary entities, such as the tooth fairy, to delineate between real entities, such as a rock, and imaginary entities. We have to believe that imaginary entities exist to understand that certain things we think about are imaginary.

If we say no imaginary entities exist, then every entity we imagine is real. That's not even remotely sane.

 

[abaddon]

Images exist in the imagination, but not as the entity you "imaged" within the imagination. It's like seeing animals in clouds. The clouds exist, and your mental projections exist. But no animals (entities) have their being (existence) in the clouds.

"Our imaginations are real" is just sloppy language. Of course our imaging capacity is real but that doesn't make anything you or I imagine real. I can easily deny the existence of a thing you imagine without denying that you formed an image within your imagination and have a label for that image.

So our imaginations (i.e., imaging capacities) are real but that doesn't make non-existent non-entities that achieve the status of images within the imagination into existent entities.

 

[Kharakov]

Images exist in the imagination, but not as the entity you "imaged" within the imagination. It's like seeing animals in clouds. The clouds exist, and your mental projections exist. But no animals (entities) have their being (existence) in the clouds.

Pareidolia. Whatever happened to Eidolon?

"Our imaginations are real" is just sloppy language.

What I said before was sloppy, that statement is not. It is completely and utterly true, although it may be a bit of a deepity. Thoughts are real entities- whether or not they correspond to an external entity is another matter altogether.

Of course our imaging capacity is real but that doesn't make anything you or I imagine real. I can easily deny the existence of a thing you imagine without denying that you formed an image within your imagination and have a label for that image.

So our imaginations (i.e., imaging capacities) are real but that doesn't make non-existent non-entities that achieve the status of images within the imagination into existent entities.

Ok, the problem I have with this is simple: defining thoughts as "non existent" is incorrect. The thoughts and images exist. They have to be defined as corresponding to an external entity (a thought existing in the imagination about an entity with external existence), and thoughts that do not correspond to any external entity.

I've told Keith about various things that made me think that some type of external entity, or perhaps entities, were interacting with me.

Show

I've also considered the possibility that it was something other than a God (perhaps I am insane, hallucinating, or there is a group of individuals manipulating me into believing stuff, etc.). It could be someone with tech, it could be a group of psychics, but ultimately, if it is not God, I cannot see any possible benefit for them to interact with me and make me happy. It's not like I'm expressing joy to anyone for the experiences I get to anyone except someone who can read my thoughts.

 

[The Paul]

Thoughts are real entities-

We need some kind of "Things you might think are deep and earth-shattering revelations but actually everybody already knows and you're not impressing anyone by saying it." list.