It's time to wake up!

originally posted by: Andy1144
What do you mean by sharing? Can't you just give your reasons why you don't believe he exists? Maybe if I find your reasonsn compelling then I might agree with you, or not.

They are experiences. They are not "reasons" that I can put into a text box.

a reply to: daskakik

You don't believe in god because of "experience". So what did you experience that made you believe he doesn't exist? Was there any logic involved in your experiences or were they just blindly believed to be true regardless of logical reasoning? I don't believe in him because of logical reasons not because of "experience" whatever that could mean.

originally posted by: Andy1144
not because of "experience" whatever that could mean.

And that is why I don't get into it.

Ironic, if I had said that I "experienced" DE and came back talking great about it, you would have no problem accepting that "experience".

You are biased.

a reply to: daskakik

You need to have some valid logical reason why that experience made you not believe in god.

Ironic that if I was to "experience" DE and came back talking great about it, you would have no problem accepting that "experience".

That's because DE is not a belief. Not believing in god is. You need reasons to not believe in him.
You don't need any reasons to believe seeing through the illusion is good because when you experience it for yourself, you'll see the positive implications it will have. (And I've said a million times, DE is not the same as seeing through the illusion of self)

You still don't make any sense by saying, that you don't believe in god because of "experience". It's because of some logical reason you don't. Or maybe you're just blindly believing what the rest of the atheists say about god.
Can you please be more specific. What exactly did you experience to be convinced god doesn't exist? Did Richard Dawkins inspire you in your dreams or what?
I can tell you clearly why I don't. No evidence, and all evidence suggests he is created through myth. Simple.
You're really acting like all the things you've been accusing me of.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You need to have some valid logical reason why that experience made you not believe in god.

I do but I am not going to discuss it with you.

That's because DE is not a belief.

Sounds like one to me.

You still don't make any sense by saying, that you don't believe in god because of "experience". It's because of some logical reason you don't. Or maybe you're just blindly believing what the rest of the atheists say about god.

How is a personal experience going to be "blindly believing what atheists say about god"?

I can tell you clearly why I don't. No evidence, and all evidence suggests he is created through myth. Simple.

Sure, but it is still just opinion.

You're really acting like all the things you've been accusing me of.

No, because I never claimed to have universal truths to share with anyone.

originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Andy1144

Andy1144: not because of "experience" whatever that could mean.

daskakik: And that is why I don't get into it.
Ironic, if I had said that I "experienced" DE and came back talking great about it, you would have no problem accepting that "experience".

You are biased.

I was in a random conversation with some people at the feed store. The subject was OOBE's and if anyone in that state had a 'death experience'. One had (looking at me suspiciously) after I said I have *almost died* a number of times but outsmarted the circumstance; (as IF NO YOU DID NOT). This individual dug in its heels and would not share (perhaps really had body death and came back). The hostility was palpable. May have been speaking of two different things; and it was just a 5 minute conversation between 3 of us; no time to clarify.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm not seeing the relevance.

A 5 minute conversation really is short and if the person had had negative experiences in the past then their might be a good reason for them claming up.

originally posted by: Andy1144

I say that free will is an illusion. There cannot possibly be any ultimate control over decisions because I couldn't control any of the influences and circumstances which led up to my decision. Agree or disagree?

Disagree.
You can't control the circumstances but you do control which decission you make.
And again, the neuroscience findings you keep referring to, do not, at all, support your conclusion free will is an illusion. That's your interpretation you got that from sensationalists, and just swallowed it, without any critical thinking.
Again the background noise in the brain is not understood. Besides that as you like to talk about predetermination of the universe, so am i too, predetermining which direction in life i want to take. And it is not all purely circumstancial...

a reply to: daskakik

Sure, but it is still just opinion.

Then based on that science is an opinion, the only difference is that some are based on logic and some aren't. That's not my point, my point is let's discuss the logic behind our opinions.

Sounds like one to me.

I thought we already established what "direct experience" is and it is not a belief. Look it up again if you forgot.

I do but I am not going to discuss it with you.

That's the problem with you. You never discuss your claims so we can compare and contrast them. That's why this discussion is not very fluent and my points aren't being made. Could you please discuss it? Just for the sake of seeing where this discussion heads when you change your stance.

a reply to: Peeple

I already said that there are desires and the ability to follow those desires and critical thinking when one finds necessary. On that level there is free will.

However, when you make a decision, it is influenced by myriads of processes over which you have no control of. You are not responsible for the structure of your brain. Choosing not to become a serial killer based on will is caused by having will power in the brain. Where else would will and desire originate from? But there is no control of the brain structure and we all behave based on that. If our brain is structured differently then we wouldn't make decisions it isn't structures to do. If my brain is made to have a sense of critical thinking, a desire to learn new things and go beyond one's negative impulses, these feelings and thoughts all originate in the brain. And as I said, none of us control the structure of it. It is a result of things out of our control.

a reply to: Andy1144

Wrong. Read this:rewiring the brain and you will see how wrong your assumption is!

a reply to: EternalFire

It's time to wake up

Can't I have 30 more minutes? I'm still tired!

Worn-out metaphors aside, we'll never get everyone to cooperate if we don't erase the boundaries on all of the countries. For some reason we have this obsession with in-groups and out-groups.

The incentives on individuals need to be to cooperate, with stiff penalties for not cooperating. There needs to be strict accountability because of the problem of the commons and social loafing.

So what is our plan of action?

a reply to: Peeple

I already said one can do ANYTHING he want's if possible, including rewire his brain if he desires, but only if he is influenced in some way to make that decision and those influences are out of our control.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Then based on that science is an opinion, the only difference is that some are based on logic and some aren't. That's not my point, my point is let's discuss the logic behind our opinions.

No, science is a collection of data set up to exclude personal opinions. The opinions of the scientists upon which you are basing your arguments is not included in that set of data.

Using their opinions of self is just as bad as using the opinions of scientists who believe in god about creation.

I thought we already established what "direct experience" is and it is not a belief. Look it up again if you forgot.

From the way you go on about it and the links you posted it does seem like the only thing missing is the shrine.

That's the problem with you.

It's not a problem and it isn't the topic of the thread so why go into it?

That's why this discussion is not very fluent and my points aren't being made.

No, your points are not based on sound logic and that is why they are not being made.

Could you please discuss it? Just for the sake of seeing where this discussion heads when you change your stance.

The only thing that is worth discussing is why, in the absence of data, the only logical conclusion one can arrive at is that one doesn't have enough info to say either way.

I say there is no god because 99.99% of the time people are speaking of a mythical/made up god. So, I can get away with that but I can also accept, as does science, that we don't know what is behind the creation of the universe.

originally posted by: Andy1144
and those influences are out of our control.

Here is where you are taking a leap in logic.

Neuroscience can't locate the spot in the brain where the "self" is doesn't mean that there is no self. More importantly, for the sake of your argument, it does not prove that there is no one controlling things.

They are saying "There is no place in the brain that we can associate with the self" and you are hearing, probably influnced by the idea of DE, "There is no self".

That is a non sequitur fallacy.

a reply to: daskakik

I have no idea what my next thought/action will be. This is directly available for me to see and with honesty I can say it is true. There is no control of any kind, only the appearance of it, which isn't actually equivalent to having it. It's an illusion. It is not an assumption. I can't possibly make a decision free from an influence whatsoever, and even if I could there still wouldn't be any room for free will.

This is true for everyone who is honest. No one knows what the next decision they'll make is. This is enough evidence to conclude that free will is an impossibility.

a reply to: daskakik

The idea of control is incoherent to begin with. It's like saying, it's possible to experience being unconscious. The sense of self is just a thought of being located between the eyes. If you consider thoughts real, then the self is real. But only in thought.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I have no idea what my next thought/action will be.

Yeah and bob down the street is filled with the holy spirit.

The idea of control is incoherent to begin with. It's like saying, it's possible to experience being unconscious. The sense of self is just a thought of being located between the eyes. If you consider thoughts real, then the self is real. But only in thought.

Yes you have convinced yourself of this and people still think that the earth is flat because if you look around, it's obvious.

ETA: This is rich coming from the person pushing the "real illusion" concept.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes you have convinced yourself of this and people still think that the earth is flat because if you look around, it's obvious.

It's the opposite. Believing there is a self is believing the world is flat.

There is a brain and a body. The belief that there is someone separate controlling the brain and body is an illusion. There can't be someone separate in charge of anything the body does, it wouldn't make any possible sense. It's just a belief.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It's the opposite. Believing there is a self is believing the world is flat.

There is a brain and a body. The belief that there is someone separate controlling the brain and body is an illusion. There can't be someone separate in charge of anything the body does, it wouldn't make any possible sense. It's just a belief.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that that isn't the way it is.

Flat earthers say the same thing about a round earth, "It makes no possible sense, things would fall off of a round earth" and they think they are right. So, no it isn't the opposite.