Why do believers go to doctors?

[strummingram]

strummingram, while I find your thoughts and beliefs somewhat fascinating, you really come off as extremely sanctimonious. Most of the atheists on this board have been accused of such but they simply don't hold a candle to you. You explain yourself to a certain extent and then when the going gets tough you pull the "Well, if you don't know this for yourself, I can't explain it to you and I feel sorry for you." Maybe that isn't your intent but that's certainly the way it reads. It would be a lot cooler if you'd explain in detail what and why you believe the things you do.

Aside from that, with what I can gather of your beliefs, the original question really doesn't apply to you anyway. You don't have the typical Christian beliefs that 99% of those on the board the question was aimed at. That's not to say I don't think you should reply to the thread because it's gone in a different direction now that is probably more interesting anyway.

I wasn't trying to seem or come off as sanctimonious. Sorry about that.

As far as the "in detail about why or what"; that's extremely difficult to convey in written words. A great deal of the knowledge comes from personal experience and feeling. Spirituality is very personal to me. My understanding of it and experience of it is all very personal. Sharing it with someone, or others, who have similar experiences is much more fulfilling than trying to prove to someone that refuses to believe that they exist for me. But, to be clear, I'm not talking about being obedient to some Man In The Sky that is keeping tabs on all of us in order to give us the Pass or Fail grade once this shell expires. We are energy and vibration slowed-down. I actually believe that "science" is, and will, help assist us in realizing the whole thing as we go along. It's all one, long discovery.

 

[Raglefant]

Neither of the things you've mentioned seem any more silly than the other. Perhaps the Men In Black theory is the correct one?

View embedded media

That's because it was a joke. Brains in a vat is a well known thought experiment in philosophy originating with Descartes I believe. Perhaps MIB is closer to the truth, I like that one. Also could be God is a flying spaghetti monster, I really don't know.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[1] Even Dawkins gives God greater than 0% chance of existing, because like all smart people, he understands that we are discussing things that are unknowable.

[2] Dawkins along with a lot of people would be shocked if after death something happened and his existence persisted.

[1] Does he? I've read several of his books and have seen him talk several times and I can't recall him ever saying anything like that.

You simply can't leave the door open to the existence of something unless you know what you are leaving the door open for. And, as we have seen again and again, believers are generally impossible to pin down on this unless they stick with doctrine. And there's no way that Dawkins would leave any possibility open for the God of the OT or NT to exist as described in those works.

[2] Well sure.

A rather common theme in sci-fi is the idea of "downloading" your consciousness into some device. Into some sophisticated computer, for example. Maybe that will be possible some day. Unlikely, but maybe. But here's the kicker: would that still be "you"? Even if you grant that we have captured your mind, if we kill you in the process of doing that capture, would the "you" that "wakes up" in the computer (or a clone body) be the real you? Or would you be dead and this thing that claims and believes it is you be just a very good copy?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ok.

Ok.

Glad we got those off your chest.

Please. It's not a matter of getting it off my chest. It's a never-ending effort to dumb it down enough and to use simpler and simpler words.

 

[Raglefant]

[1] Does he? I've read several of his books and have seen him talk several times and I can't recall him ever saying anything like that.

You simply can't leave the door open to the existence of something unless you know what you are leaving the door open for. And, as we have seen again and again, believers are generally impossible to pin down on this unless they stick with doctrine. And there's no way that Dawkins would leave any possibility open for the God of the OT or NT to exist as described in those works.

[2] Well sure.

A rather common theme in sci-fi is the idea of "downloading" your consciousness into some device. Into some sophisticated computer, for example. Maybe that will be possible some day. Unlikely, but maybe. But here's the kicker: would that still be "you"? Even if you grant that we have captured your mind, if we kill you in the process of doing that capture, would the "you" that "wakes up" in the computer (or a clone body) be the real you? Or would you be dead and this thing that claims and believes it is you be just a very good copy?

1. Yes.

A scientist doesn't acknowledge the existence of a specifically defined thing without evidence of that thing. A scientist doesn't say that nothing exists other than what I know about and have seen evidence for as of today.

If you find someone who claims absolute knowledge about unknowable things, you're speaking with an idiot. The more knowledge a human obtains, the more easily they are able to admit that we know very little in the grand scheme of things.

2. I don't know. Whether or not God exists, for the sake of the argument, we can create a baseline understanding of life as we perceive it today. We feel like we exist, that we are unique sentient beings. If this is true, then creating a conscious being, or porting it from one body to the next is only limited by scientific advancement. Theoretically, human scientific knowledge could advance to the point where we duplicate what exists in nature now with respect to the creation, existence, or illusion of life. Unless you think God has some secret sauce or magic that we simply could never discover or obtain, I don't see why one wouldn't think that we could eventually port a consciousness into new hardware without the loss of whatever that feeling of consciousness is. We would undoubtedly fvck up a bunch before accomplishing it, probably a bunch of zombie revolutions and AI robot wars before getting there, but I have no reason to believe it isn't possible.

 

[longliveCS40]

1. Yes.

A scientist doesn't acknowledge the existence of a specifically defined thing without evidence of that thing. A scientist doesn't say that nothing exists other than what I know about and have seen evidence for as of today.

If you find someone who claims absolute knowledge about unknowable things, you're speaking with an idiot. The more knowledge a human obtains, the more easily they are able to admit that we know very little in the grand scheme of things.

2. I don't know. Whether or not God exists, for the sake of the argument, we can create a baseline understanding of life as we perceive it today. We feel like we exist, that we are unique sentient beings. If this is true, then creating a conscious being, or porting it from one body to the next is only limited by scientific advancement. Theoretically, human scientific knowledge could advance to the point where we duplicate what exists in nature now with respect to the creation, existence, or illusion of life. Unless you think God has some secret sauce or magic that we simply could never discover or obtain, I don't see why one wouldn't think that we could eventually port a consciousness into new hardware without the loss of whatever that feeling of consciousness is. We would undoubtedly fvck up a bunch before accomplishing it, probably a bunch of zombie revolutions and AI robot wars before getting there, but I have no reason to believe it isn't possible.

I would think it much more likely that we find a way to repair anything that goes wrong with the current vessel, or prevent issues with the current vessel, rather than finding a way to port into a new one. We're already well on our way with life expectancy what it has become today. They'll cure cancer in my lifetime.

There are already people working on figuring out how to prevent aging. I found this article on the subject pretty interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/11/-sp-live-forever-extend-life-calico-google-longevity

Specifically, this part:
In September 2013 Google announced the creation of Calico, short for the California Life Company. Its mission is to reverse engineer the biology that controls lifespan and “devise interventions that enable people to lead longer and healthier lives”. Though much mystery surrounds the new biotech company, it seems to be looking in part to develop age-defying drugs.

So, let's say these people succeed and 200 years from now, they have reverse engineered the aging process and people can live forever. How does this affect Christianity as we know it today? Isn't the point of Christianity to live a fulfilled life on earth due to the belief in God and Jesus as the savior? Wouldn't that make it pointless to carry those beliefs if you don't have to ever find out if there's a heaven or not?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

1. Yes.

A scientist doesn't acknowledge the existence of a specifically defined thing without evidence of that thing. A scientist doesn't say that nothing exists other than what I know about and have seen evidence for as of today.

If you find someone who claims absolute knowledge about unknowable things, you're speaking with an idiot. The more knowledge a human obtains, the more easily they are able to admit that we know very little in the grand scheme of things.

You are missing the point here. You are claiming that Dawkins leaves the door open to the possibility of God. Yet Dawkins, to the best of my knowledge, leaves open ZERO possibility to the existence of the Abrahamic God of the various scriptures. And once we say that, we have to ask "just what are we talking about, then?"

Dawkins just isn't the kind of thinker who would leave the door open for "something" without having in mind what that something might be. It doesn't have to be excessively detailed. But it has to make sense.

So to suggest that Dawkins is leaving the door open, would have to mean he is leaving the door open to something that can be characterized in some understandable way.

So, for example, Dawkins might leave the door open to the idea that the Big Bang Theory is wrong and that the universe as we know it came to be as it is through some other sequence of events. And he might even toss out some alternative hypotheses. Do you really think God would be one of those? What would it even mean to say "God is an alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang"?

There's simply no reason to think Dawkins would leave the door open to an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being that is unbound by time and space and natural laws and, furthermore, knows and cares what we are thinking and doing, and condemns us to eternal damnation if he judges us unkindly, and so on and so on. All those words have clear meanings. But taken together, they cannot plausibly describe a real thing.

Sure, you could take Strum's approach and claim absolute knowledge of something while refusing to say what that something is and impugning the thinking of those who don't also "know" this "truth." But, again, if we leave the door open to that, just what is it that we are leaving the door open to?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

2. I don't know. Whether or not God exists, for the sake of the argument, we can create a baseline understanding of life as we perceive it today. We feel like we exist, that we are unique sentient beings. If this is true, then creating a conscious being, or porting it from one body to the next is only limited by scientific advancement. Theoretically, human scientific knowledge could advance to the point where we duplicate what exists in nature now with respect to the creation, existence, or illusion of life. Unless you think God has some secret sauce or magic that we simply could never discover or obtain, I don't see why one wouldn't think that we could eventually port a consciousness into new hardware without the loss of whatever that feeling of consciousness is. We would undoubtedly fvck up a bunch before accomplishing it, probably a bunch of zombie revolutions and AI robot wars before getting there, but I have no reason to believe it isn't possible.

I'm inclined to agree with all of that. BUT, you didn't address the important question. I call it the "Beam me up, Scotty" dilemma.

Imagine we have a Star Trek type of transporter. In the period of time it takes to play the transporter music it correctly analyzes your body down to the last atom, vaporizes you, transmits that vast array of data without error to a transporter station at another location, and "3D prints" you - again, without error - accurate to the last atom.

We probably won't ever be able to do it that perfectly, but we can imagine it.

Now clearly the person who walks off the transporter platform will say and believe it is you. To that person, it's true. To that person it was no big deal. No different than walking into a different room - except that you didn't walk. You don't die when you walk into a different room. You are exactly the same atoms in basically the same arrangement. It's even more exact with the transporter, because walking into another room will rearrange some atoms (posture, blood flow, etc.).

But is the you that was vaporized in the first part of the process still alive? Did you die and we now have a perfect clone? Did you die and then get resurrected and it's the same you? Or did you just die?

Some people want to say that the mind and personality are just a epiphenominal pattern emerging from and dependent upon the brain. Probably true. But does that mean that the same pattern produced in another time and place is the same mind and personality? To an independent observer, that would be true. But how about to the original person?

If you are sure that the real you will walk off that 2nd transporter platform, then you should have no qualms about being vaporized in the first stage.

Personally, I wouldn't use the transporter.

 

[Raglefant]

You are missing the point here. You are claiming that Dawkins leaves the door open to the possibility of God. Yet Dawkins, to the best of my knowledge, leaves open ZERO possibility to the existence of the Abrahamic God of the various scriptures. And once we say that, we have to ask "just what are we talking about, then?"

Dawkins just isn't the kind of thinker who would leave the door open for "something" without having in mind what that something might be. It doesn't have to be excessively detailed. But it has to make sense.

So to suggest that Dawkins is leaving the door open, would have to mean he is leaving the door open to something that can be characterized in some understandable way.

So, for example, Dawkins might leave the door open to the idea that the Big Bang Theory is wrong and that the universe as we know it came to be as it is through some other sequence of events. And he might even toss out some alternative hypotheses. Do you really think God would be one of those? What would it even mean to say "God is an alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang"?

There's simply no reason to think Dawkins would leave the door open to an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being that is unbound by time and space and natural laws and, furthermore, knows and cares what we are thinking and doing, and condemns us to eternal damnation if he judges us unkindly, and so on and so on. All those words have clear meanings. But taken together, they cannot plausibly describe a real thing.

Sure, you could take Strum's approach and claim absolute knowledge of something while refusing to say what that something is and impugning the thinking of those who don't also "know" this "truth." But, again, if we leave the door open to that, just what is it that we are leaving the door open to?

I'm not impugning anyone. Maybe you have too many debates going right now as you are attributing an enormous number of assertions to me that I not only have never made here, but have never made in my life. I have said many times that I could be, and am even probably wrong, and that I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

Of course he leaves open the possibility of the big bang being false... it's a theory... I don't have time to go back to philosophy 101 to correct you on the rest of your post. I'm aware you're going to drop a zinger and claim victory in some form or another, and I'm fine with that. Come back once you've learned how to follow a thread of logic and can control your urges to make another's argument for them just to snatch tiny inconsequential wins while totally missing the actual value such conversations can provide, like actually learning something.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not impugning anyone. Maybe you have too many debates going right now as you are attributing an enormous number of assertions to me that I not only have never made here, but have never made in my life.

Read again. I did not say you impugned anyone.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I

Of course he leaves open the possibility of the big bang being false... it's a theory... I don't have time to go back to philosophy 101 to correct you on the rest of your post. I'm aware you're going to drop a zinger and claim victory in some form or another, and I'm fine with that. Come back once you've learned how to follow a thread of logic and can control your urges to make another's argument for them just to snatch tiny inconsequential wins while totally missing the actual value such conversations can provide, like actually learning something.

If you paid attention to what I said and went back to Philosophy 101, you would just agree rather than make snide posts like that.

And talk about having too many threads going to keep people straight, where does you zinger comment come from? Sure, like everyone else here I try my had at the well-crafted zinger now and then, But I never "claim victory" based on a zinger. I do that (when I can) based on my logic and facts. Something you seem to be abandoning with this post.

Apologies for mistaking you for someone who was here to have a good conversation. I'll try to keep in mind that that isn't true so I don't burden you with appeals to reason.

 

[Raglefant]

If you paid attention to what I said and went back to Philosophy 101, you would just agree rather than make snide posts like that.

And talk about having too many threads going to keep people straight, where does you zinger comment come from? Sure, like everyone else here I try my had at the well-crafted zinger now and then, But I never "claim victory" based on a zinger. I do that (when I can) based on my logic and facts. Something you seem to be abandoning with this post.

Apologies for mistaking you for someone who was here to have a good conversation. I'll try to keep in mind that that isn't true so I don't burden you with appeals to reason.

Apologies on the impugning point. Perhaps you should reread my posts in this thread and your assertions now?

Don't step into a pick up basketball game, run with the ball under your arm and jump off a chair to score, and then lecture others on the rules of the game. Yes, it was that bad. Kudos on your zingers and victory though.

 

[strummingram]

Sure, you could take Strum's approach and claim absolute knowledge of something while refusing to say what that something is and impugning the thinking of those who don't also "know" this "truth." But, again, if we leave the door open to that, just what is it that we are leaving the door open to?

I'm not refusing to say what it is at all. You're refusing to accept what I say. If I cannot explain it to your satisfaction, or in a way that allows you to understand it as I do, then it's just a fiction for you. I have no problem with it being a fiction for you.

I'm truly amazed that someone who has lived as long as you have, has never experienced ANYTHING that allows them to experience more than this flesh-and-blood shell. I've even offered you You Tube videos that helps explain it more. You're not going to indulge yourself because you already believe that when your brain ceases to function, all that "you are" is over. That's fine.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What do you want me to explain to you? The reality is, I can't truly "explain it to you." I don't even really need to. Truth be told, you already KNOW IT! It's in you and me and everyone. It's our choice as to how we experience it and identify it. And, we all do it uniquely.

Sure, you could take Strum's approach and claim absolute knowledge of something while refusing to say what that something is...

I'm not refusing to say what it is at all. You're refusing to accept what I say. If I cannot explain it to your satisfaction, or in a way that allows you to understand it as I do, then it's just a fiction for you. I have no problem with it being a fiction for you.

How do you reconcile those 2 quotes?

 

[like-woahh]

Ok Strumm, just describe your DMT experiences with us so we can ascertain where you're bringing this from. Never tried it myself, but what you're saying I've heard verbatim from friends who have.

So either explain that experience or hook us up, because there is absolutely no way we can be on the level without it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ok Strumm, just describe your DMT experiences with us so we can ascertain where you're bringing this from. Never tried it myself, but what you're saying I've heard verbatim from friends who have.

So either explain that experience or hook us up, because there is absolutely no way we can be on the level without it.

DMT isn't nearly as spiritual feeling as MDMA IMO.

 

[Titanhawk2]

My assumption is that he controls heaven and earth and all that those encompass. That is what I've been led to believe.

Is that a bad assumption?

Does he control some things? No things? Only things he wants to?

He gave you free will and sh*t happens

 

[longliveCS40]

He gave you free will and sh*t happens

But for an all powerful good, sh*t doesn't just happen. He either controls everything or he doesn't.

If he doesn't, is it because he can't our because he chooses not to?

If he chooses not to, why and how does he decide who suffers and who doesn't?

And saying "it's all a part of his grand plan" is the ultimate cop out. What part of a grand plan does giving a 6 year old terminal cancer satisfy?

Free will doesn't cover a 6 year old getting cancer. You're saying they wanted cancer or did something to make it happen?