The Innocent Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2012, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2012 02:41 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Anyone else noticed how Egor's self righteous arrogance, bad manners and atrocious lack of empathy for others have all improved since he became less Christian? Big Grin

PS. I take it back. Just read his comment on the Horus=Jesus thread. He is still the same deluded, arrogant, ignorant fuckwit he always was.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 02:22 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Evil_monster
Jesus said that the one who finds the world has found a corpse, and of that person the world is not worthy. Isn't religion part of this stinking world? *quoted by Egor
list the actual bible verse plz where he said this...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2012, 12:29 PM
 
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(07-05-2012 02:31 AM)Logisch Wrote:  Fair enough, thank you for answering your question honestly and directly.

Instincts and consciousness are most definitely interesting. There is still a lot to learn and a lot of things science still hasn't tapped into yet. But there's everything from chemical reaction to muscular or cellular reaction and reflexes which can also be perceived or interpreted as instinct as well. Those types of organisms don't have the same senses we do, so it would have to be reactionary if it runs into another organism or needs to feed since the only other way would be chemical sensory.

Some arthropods are interesting in that sense. I keep scorpions and tarantulas and have enjoyed watching and observing them.

I owned a tarantula once! …sorry, you were saying:

Quote:The interesting thing to me about something such as a scorpion is that when you see one interact with it's environment it seems that it can see really well and that it's very in tune with it. But after a while I learned that they actually have horrible eyes, they can really only make out brightness, primitive things and rely heavily on their sensory hairs for vibrations. Despite that, their reaction to catching their prey is ridiculously precise and it's amazing to watch something like a scorpion snag an insect mid air relying on something so primitive. But very rarely do I see them on the offensive, it's generally defensive as it is reactionary to what is around it. Tarantulas on the other hand are a bit different...

Anyway, enough of me going off tangent, my next question would be what about them do you see as will or memory that may not be able to be interpreted as reactionary or a reflex to something in the environment?

Also thank you for being honest in your replies and being cool about digging into questions that some people are often uncomfortable answering.

You’re welcome. And I find it very cool that you keep scorpions and tarantulas. It is a Veridican spiritual exercise to practice animal care—but I digress.

Memory in protozoa is best seen in their ability to be trained. This ability has been well-documented in scientific literature going back to the 1950’s with the latest publications produced in the first decade of 2000. No one even tries to explain why. They simply publish the experimental results. Obviously, to even begin to speculate would lead them out of the realm of science. After all, how can something that has no brain or nervous system be conscious, and if they have no consciousness, how could they retain memories?

The experiments are done and the conclusions are left open, because the only logical conclusion is that the memory store, the consciousness must be external to the creature.

But I don’t even need a microscope to tell me that. I was at a function of some sort and a man was playing Mozart on the piano. He wasn’t even looking at the sheet music. I watched him and I realized it simply isn’t possible: It’s not possible for his brain to contain the circuitry necessary, the memory necessary, to play that music and retain the 30 years or so of other memories and skills he must have. We simply ask too much of the brain when we ask it to be the sole reason for memory and consciousness.

(07-05-2012 06:16 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm curious, what were you in this past life that you witnessed??

I so do wish I could see into the past... (might be able to find my keys faster...)

I don’t know. I was around 70 when I died. I lived alone in a rented room upstairs in an older white house. There were stairs on the outside of the house that lead up to a door that entered into my room. I kept it very clean and neat. I remember my dresser, and on it was grooming items. And I remember my bed, and I died in that bed. My last day was sunny but not hot. And I think it was in the 1960’s, but it would have had to have been 60-64 sometime since I was born in 1964. I think I died in the early evening. I wasn’t anyone important at all. I may have been poor, but I don’t get the sense of being impoverished per se, more like I was a retiree with very few material desires. But I was old then. I have no idea of the life I lead or what I was when I was younger. All I know is the thought of that life brings about sadness, a kind of depression or regret when I think about it. I’ve always attributed that to perhaps the fact that I didn’t learn what I needed to prevent my current reincarnation.

One thing’s for sure; I was no philosopher back then. I don’t know what I was, but I wasn’t that. Maybe that’s why I am one today. I just don’t know.

(07-05-2012 06:56 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  Are you aware and/or have you read up on the literal mountain of evidence that suggests consciousness is an emergent property of a biological brain?

Yes, but there is no evidence. You obviously have heard that there is, and most people think that there is, but that pretty much proves you have not critically examined the research. It doesn’t produce any real conclusions. There simply are no theories of consciousness that really stand up. There are only speculations. Stimulate the brain, and you get a memory or a sensation, or a smell, but you don’t get a separate observer that is cognizant of the smell or sensation, nor do you explain in any way how a neuron can store a memory or how the brain can form a network of neurons to store a memory, or how even if memory is stored that way, again, how an observer of that memory exists.

This is how I see it:

soul – mind – brain – body

The soul has the memory and the will, it acts on the mind which is a liaison between the brain and the soul, and the brain is a liaison between the mind and the body. Kill the body and the brain dies as does the mind, but the soul persists. I derive this theory because I notice that the observer, which I identify as “me” seems to have no particular personality. My personality seems to be part of my mind which is affected by habits, defenses, intelligence, etc.


Quote:And more importantly, if and when you've read up on enough of this evidence (which continues to mount every day, much like the evidence for evolution mounted up across various scientific disciplines over the past 150 years) are you willing to reassess your conclusion that consciousness is not generated by the physical body?

You don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not an insult, it’s a fact. To date, no one has a clue how consciousness comes about.

Quote:How about if/when humans build computers capable of consciousness?

We can’t, and we won’t.

You might be able to do so on your lucid spiritual plane, and I must say, I’m looking forward to that challenge when I get there.

Quote:Also, have you read any material that explains on the many short-comings of NDE's, past life experiences, and other subjective mind states that have never been substantiated via the scientific method of inquiry (e.g. why nobody has ever taken home the James Randi Institute's $1 million dollar prize)?

NDEs, psychic phenomena, past life regression, etc., cannot be studied scientifically so no one is ever going to take home that prize. At the fundamental base of all these things is consciousness, and consciousness is not part of the physical world, so it cannot be studied by science which relies on the predictable contingency of the physical universe.

(07-05-2012 01:55 AM)Egor Wrote:  Instincts cannot be part of the genetic code and yet newborn animals have this knowledge they've never learned.
Quote:Furthermore, how did you arrive at the conclusion that DNA cannot be part of genetic code?

I didn’t arrive at that. As you can see that’s not what I said. In fact, that doesn’t even make sense given that DNA is the genetic code.

Quote:Protozoa do not exhibit will and memory. That's just you anthropomorphizing them. They are simply processing information, much like a Google search engine crawler (e.g. a snippet of programming code). By your definition, Google crawlers display will and memory.

Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not anthropomorphizing anything. That paramecia display memory is shown repeatedly in scientific research on discriminate learning in paramecia that has been conducted since the 1950s.

But let’s just take what you said: They are simply processing information, much like a Google search engine crawler (e.g. a snippet of programming code). By your definition, Google crawlers display will and memory.

Let’s focus on the word “processing.” Code doesn’t process anything. Hardware processes code. Paramecia have no hardware for processing any code, and DNA just doesn’t work that way in a cell. DNA is not a computer. It is a template. Even if you compare it to computer code, there’s nothing to run the code, least of all to store memory, or provided the fast and apparently willful movement of these animals.


(07-05-2012 12:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe it.

But it’s not really about evidence is it? It’s about the interpretation of evidence. It’s about what you will include and what you exclude as evidence.

Look, I really don’t care anymore if you’re an atheist. I think you’re wrong. I don’t think we live in an atheistic universe. I argue my points as much to figure them out as I do to help others see the light. It seems to just be part of human nature that when you think you know something, you want other people to know it, too. We seem to have this instinctual drive to eliminate ignorance in those around us.

I’m even backing off the whole notion of hell, not because Jesus isn’t right about it, but simply because hell, as he describes it, could be anything. He is obviously speaking symbolically when he describes it, and for me, what he describes is another go-around in this life (that is reincarnation). So, will an atheist reincarnate until they are a theist? I don’t know. I believe in a lucid spiritual plane after this life, and I think on that plane, God will be less apparent than He is now, so who knows.

I do know that atheists often lack a depth in their spiritual understanding, and I do think that becomes a barrier to understanding the reasons for the lessons in this life, and that may lead to reincarnation. Atheists too often live as a creature rather than a potential creator, and creature is not a role they will play in the next life.

(07-05-2012 12:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Hey Egor... I'm starting... I don't know, dude.

Here's the thing (I'm not trying to be rude, btw).

You claim to have divine inspiration for the VGJC, but you are confused as to how people are actually saved? Or, dare I say, contradictory to what is said by Jesus.

How can you be inspired by God, yet you think that there could be another way to salvation? Didn't Jesus say He was the only way? All atheists reject Jesus outright, but you say that there could be salvation for them?

Help me out, dude. Veridicanism doesn't seem very reconciled or inspired after your past couple of posts.

The only inspiration is in the construction of the Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t mean I have complete insight into it. In fact, there is much I don’t understand. The story of the thief on the cross seems to be the simplest form of salvation, as it comes at the end of the Gospel, I tend to think it is the final word on how we become saved, the summation, if you will. Here we have a man who realizes that Jesus can save him and that he has lived a bad life and deserves what he is getting from it. Unfortunately, that tells us very little.

When I consider Jesus, I see a human being who has come to the knowledge that he and the Father are the same being. He seems to want us to become one with him in a spiritual sense (i.e., eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which would eventually turn us into him).

This seems to be an evolution from a simpler Buddhist understanding of “enlightenment.” The Buddha (who was about 600 years before Christ) taught us to understand; Jesus taught us to be.

But dude, this is all my own interpretation of the Gospel. Everyone has to read it and understand it for themselves. As for being saved, I am out of the business of trying to judge who will be saved and who won’t. Jesus adds to that confusion with the whole sheep and goat analogy and the wide and narrow gate analogy, not to mention his teachings on judging others.

I am concerned now about my own salvation, and I have this idea that if I teach others about God, the lucid spiritual plane, the teachings of Christ as I understand them, and the nature of the human soul, I will more likely prove that I no longer need to reincarnate.

If you look at my latest post on my website you will see the current definition of Veridicanism. These ideas are newly presented, but they are in no way new to me or my wife. We have considered them to be true since ’93, but we have shifted around. What I can’t do at this time is go forward and leave those ideas behind. 2012 is the forming year. By the end of it, this stuff should be solidified.

(08-05-2012 02:22 AM)ddrew Wrote:  Evil_monster
Jesus said that the one who finds the world has found a corpse, and of that person the world is not worthy. Isn't religion part of this stinking world? *quoted by Egor
list the actual bible verse plz where he said this...

“And so I tell you, whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whosoever discovers that carcass, of that person the world is not worthy.” –Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ 9:16

This verse, or something like it, appears in the Gospel of Thomas as well. Neither is in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
08-05-2012, 12:37 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Quote:Protozoa do not exhibit will and memory. That's just you anthropomorphizing them. They are simply processing information, much like a Google search engine crawler (e.g. a snippet of programming code). By your definition, Google crawlers display will and memory.



"Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not anthropomorphizing anything. That paramecia display memory is shown repeatedly in scientific research on discriminate learning in paramecia that has been conducted since the 1950s.

But let’s just take what you said: They are simply processing information, much like a Google search engine crawler (e.g. a snippet of programming code). By your definition, Google crawlers display will and memory.
Let’s focus on the word “processing.” Code doesn’t process anything. Hardware processes code. Paramecia have no hardware for processing any code, and DNA just doesn’t work that way in a cell. DNA is not a computer. It is a template. Even if you compare it to computer code, there’s nothing to run the code, least of all to store memory, or provided the fast and apparently willful movement of these animals.



(07-05-2012 12:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe it.



But it’s not really about evidence is it? It’s about the interpretation of evidence. It’s about what you will include and what you exclude as evidence.

Look, I really don’t care anymore if you’re an atheist. I think you’re wrong. I don’t think we live in an atheistic universe. I argue my points as much to figure them out as I do to help others see the light. It seems to just be part of human nature that when you think you know something, you want other people to know it, too. We seem to have this instinctual drive to eliminate ignorance in those around us.

I’m even backing off the whole notion of hell, not because Jesus isn’t right about it, but simply because hell, as he describes it, could be anything. He is obviously speaking symbolically when he describes it, and for me, what he describes is another go-around in this life (that is reincarnation). So, will an atheist reincarnate until they are a theist? I don’t know. I believe in a lucid spiritual plane after this life, and I think on that plane, God will be less apparent than He is now, so who knows.

I do know that atheists often lack a depth in their spiritual understanding, and I do think that becomes a barrier to understanding the reasons for the lessons in this life, and that may lead to reincarnation. Atheists too often live as a creature rather than a potential creator, and creature is not a role they will play in the next life."




Trying to describe life in terms of machines and computers is to oversimplify and to anthropromorphize it. Whenever you try to argue that an organism has hardware or software, you are making the error that computers and/or machines are comparable. They are not comparable, one is living and the other is known to have been designed and created by humans.


As for your first statement "But it’s not really about evidence is it? It’s about the interpretation of evidence. It’s about what you will include and what you exclude as evidence." It is about the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence via known natural phenomena and forces. I could interpret any piece of evidence any way I want it, but that does not mean each interpretation is equally valid or likely.

What evidence have I excluded from my worldview?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
08-05-2012, 01:38 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
"Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not anthropomorphizing anything. That paramecia display memory is shown repeatedly in scientific research on discriminate learning in paramecia that has been conducted since the 1950s.

I find it fascinating that you can't see where you're anthropomorphizing. The fact that paramecia display "memory" and "learning" does indicate consciousness (e.g. human consciousness, which you alluded to in your original post). Once again, while the analogy is far from perfect, paramecia memory is much closer to computer memory than it is to conscious, human memory.

As much as you'd like for paramecia to be an example of consciousness arising outside of biological brains, they're not. There's no peer-reviewed evidence. It's not even a major field of study in the grand scheme of scientific research.

Face it. It's just hopeful conjecture on your part.

P.S. Saying that I have no idea of what I'm talking about doesn't make it so. It just makes you seem a bit anti-social and unnecessarily combative.

But let’s just take what you said: They are simply processing information, much like a Google search engine crawler (e.g. a snippet of programming code). By your definition, Google crawlers display will and memory.
Let’s focus on the word “processing.” Code doesn’t process anything. Hardware processes code. Paramecia have no hardware for processing any code, and DNA just doesn’t work that way in a cell. DNA is not a computer. It is a template. Even if you compare it to computer code, there’s nothing to run the code, least of all to store memory, or provided the fast and apparently willful movement of these animals.


I can only assume that you're not too familiar with how search engine bots work. Though, as TheBeardedDude pointed out, it's not a perfect comparison, search engine bots display the same sort of "memory", "learning", and apparent "will" (FYI - "will" is a third anthropomorphic property you've bestowed without the requisite empirical evidence to support such a claim) that are displayed by your precious paramecia.


And yet nobody, including yourself, would claim that search engine bots are an example of consciousness existing outside of the human brain (at least not yet).


P.S. Saying that I have no idea of what I'm talking about doesn't make it so. It just makes you come off as a bit anti-social and unnecessarily combative.


Yes, but there is no evidence. You obviously have heard that there is, and most people think that there is, but that pretty much proves you have not critically examined the research. It doesn’t produce any real conclusions. There simply are no theories of consciousness that really stand up. There are only speculations. Stimulate the brain, and you get a memory or a sensation, or a smell, but you don’t get a separate observer that is cognizant of the smell or sensation, nor do you explain in any way how a neuron can store a memory or how the brain can form a network of neurons to store a memory, or how even if memory is stored that way, again, how an observer of that memory exists.


This is how I see it:

soul – mind – brain – body

The soul has the memory and the will, it acts on the mind which is a liaison between the brain and the soul, and the brain is a liaison between the mind and the body. Kill the body and the brain dies as does the mind, but the soul persists. I derive this theory because I notice that the observer, which I identify as “me” seems to have no particular personality. My personality seems to be part of my mind which is affected by habits, defenses, intelligence, etc.



Don't take this the wrong way, but I actually feel bad for you, because so many theists like yourself become biased/blinded by your god goggles.

There is actually a preponderance of evidence that continues to mount with every passing day. Split brain patients, victims of severe brain trauma, Alzheimer patients, etc. and so forth. In fact, every single example we know of suggests that consciousness and individual personality ceases to exist if the brain (or even just portions of the brain) stop functioning.

I would say that you're being intellectually dishonest, but I know better, because I've seen countless theists presented with these facts and yet utterly fail to process them as being obvious pieces of evidence. It's a testament to just how powerful the god and afterlife myths can be, especially if they embedded in the conscious mind at a very young age. I know this well because I was a victim of this form of hypnosis for many years.

The fact that there isn't a formal theory on biological consciousness only means that the field of neurology is in its infancy. It's only a matter of time before the preponderance of evidence builds to a point where a unifying theory manifests (much as was the case the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity).

Never mind the fact that we will likely have non-biological consciousness within the next 30-100 years.

And so my question to you is, what will it take?

How much evidence, how consensus of a theory, how many peer-reviewed papers?

What will it take for you to shed security blanket that is your unfounded belief in consciousness existing outside the bounds of neural networks?

I'll happily change my stance if the evidence warrants it (e.g. cease to believe that consciousness is simply an emergent property of neural networks, biological or otherwise)?


Can you say the same?

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lightninlives's post
08-05-2012, 01:57 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Quote:But I don’t even need a microscope to tell me that. I was at a function
of some sort and a man was playing Mozart on the piano. He wasn’t even
looking at the sheet music. I watched him and I realized it simply isn’t
possible: It’s not possible for his brain to contain the circuitry
necessary, the memory necessary, to play that music and retain the 30
years or so of other memories and skills he must have. We simply ask too
much of the brain when we ask it to be the sole reason for memory and
consciousness.

As a lifelong musician I can tell you this is not 'impossible,' as it may seem to an observer. Breaking down the music into its most basic parts reveals techniques, chords, and scales that this musician has played thousands of times. It's not an outside consciousness, it's hard work.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
08-05-2012, 01:59 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2012 11:38 AM by ShirubaDangan.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(05-05-2012 04:31 AM)Egor Wrote:  I think I'm beginning to understand atheists. Not that I agree with them, but I think I can truly understand why they are the way they are--some of them that is. Granted, some are so narcissistic they can never believe in God; they are emperors. Some are too lazy to seek beyond their five senses; they are lazy, and they will never believe. Some are always seeking proof for which they will never be satisfied. They are academics who revel in the question, not the answer; they are stupid. And still others have bad deeds they can't face or want to continue; they are the sinners, and they are barred from believing.

Yes there are some atheists that don't believe in God just because they don't want too but I believe the ones you encounter here are the exact opposite. I realized the fallacy I was following and turned away from it. I was a zombie part of a much larger horde that was discouraged to use my own mind and devour the brain of others so they would be the same.

You can say its lazy they don't try to seek God but I believe Theists are the same. They don't try to find answers and a majority don't even know of their holy book! I remember being a theist and it wasn't till much later that I actually read the bible did I realize how flawed and insane it was. Yes Atheists can be lazy not to search for God but those that follow him are even more lazy not too know of him from his own book.

So why can't those who look for evidence not be satisfied? The simple answer is that the evidence for such a being doesn't exist.

Now, I'll skip the academics because that is just your opinion but those turning from God because of some bad deed are very, very few.

I remember a funny image that I can't seem to locate but it said: "Christianity: Where you can break all God's commandments and still go to Heaven." It doesn't seem to matter if you do evil this world as long as you justify it to some fictitious being that you believe is just. The whole world realized how blind religion could be when the towers fell or the bombings in London. Remember these people believed in this supreme being and truly believe that they would enter some eternal bliss. You may say they will enter the gates of hell but you have no more evidence than they do that they were wrong.

It seems to me that this (nonexistent) God favors evil.





(05-05-2012 04:31 AM)Egor Wrote:  But there is the innocent atheist, and I have run into many of them, even here in this forum. They simply can't take the shit they are expected to swallow from religion, and they cannot separate the idea of God from the religious portrayal of God, and these people I understand completely. I understand the nausea that builds up in one's soul at the very idea of anything connected to the religious. I understand the inability to crucify one's intellect in order to believe the rubbish the Church says must be believed. They don't have to read Dawkins to disbelieve. All they have to do is turn on any televangelist at any time. All they need is to see one pentacostal meeting where insanity is let loose.

If you truly understand why we don't listen to these lies than you would understand why we won't believe in yours. Now I understand that you keep spouting that Jesus is this or that but I believe we had a wonderful topic that suggests otherwise and I will provide the link.(http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...her-video) Why can't we follow true human heroes like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi. Why must human beings believe in something rather than themselves? But yes seeing lies spouted so ridiculously from religion should cause people to question and realize some of the scams they are.





(05-05-2012 04:31 AM)Egor Wrote:  I don't believe the innocent atheist can ever believe in God, and I can't believe that God would ever put that person in hell. I actually think there may be a kind of spirituality to that kind of atheism that transcends the need to put any belief in God whatsoever, and I don't get a sense that God requires it from them.

Jesus said that the one who finds the world has found a corpse, and of that person the world is not worthy. Isn't religion part of this stinking world?

Yes, religion is what causes a significant amount of those rotting corpses in this world. I am sorry that your God has been used as a weapon and its even worse that something that is supposed to be used for good is used for so much evil. I still want to see if there is a God and I assured myself that I will try to find her(or such a being) but never again will I fall for something without thought.

If I ever had to believe in God again it would be a very basic belief. One where it would be a non perfect entity, it may not care for us and it might never know of us but I can't believe in a God who created such a vast and complex universe and worries about which sex position we are in.





"There is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -Carl Sagan

So we must do what God can't and create peace with one another.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShirubaDangan's post
08-05-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(08-05-2012 01:57 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
Quote:But I don’t even need a microscope to tell me that. I was at a function
of some sort and a man was playing Mozart on the piano. He wasn’t even
looking at the sheet music. I watched him and I realized it simply isn’t
possible: It’s not possible for his brain to contain the circuitry
necessary, the memory necessary, to play that music and retain the 30
years or so of other memories and skills he must have. We simply ask too
much of the brain when we ask it to be the sole reason for memory and
consciousness.

As a lifelong musician I can tell you this is not 'impossible,' as it may seem to an observer. Breaking down the music into its most basic parts reveals techniques, chords, and scales that this musician has played thousands of times. It's not an outside consciousness, it's hard work.
Great point! Music is a great example of something that seems divinely inspired, etc. but is actually just a function of natural phenomenon and process (and like you said, a lot of hard work and repetition).

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2012, 05:22 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
This is all getting to be rather interesting... Here is a story of one explorer.

So, in the beginning, the hero of this story based all his "knowledge" on only one Book. He used it for science, he used it for religion, spirituality, morality, free time, thinking, philosophy, literature, meditation, public gatherings... Then he came to meet his worst enemies, the only ones he hated. Know your enemy was the case in his logic. He came in all righteous and stared with the classic attacks. ... Some battles took place and not one or the other side lost its ground, they all stood firmly and could not gain a single point of damage on the other side.

But then... Unintentionally as the other side attacked the Book that the person was using and the groups that were using the same Book, it was then when the person had realised that something is wrong around him. So he started to search for other books, while still holding his ground. As he started to read and learn more new things, he began to see that the group he was affiliated with, is not as good as he used to think, that there is more than meets the eye. They were lying to him, they all had some secret hidden agenda and that was not the part of the original Book they like to use. So our hero started to reject their thinking, but still remained sceptical about his enemies, he still refused to let his guard down, but has accepted the fact that he need to read more books and then maybe, when he learns more about his enemies, maybe then he could defeat his enemies, or at least do some real damage.

After more reading and experimenting, he has not only abandoned his old group, but he declared a peace treaty with his enemies. While his knowledge and the will to explore strange new worlds was growing he started to realise that his enemies are not really his enemies, but just some people who mean him no harm, but actually want to help him in his quest for exploration.

Now, his journey continues with a slight help from his former enemies. He still hold his Book close, as it was a big part of his life, but now he is using more of the worlds knowledge, so that even his old Book gets some new meanings and he can understand it better today than he ever could before.

Where will our hero go next, what will happen with his enemies and their fight?

Find out on the next episode of

Knowledge quest

:::taaaaaantandandantandandan:::

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
10-05-2012, 05:44 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Quote: I don’t know. I was around 70 when I died. I lived alone in a rented
room upstairs in an older white house. There were stairs on the outside
of the house that lead up to a door that entered into my room. I kept it
very clean and neat. I remember my dresser, and on it was grooming
items. And I remember my bed, and I died in that bed. My last day was
sunny but not hot. And I think it was in the 1960’s, but it would have
had to have been 60-64 sometime since I was born in 1964. I think I died
in the early evening. I wasn’t anyone important at all. I may have been
poor, but I don’t get the sense of being impoverished per se, more like
I was a retiree with very few material desires. But I was old then. I
have no idea of the life I lead or what I was when I was younger. All I
know is the thought of that life brings about sadness, a kind of
depression or regret when I think about it. I’ve always attributed that
to perhaps the fact that I didn’t learn what I needed to prevent my
current reincarnation.



One thing’s for sure; I was no philosopher back then. I don’t know what I
was, but I wasn’t that. Maybe that’s why I am one today. I just don’t
know.
Died at 70 poor and alone?
It never occurred it may have been the future you were gazing upon?
Just a question.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: