Hi Phat. I'm not surprised u began such a thread I always saw u as the wisest and most open person in here. How have u been anyway? Thought I'd just say hi.
Thought ud be interested to here I'm no longer agnostic. I'm a theist now I guess but without the bible though I still adhere to its morals. It's complicated. LoL
In tÃ£o they say that God is undefinable which is what I kinda think. I don't know about bible stories and their literal applications. I just feel there is a greater power.
Psychedelic drugs like DMT, shooms and Ketamine gives a person much to think about if they have enough of it to break into this other dimension. Quite easy to blow off as "drugs" and dismiss these vision's to those who haven't experienced it.
But drug addiction is very much like mental illness. Our knowledge is so limited. I see drugs on campus daily and try my best to stay away. I have a sweet spot for these mind expanding psychedelics that take u to places your mind cannot possibly conceive. Then make us return like Greek philosophers.
DMT and Kay has been used on mentally ill patients interestingly. Also interesting to look at what Portugal did in their radical approach to drug addiction.
Actually I'm a lot like Jordan Peterson now. A large umbrella on the subject of God and morals as not to fall into dogma. I can see how Sam Harris and some others find him frustrating cos his illmatic. Not fixed. Especially seeing Sam is up for a fair discussion.
I'm still at school. Love physics as applied on earth. Isaac Newton number 1 genius man forever in my book. Da Vinci and Tesla make up my top 3. Karl Popper i still love with his no bullshit approach. Einstein would be 5th.
Astrophysics I'm afraid is lost in space but and has regressed in to the same kind of story telling rhetoric as other theoretical sciences have with this multiverse theory or hypothesis taken out of Darwinism.
So ye even less respect for the theoretic sciences I have now. They don't represent the applied sciences I work in. We, along with other practical branches in science, including Biology are moving to branch away from theoretical science at my school. We don't want to be associated with such bs artists. If u can replicate the universe in a jar then uv got something. If u can create life from nothing then uv got something. Till then just keep spinning.
I still love thinking about philosophy and religion but and it's visible impact on society.
Anyway. Plenty there for the atheists to cry about still... lol
Here is a question. Why do Christians pray to humans like St Peter and the Virgin Mary when it's defying the first 2 commandments.
And wassup with Mary? Won't love her husband and won't allow her husband to love her while he works and supports for her and this child that isn't his. It actually goes against the Christian concept of a family for anyone to remain a virgin. She is supposed to submit to her husband the bible says. True?
A simplified version of Sigmund Freud's iceberg of consciousness
I've recently become aware of at least a part of my sub conscious or alter ego. From what I understand the alter ego is located at the back of our brains, the cerebellum. Its our instinctive minds.
Our counscious minds are located in our pre-frontal cortex. The matter in our foreheads is what sets us apart from a chimp.
This is an over simplified illustration.
As we get older our alter egos get hardwired to do certain things automatically such as ride a bike. Problem with drugs is that it tricks the mind into thinking its great by releasing all these feel good chemicals like oxytocine, seratonin and dopamine. Over time the brain treats the drug like its food, a necessity.
I came across an intersting article a while ago that illustrates the difference between knowleadge and understanding. A guy reassemled a push bike so that it turned right when you turned the handlebars left and vice versa.
He found that despite knowing the bikes configuration and what had to be done to ride it, no one could ride it more than 2 meters. Our subconscious has the muscle memory to automatically stay balanced and ride a normal bike.
He decided to see how hard it would be to rewire his cerebellum. "He practiced riding the backwards bike every day for months. Trying and failing over and over again. Finally, after 8 month of slow progress, it finally clicked"
I find it interesting how he describes it as finally clicking after 8 months of little progression. Its a kind of sudden realisation which is what i usually get when thinking about philosophy anf psycology as opposed to the steady progress of learning motion physics or calculus.
Our sub conscious minds sets us apart from the apes. The largest chimp troupes are only 150 chimps. The Homo Sapien knew that in order to create civilization, religion needed to be created to form a moral basis of ethics for society to adhere to.
Without it we would be savage cannibals focused only on survival and procreation just like the chimps.
As a general principle, belief in something for which there is no evidence can not ever be rational.
I was always told it was based on faith. So I agree, both theists and atheists are irrational. Seeing 95% of theoretical scientists begin with the theist question of God (which everyone agrees doesn't belong in science). And so take on the position of atheist as the basis of their studies its fair to say the theoretical science is irrational. Well thought out Tangle. I can confirm your conclusion with the simple fact that rational questioning is always blocked.
Is that like a deist?
Can u please explain this further cos I couldn't find any kind of definition of it. Theist is defined as "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods" so i don't understand how a non-theistic god is even possible.
Im not even sure how to define what I think now. Maybe still just agnostic seeing i have no problem admitting I don't know. But I actually now think there is a high probability that there is some kind of God that is undefinable to us. Nothing more.
Theists and atheists can be both rational and irrational. It's belief in a god without evidence - faith - which is the irrational position.
The belief in no kind of God without evidence is just as irrational isn't it? How is it any different?
That's just gobbledegook. What do you think you mean? Are you saying that because science concerns itself with objective, fact-based, analysis of the natural word that it is atheistic? And 'therefore' irrational? If so, it doesn't make logical sense.
No im saying for a scientist to take up the atheist position is irrational. It introduces religion into science by responding to theists claims of God. It then looks for evidence to support the atheist belief, disregarding any evidence to the contrary. Beliefs are irrelevant in the hard sciences. Theoretical scientists ought to be agnostic.
Try not to be childish.
Childish is having threads taken down cos people cannot answer the question being asked and so complain to the moderator.
Basically a religion.
I was asking what u ment by a "non-theistic God"... If theism is the belief in God then how can a God be non-theist?
Do u have a theory on why religions were even created in the first place?