|
Author
|
Topic: The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Usensored Brains
Or was the cause I have already been exposed to enough to allow further internal cause and effect phenomenon to take place wholly internally to my brain? There are certain areas of the brain for which you can do this, just like there are areas of the brain currently sending signals throughout your body that you are not conscious of. Any idea what your brain is telling your stomach right now? Likewise, you have areas of the brain that you can internally activate - and a small area at that. You are less conscious of what's happening in your brain than you are conscious of it, by a high margin (don't know the numbers off hand). So IMO, I'd say sure, you could probably control from within certain small areas where information is stored - maybe face recognition, smell recognition, taste, etc. But not very much I would say, because the information would be on what was most repeated. Your sons face, wife, parents, house, car, etc.
Yeah I know. But that really sucks doesn't it? Not really, because its the sum of all parts that makes us up. The deterministic neurons and the self experiencing free will are both real things; neither one is less important or more relevant than the other. Its like asking what's more relevant or important in reality, Newtons classical mechanics or quantum mechanics? They're both equally relevant and important IMO. Just as a unifying theory in physcis will merge NM and QM, fully understanding consciousness will unify our feelings of free will with our deterministic micro-world of neurons. We'll feel free will and understand why we have it. That doesn't suck, thats pretty fuck'n cool, I think.
Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's true Blasphemy!  - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 331 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2009 6:41 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 336 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2009 12:21 PM | | onifre has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: deterministic reality vs freewill reality
Here we a have a kind of an odd situation, an a professed atheist who I assume by logical deduction and indirect implication dose not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, because God does not exist, explaining and instructing on how to interpret and understand the scriptures. Hmmm? Ok How is that relevant? Do you think you can read and comprehend words better than I can? The Bible is to be read and understood on a personal level without outside opinion ... are you saying I can't do that? And I wasn't always an atheist, I believe there was a time before I reached the age of reasoning that I was a believer in invisible things.
Since however the scholarship of the world believes this to be a very valid interpretation Don't just say it, prove it. Where's the evidence for that claim? I don't believe you are right on that at all.
Paul said by one man sin and death entered the world, so by deductive reasoning I am justified in believing that before this time there was no death and disease This is your interpretation ... see how you added the word "disease" for no reason? That's not in the story of the fall - it just says "death".
which would include any kind of mental orders How does a mental disorder relate to death, or just to go with your interpretation, disease? it doesn't. You are tweeking it.
unless you can I will have to go with the most logical assumption backed by scripture, since we are discussing the word of God. You are tweeking what it said. This is a complete distortion of what the verse says, and if I was a believer in the Bible I would be offended by what you are doing to those Bible verses.
Paul makes it very clear that two things were a result of thier actions, SIN and Death Exactly, and the original story in Genesis says the same thing. Sin and death, NOT diseases, mental disorders, neurological problems, etc... YOU are adding all that extra stuff to satify the problem you would be faced with otherwise.
But that’s the very point at hand, TU has been unable to attribute every action,or as I call it a choice and in this instance sin or crime, to some sort of biological or mental imbalance. You have failed to understand how every single action we take is the result of deterministic neurons for which you have no free will over or control. The argument is more complex than the behaviourist outlook you have on it. Show me how you have free will over the neruons that control every thought and action in your body and you may have an argument. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Oh Dear
I however would very definetly say the choice is nothing more than a choice derived from the process Right, and if the process itself is determinsitic, where does that leave the choice? Would it not also indicate that the choice (being derived from the process) is also deterministic? In essence, where does the free will come in? Note that I agree that we experience free will, I'm just curious as to where we seperate the micro (deterministic process) from the macro (reality which we experience)...? If choice(s) are derived from a deterministic processes, for that final choice to be free willed would mean that somewhere internally there is a "choice maker" ... but there isn't, there is just a deterministic process that results in an action (final choice). Where does the free will come into play?
I said I believe people choose to murder simply by a choice, without disorders, imbalances or impulse, hence premeditated murder, its planned out with malice of forethought Just because you said it doesn't make it so. Every action requires a reason for the action - we cannot break the law of cause and effect. The taking of someones life is not normal to the human process, this requires either an outside influence (someone killed a member of your family, etc), an internal raise in emotional level due to someones actions toward you, an internal disorder that controls your emotions, or a malfunction of your internal wiring that doesn't allow you to sympathize with your fellow human beings and thus taking their life is nothing emotionally to you - and of course there's indoctrination (Nazi) or brain washing (military). There is no "simple choice" to murder anyone, and I challenge you to present a case that shows this opinion of yours to be true. And no, premeditation also comes with an emotional baggage. And that's the main point - you have no control over your emotions (ergo you have NO free will over them) and at the moment of taking the actual life, you are not consciously in control of your bodies actions.
EAM
Your ID says E(M)A not E(A)M - which is it? - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: deterministic reality vs freewill reality
However, you do understand that in interpretation one can deduce things of a logical form and draw logical conclusions that are valid, unless demonstrated otherwise, correct? IOW this is a viable form of interpretation unless it grossly misrepresents the text, correct? Yes, and I feel that your interpretation grossly misrepresents the text.
Im pretty sure you cannot actually show me biological Macro evolution in its entirity What I can show you is that you don't understand evolution and are grossly misrepresenting it. Just by your use of the word "macro" I know you don't know what you're talking about.
the end of which you believe demonstrates a point you cannot actually see at present, correct? No, evolution is observable and requires no faith.
If as Paul stated by one man sin and death entered into the world, it would follow that such things were not present before this time, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, can you? That depends, give me a date when this took place and we'll look at the fossil record. Were there dinosuars in the garden of Eden?
Since there was no death it is more than valid that disease was not present due to the fact that disease is a large contributing factor to death. Right, but it wasn't due to Eve's eating of the tree of knowledge. God said 'sin' and 'death', period - that is the punishment.
Since mental disorders are a disease of sorts No they are not, at all, not even a little.
It is a reasonable deduction to assume for all the reasons I have now stated Your reasons failed as evidence.
There were no disorders at all, of any type, Biblically speaking. There was no 'sin' or 'death', period. That was the punishment, the other stuff could be said to be the result of evolution and reproduction (as science has shown it to be), but not a god given condition. You are grossly misrepresnting the text.
Watch this, your indirect implication in conjunction with the topic at hand is that there were disorders because they disobeyed a simple rule No, I didn't say that, you again grossly misrepresent.
By the way sin is a disease that causes death. No they are not. Sin is sin, diseases are diseases, the two have nothing alike.
This is the easiest part of all. because I CAN make a decision in the opposite direction, at any time in the process No you can't, you can't control the neurons that control your emotions - to say otherwise is complete bullshit.
All I need to do is demonstrate that in any given situation i have the choice to make another decision ...but once your emotions take over, you lose the control to decide and thus are at the mercy of your emotions. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Final thoughts as per Admin's request
Yes, you may respect someone, but you don't need to.
So you only have free will in simple situations and then don't have free will when the situation is complex?  You have lost your entire basis and definition of free will at this point. All I need to show you is a situation where no other choice was possible by your own free will (complex, simple, or otherwise). We live in an ever changing reality where "simple" situations are not always the situation. If we have free will we have it under ANY situation - it can't be that we sometimes have free will and sometimes we don't - it's either all or nothing. And thus we arrive at the problem: Biological organisms which are controlled by chemical reactions in the brain, who are emotional and are prone to complex mental issues and minor mental issue, for which both can result in a loss of control. Did god create them this way? Did god provide them with this mechanism of cognition? Did all of it end during the Fall? According to EMA, we were created perfect (had free will) and the capacity to make the right choices because our mechanism for cognition was perfect. But, after the Fall, this mechanism became kinda not so perfect. Prone to failures, mental handycaps, malfunctions, etc. So at this point there is no longer free will for these people and now we are punished with Hell for these mechanical disfunctions. So lets try to follow the logic: We have free will because god gave us a mechanism to make our own choices, BUT, according to EMA, this mechanism can malfunction because of the Fall - and according to him if you have a malfunction you no longer have the ability to choose, therefore your free will is gone. So, because Eve ate the fruit, free will is now gone in people who have neurological disorders, or as he put it "brain malfunctions". So sorry anyone with a mental disorder, but you don't have free will. So I guess its safe to say that they aren't responsible for their actions and thus can't go to Hell, right? So a murderer who happens to have a mental disorder is not responsible and doesn't go to Hell by EMA's opinion. This gets confusing a bit. Either we all have free will or none of us have it. How can some have it and others not have it? In any case, I've completely lost interest in EMA's opinion of cognition, free will and consciousness, and how it relates to god ... so have fun T&U. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Final final thoughts - lol
Hi EMA, I don't want you to go away unsatisfied as if your questions weren't answered.
I challenged him to demonstrate why he did not believe in invisible things, he does, but will not admit it or defend it otherwise. Macro-evolution and the Big Bang Evolution is observable; macro-evolution is the sum of all known fossils; the Big Bang is visible in the CMBR and the expansion of the universe detected by Hubble in red-light shifts - in all these situations, you have to knwo what you're looking at. This to me suffices as being observable. Nothing close to that can be said about god.
I challenged ONI to demonstrate why I cant make a different choice in any given situation, he did not demonstrate it. Oh but I did demonstrate it, you forget that everything we write stays on the site.
quote:
Message 294 Oni: Then we are in agreement.
A malfunction in the god designed mechanism of the thought process, removed freewill. EMA: I suppose we are in agreement, since you have indirectly here suggested that freewill is an actual thing, by stating "removed freewill", whatever the reason it was removed.
So you agree that it was removed, but are happy that I said it's a real thing. Which is funny, because I've always said that we experience free will and never disagree that it wasn't real. In any case, you admit that it was removed. That settles that.
I challenged ONI to demonstrate why my conclusions on the texts were invalid, he criticized with quibs and one liners, but never showed conterfactual argumentation as to why my conclusions were invalid All I meant is that we can both interpret it differently, and that I didn't agree with your interpretation. That is why I simply said we can end the discussion there, because we disagree on the text.
I challenged ONI to stay with the strict biblical text, assuming God was its author, and explain why, if God created people before the fall with an inability to control emotions or actions, why he would punish them for actions for which they had no control. The problem is, I have no idea why he would do that. My personal opinion, because he is mean, a tyrant and a bit of a dick. I don't know? These are not questions that I can answer. I don't pretend to know the mind of god.
I showed from the text that if Adam and Eve made a choice of thier own freewill, God promised consequences would follow, they did. Oni did not demonstrate otherwise that all the problems that are now present are not a result of that simple choice. Biblically speaking that is Biblically speaking, I agree with you.
God, is therefore not responsible for giving freewill or the choices that come from it, assuming ONI can provide me with a situation where an opposite choice is not possible, in a normal situation. I did provide you with a situation, its not normal but its still a situation. Why are you hung up on ONLY normal? You said this in this post, EMA: "My point was to show that freewill existed as a result of being able to make a different choice in any given situation." EMA, you say any given situation. Well, I gave you a situation. And, you agreed that both choice and free will are gone when the god created mechanisms failed. Read here: Message 267 quote:
Oni: I believe I just did. A determining factor removed the ability of choice, and in your opinion, freewill as well. So now we have established that if the mechanism (that supposedly god gave us) to make decisions is affected in some way, we are not able to make the right choice.
So in my above scenario, not only did a pre-existing condition determine the outcome and remove the mans freewill, because god gave him that mechanism, god is responsible.
And you reply: EMA: I agree in your case of mental incapacity, but the opportunity for CHOICE IS REMOVED due to a malfunction. Not only is choice removed but so is any responsibility on the individual’s part.
You said you are able to make a chocie in any given situation and that you have free will because of it. But I gave you a situation where you ADMIT free will is removed, and another choice was not possible, you openly admit this, why are you denying this? So I believe I've answered, demonstrated and have proven what I am claiming. In your own words, you agree that in certain situations both free will and choices are removed. You also agreed that if god created the mechanism, then god is responsible. I'll give you the last word. Hopefully you are honest in accepting that you said these things. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
Further you understand nothing about God, his laws, his grace and the system we are now under. Yeah, you tell him EMA. He understands nothing! Only YOU can interpret scripture the right way, so please continue to explain it to us in your perspective exactly how morality is written out in the Bible. Its a good thing you showed up to this forum or we would have lost our ability to achieve salvation. I asked you before, if your ability to interpret scripture better than mine or DA's? If so, why? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
simply provide me with another scripture that allows each individual person to set aside the simple command of not to steal, that then demonstrates it was not a sin in the first place What was the purpose of Jesus then?
. . . but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (NASB) Hebrews 10:12-14 - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
DA writes: That is my point. My question is WHY would you do so.
EMA writes: because I would not want to see anyone die, that did not deserve death. But in that process I would not lose my objectivity and delude myself into believing that Gods command was NOW somehow acceptable along with my actions. When yopu start doing this, then any action becomes justifiable in our own minds. I MIGHT do it due to a immediate reation, I might do it because I know God would not view my entire life in that one instance. I might do it because my emotions took over at that moment and here I dont mean to imply I wasnt in control. In it all the LYING does NOT become a MORALLY CORRECT THING, because I or the situation dictate it as such. In one single paragraph, you prove exactly what I was arguing for: everything is deterministic. Even though you knew it was a sin, there were determining factors that already layed out the path for you. And I notice you even tried to sneak in that you're not implying that you weren't in control ( I dont mean to imply I wasnt in control) because you knew your entire paragraph was implying just that.
It is wrong from a Biblical perspective because God has designated as such AND AND AND he provides no addendums to that edict.
This is where I'm confused, and I'll admit I lack the education in biblical studies to know enough. I thought Jesus was the "addendum" that cleared all sins, both past and future? I thought that made lying (or the breaking of any other commandment) not really a sin but more of a thing we had to check ourselves on. Just believe in and follow Jesus and all is good, right? Some people on this site say that those commandments and the old laws were specfically the Hebrews, and, specifically for those times. They also say that Jesus wiped the slate clean, and that from then on, you simply had to believe in Jesus and the old laws were not relevant anymore. Not that you didn't have to follow them, but that by simply following in the footsteps of Jesus you were already behaving as well as possible, making no need for the old laws. Is that correct? Where have I misunderstood?
However, as I have said many times, God is not unsympathetic to situations and our ignorance. he has and does overlook our ignorance in disobedience to his commands.
Where in the Bible does it show this side of God? Please provide verse/quote.
My mistake I thought we were speaking from a Biblical perspective It seems like you think he is speaking about YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Many Christians here do not agree with you, yet they claim the same religion as you. So clearly, there is more than one way to read this book. You happen to agree with your interpretation of it, wow, what a coincidence. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
Jesus does not CLEAR all sins without a response from man through belief, repentance and baptism, into his body. Its not unconditional. Right, like I said, believing in him and following him clears us of all sin. The quote I provided said it clearly:
quote:
. . . but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (NASB) Hebrews 10:12-14
What am I misunderstanding?
Oni writes: Many Christians here do not agree with you, yet they claim the same religion as you. So clearly, there is more than one way to read this book. You happen to agree with your interpretation of it, wow, what a coincidence.
EMA writes: Who are they and let them present thier argument Who cares who they are, they exist and so there are more ways to interpret the Bible. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
This is nonsense and I have already demonstrated why in our previous discussion. Perhaps you have already forgotten why I refer you to my final final post to you were I demonstrated how you exposed the flaws in your own argument, and I have you quoted as saying its all deterministic. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
See he doesnt say its not sin only that he has through his patience provided away out Ugh, right, "believing in him and following him clears us of all sin." Like I keep repeating.
quote:
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:12-14
So, Jesus is the addendum that removes the burden of sin. If you lie to protect someone else, and you believe in Jesus, sure you sinned but it is null and void. Believing in Jesus makes you able to make conscience decisions based on your own life experiences, and not be burdened by sin. - Oni
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 405 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2009 10:33 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
Message 407 of 410 (538931)
12-11-2009 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 405 by jaywill
12-10-2009 10:33 AM
|
|
Re: Moral Cognitive Dissonance
The cynical case you seem to be making is that salvation in Christ is kind of "cheap". The saved can "get away" with a lot. Not at all, I meant that "by one offering [Jesus] has protected for all time those who are sanctified." As the verse says:
quote:
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:12-14
They are warnings to CHRISTIANS, for whom the question of eternal redemption has been settled. That is impossible. Paul had no idea that there would be "Christians" in the future.
What you have to realize is that God has many ways to deal with man aside from eternal punishment. It is foolish to think someone as wise as God is locked into His own system so that He cannot dispense the needed discipline to His children to perfect them. Then I'll ask you the same question I asked EMA: What then was the point of sacrificing Jesus? The quote I provided was clear:
quote:
. . . but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Hebrews 10:12-14
- Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 405 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2009 10:33 AM | | jaywill has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2