Non-existing objects

[brewer]

---

A mature sane person is one that holds their belief until such time that evidence indicates that the belief may be flawed. Then the mature sane person reassess his belief in light of the evidence and can continue to hold the belief, alter the belief or eliminate the belief.

Do you mean you, as a mature sane person, can accept evidence from sources other than the ones you used trusting lately?
And, among these other sources, could you trust your personal observations and your logical reasoning more than of your trusted sources?

In reality, billions of people prefer to follow some others as good sheep do, so that they can be on the safe side (with the hope they will not be chosen among the sheep that should be slaughtered under one pretext or another).

I mean just what I said. I can consider new evidence and then accept it if it seems trustworthy. My personal observations and reason are compared to the new evidence on a case by case basis, trusted source or not. 
If your talking about the religious sheep and buying the promise of heaven (safe?), I agree. In my view that does not make them correct. I consider them manipulated and deluded.

---

---

bold mine

What do you have that supports this conclusion? I think that many would differ with you. One differing position would be that a living things purpose of existence would be to survive and multiply not caring if it serves.

Thank you for supporting my conclusion. Indeed, the main duty of a living thing is to survive as long as possible and multiply in order to ensure the continuity of life in the world.

I will ask again, what is your evidence that supports your conclusion? I partially supported your conclusion at best. You neglect to consider populations that die by their own hand and cease contributing to the world.

[Whateverist]

Sounds like:

1) you are convinced there is a God whose intention and power account for the universe we inhabit;

2) you believe it is possible to live ones life without studying or even hearing of this God;

3) you think the situation for knowing God and knowing geometry are comparable.


Okay, my order is life as I find it with a side of geometrical 'objects' but no gods, thank you.  What's yours?

Thank you for your interesting notes.
 
Yes, if someone did never feel the need to search for which end purpose he was forced to exist in this life, why should he bother himself by even just believing there is a Will/Power behind his own existence? After all, the instructions about how to play his role in this life are already embedded in his living cells (forming his human living flesh). So he has no choice but following them (though they are very complex in order to give him the feeling he has a free will). He does it with or without his knowledge.  
 
On the other hand, what is the difference in your opinion if I say my computer is made (through many processes) by a certain company and my being is made (also through many processes that needed millions of years) by a certain Will/Power?
 
About Geometry, I meant if someone is not interested in learning Math seriously, the reason won't be because Math has abstract notions but because he doesn't see in it a useful knowledge for his life.
 
So, we may say that typical atheists and the formal theists have no real interest in knowing more than what their human living fleshes may need. To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to. And a formal theist glorifies, when necessary, the god and some Elite (as Pharaohs, Prophets or Messengers for example) who are approved by the authority that organizes the community he belongs to.
 

I can't agree that we have no choice but to follow the role embedded in our nature (my bolded).  At best I think you'll find our nature consists of a constellation of predispositions and an assortment of interests not all of which are even known consciously by us.  These vie with one another chaotically.  Even if one subscribed to a theory of determinism I would think the calculus required to predict how all these become resolved in ones life is beyond anyone's understanding.  Therefore it would be naive to suppose that each action a person takes was ever inevitable from any possible point of view - including a divine one.

Please don't make us guess what your "Will/Power" means. Your original post alluded to a supreme power or deity. Please clarify what you believe in. Or are you taking refuge in ambiguity?

But please tell me first, do you trust or not 'your' personal observations and logical reasoning (to analyse them) more than of anyone else?
 
It happens, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who can 'fully' trust his abilities to discover his 'deep' nature and the world 'as it is' (far from the great speeches and famous stories).
So when I talk to a person I know in advance he will compare what I may say with what his trusted sources used saying on these days. In other words, one of the main differences of a formal theist and a typical atheist is actually the name/kind of the sources/references that should be trusted for knowing the truth(s).
 

Not addressed to me but I can't help but make a plug for self reliance here.  Of course I trust my personal observations and logical reasoning (and intuition for that matter) more than of anyone else.  What choice do I or anyone else have?  If I am incapable of applying my own judgement directly what chance would I have in choosing the correct source of guidance?  Accept no substitutes: we each have a sensory cognitive array on par with anyone else's.  No expert, living or dead, ever started off better equipped than ourselves.  Rather than seek a shortcut by looking over the shoulders of others to crib their answers I suggest we make our own choices.  Right or wrong, we have a better chance of eventually going right when we allow the consequences of our own choices feed back on our own impulses rather than on those that never issued from us in the first place.

---

---

Sounds like:

1) you are convinced there is a God whose intention and power account for the universe we inhabit;

2) you believe it is possible to live ones life without studying or even hearing of this God;

3) you think the situation for knowing God and knowing geometry are comparable.


Okay, my order is life as I find it with a side of geometrical 'objects' but no gods, thank you.  What's yours?

Thank you for your interesting notes.
 
Yes, if someone did never feel the need to search for which end purpose he was forced to exist in this life, why should he bother himself by even just believing there is a Will/Power behind his own existence? After all, the instructions about how to play his role in this life are already embedded in his living cells (forming his human living flesh). So he has no choice but following them (though they are very complex in order to give him the feeling he has a free will). He does it with or without his knowledge.  
 
On the other hand, what is the difference in your opinion if I say my computer is made (through many processes) by a certain company and my being is made (also through many processes that needed millions of years) by a certain Will/Power?
 
About Geometry, I meant if someone is not interested in learning Math seriously, the reason won't be because Math has abstract notions but because he doesn't see in it a useful knowledge for his life.
 

---

So, we may say that typical atheists and the formal theists have no real interest in knowing more than what their human living fleshes may need. To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to.
And a formal theist glorifies, when necessary, the god and some Elite (as Pharaohs, Prophets or Messengers for example) who are approved by the authority that organizes the community he belongs to.
 

In my experience most atheists like myself do not say 'God doesn't exist'.  They merely never get a satisfactory answer to what it is "a god" refers to.  We then go back about our business knowing that in the minds of those who asked, we now meet the description of one who does not believe in 'god'.  But it was never the case that belief was withheld from any actual god.  From a myriad of descriptions given for 'god', not one of one of them could ever be demonstrated.  Your typical atheist is simply someone getting on with their life who has stopped waiting for a coherent answer to his return question "what is a god?"  But apart from the question "do we believe in god X" it would not have come up.

[KerimF]

I propose, as a hypothesis, that Kerim is the perfect antithesis of Minimalist.

You are very close...
One of the axioms I started with (since I was a teen) and I have verified its validation gradually with time could be expressed as (not perfectly, due to the inherent imperfections in man-made languages):

"The Will/Power behind my existence is not offering me a silly game in which there are doors to be opened but have no keys hidden anywhere".

This could be expressed too as:

"The Will/Power behind my existence gave me already (in my being) all necessary tools to find out, if I really want to, the logical answers of all important questions I may need to know about my being and the world as it is (in order to live without any sort of fears and confusions)."

I meant by 'logical answers' the useful answers that should be all based on the same logical reasoning; the one I also used in my scientific studies by which I had the opportunity to become an independent professional designer.

But though the way I live since many decades proved me that this axiom is valid to me, I noticed that, for many reasons, most people in the world cannot believe it and, therefore, cannot apply it, even if they want to, in their life. But, accepting the inverse of this axiom makes life much easier by being a faithful member/follower/believer (if not a master/leader) in a certain well-defined well-organized community (social, sportive, scientific, religious or political). 

In other words, the weakness I was born with as all human babies in the world have to be born with too, is history in my case now. Could you guess it? Well, it is the 'total ignorance'. Fortunately, I had the chance to cure it gradually and reach my (I said my, not of anyone else) relative (not absolute, but relative to me) perfect (up-to-date always) knowledge. Such a knowledge happens to be enough for me because whatever is related to my being (socially, politically and spiritually) is clear to me now. You may say: "But, in this case, your life would be boring" and you will be right if you say it. Yes, from one angle, I see the world as if it is a movie that I already watched, so its various events can't surprise me anymore.

---

---

Do you mean you, as a mature sane person, can accept evidence from sources other than the ones you used trusting lately?
And, among these other sources, could you trust your personal observations and your logical reasoning more than of your trusted sources?

In reality, billions of people prefer to follow some others as good sheep do, so that they can be on the safe side (with the hope they will not be chosen among the sheep that should be slaughtered under one pretext or another).

I mean just what I said. I can consider new evidence and then accept it if it seems trustworthy. My personal observations and reason are compared to the new evidence on a case by case basis, trusted source or not. 
If your talking about the religious sheep and buying the promise of heaven (safe?), I agree. In my view that does not make them correct. I consider them manipulated and deluded.

I am afraid I met many people who are also happy in following (believing in), as good sheep do, non-religious Elite who are privileged to address the world's masses in the name of Science and earthly Promises/Ideals. These Elite are actually complementing the role of the various religious Elite since many centuries.

[Cyberman]

To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to.

Are you aware of the difference between "I believe X doesn't exist" and "I don't believe X exists"? Because it's fundamental to the argument.

[KerimF]

---

Thank you for supporting my conclusion. Indeed, the main duty of a living thing is to survive as long as possible and multiply in order to ensure the continuity of life in the world.

I will ask again, what is your evidence that supports your conclusion? I partially supported your conclusion at best. You neglect to consider populations that die by their own hand and cease contributing to the world.

I am afraid that the rules of the human jungle are much like the rules of the other ones.
One of these rules (that you know very well) is "Survival of the Fittest". So, in general, when someone decides to kill himself he simply obeys this rules, with or without his knowledge; unless he does it to help some others to survive.

I admit that writing a thick book may be needed to cover/explore how life in the world could be served; at least by following the instructions that are embedded in the human living fleshes.

If you are curious to know more details about this, just look around you and see what every person does and what he dreams to do. Of course, it may be hard for you to meet people whose role is creating/preparing world wars by using very clever plans (while they are behind the scenes and glorified as being men of peace). I mentioned 'wars' because the dangers of wars contribute a lot in the evolution of the human brain; besides some other positive side effects.

---

To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to.

Are you aware of the difference between "I believe X doesn't exist" and "I don't believe X exists"? Because it's fundamental to the argument.

Thank you for your interesting hint.
Would you please clarify the difference, the way you see in the least. Thank you.

[Cyberman]

Actually I would be more interested in your understanding of it.

[Astonished]

To become a professional designer (in electronics) I had to accept notions of non-existing objects.

The geometrical dot is a simple example. By definition, it has no dimensions. But the entire Geometry is based on it; a non-existing object.
Also in geometry, I didn’t mind accepting unreachable objects as well, as the intersection of two parallels at infinity.
And, although the square root of the algebraic number (-1) doesn’t exit, it was given a name/symbol as (i) or (j) in order to use it and simply the solution of many existing real problems.
 
But on the other hand, millions of people on earth live normally without the need to learn, for example, Math and accept (work with) its various definitions of non-existing and unreachable objects.
 
So, obviously, if someone didn’t feel the need to know anything about the Will/Power behind his existence, it is better for him not to think about it in the first place; as all pre-programmed living things do. In fact, the instructions of the Will/Power which is behind the creation of the universe are embedded, since always, in every living cell (as DNA for example). In other words, those who are born of the flesh only can know, by themselves, how to serve the world as they are supposed to do.
 
...

Before I go on, I wish I can hear some serious negative comments because such replies help me update my personal set of knowledge, most of the time. Thank you in advance.
 
Kerim

If I could understand what the fuck you were trying to say I'd probably have some negative comments. But I'll just go by your geometry example and give the usual anti-theist spiel. Yes, all of those things are nonexistent objects (hell, NUMBERS are nonexistent objects) but the difference between math and deities is that one of them has practical application and utility in life and the others do not and in fact only impede it at every turn.

[KerimF]

Thank you for your interesting notes.
 
Yes, if someone did never feel the need to search for which end purpose he was forced to exist in this life, why should he bother himself by even just believing there is a Will/Power behind his own existence? After all, the instructions about how to play his role in this life are already embedded in his living cells (forming his human living flesh). So he has no choice but following them (though they are very complex in order to give him the feeling he has a free will). He does it with or without his knowledge.  
 
On the other hand, what is the difference in your opinion if I say my computer is made (through many processes) by a certain company and my being is made (also through many processes that needed millions of years) by a certain Will/Power?
 
About Geometry, I meant if someone is not interested in learning Math seriously, the reason won't be because Math has abstract notions but because he doesn't see in it a useful knowledge for his life.
 
So, we may say that typical atheists and the formal theists have no real interest in knowing more than what their human living fleshes may need. To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to. And a formal theist glorifies, when necessary, the god and some Elite (as Pharaohs, Prophets or Messengers for example) who are approved by the authority that organizes the community he belongs to.
 

I can't agree that we have no choice but to follow the role embedded in our nature (my bolded).  At best I think you'll find our nature consists of a constellation of predispositions and an assortment of interests not all of which are even known consciously by us.  These vie with one another chaotically.  Even if one subscribed to a theory of determinism I would think the calculus required to predict how all these become resolved in ones life is beyond anyone's understanding.  Therefore it would be naive to suppose that each action a person takes was ever inevitable from any possible point of view - including a divine one.

May I say that one of the embedded subroutines that are related to our intellectual immunity system let us feel the need to disagree, as a first reaction, anytime we hear something not clear enough.
On the other hand, if these instructions are chaotic, we won't have the chance to witness the 'power' of propaganda over billions on people in the world, on theses days. The powerful/rich families (power and money are twins who can both survive for one person if they are of the same level only) around the world have all the necessary means to reach almost every house on the planet (if not beyond it ). Their universal/global propaganda would have no serious effects on their audience if they are not served by professional researchers of these embedded instructions; in order to predict in advance the various reactions of their victims (propaganda's victims). It would be off topic if I try elaborating more this point from this angle.

[Whateverist]

I can't agree that we have no choice but to follow the role embedded in our nature (my bolded).  At best I think you'll find our nature consists of a constellation of predispositions and an assortment of interests not all of which are even known consciously by us.  These vie with one another chaotically.  Even if one subscribed to a theory of determinism I would think the calculus required to predict how all these become resolved in ones life is beyond anyone's understanding.  Therefore it would be naive to suppose that each action a person takes was ever inevitable from any possible point of view - including a divine one.

May I say that one of the embedded subroutines that are related to our intellectual immunity system let us feel the need to disagree, as a first reaction, anytime we hear something not clear enough.

On the other hand, if these instructions are chaotic, we won't have the chance to witness the 'power' of propaganda over billions on people in the world, on theses days. The powerful/rich families (power and money are twins who can both survive for one person if they are of the same level only) around the world have all the necessary means to reach almost every house on the planet (if not beyond it ). Their universal/global propaganda would have no serious effects on their audience if they are not served by professional researchers of these embedded instructions; in order to predict in advance the various reactions of their victims (propaganda's victims). It would be off topic if I try elaborating more this point from this angle.

Thanks, that (my bolded) does help.  Now I think I see why you have trouble seeing, or at least acknowledging, areas of agreement.  

But why do you think our deep determinants must be orderly to be exploited?  Also, I would say the more we assume and expect orderliness the more easily exploited we become.  Those seeking to shape public opinion prey on assumptions like that.  It is why Trump and his ilk always claim every problem has an easy solution.  At least until they actually win power and then .. who knew it could be so complicated?

[KerimF]

---

Thank you for your interesting notes.
 
Yes, if someone did never feel the need to search for which end purpose he was forced to exist in this life, why should he bother himself by even just believing there is a Will/Power behind his own existence? After all, the instructions about how to play his role in this life are already embedded in his living cells (forming his human living flesh). So he has no choice but following them (though they are very complex in order to give him the feeling he has a free will). He does it with or without his knowledge.  
 
On the other hand, what is the difference in your opinion if I say my computer is made (through many processes) by a certain company and my being is made (also through many processes that needed millions of years) by a certain Will/Power?
 
About Geometry, I meant if someone is not interested in learning Math seriously, the reason won't be because Math has abstract notions but because he doesn't see in it a useful knowledge for his life.
 
So, we may say that typical atheists and the formal theists have no real interest in knowing more than what their human living fleshes may need. To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to. And a formal theist glorifies, when necessary, the god and some Elite (as Pharaohs, Prophets or Messengers for example) who are approved by the authority that organizes the community he belongs to.

---

 

---

I can't agree that we have no choice but to follow the role embedded in our nature (my bolded).  At best I think you'll find our nature consists of a constellation of predispositions and an assortment of interests not all of which are even known consciously by us.  These vie with one another chaotically.  Even if one subscribed to a theory of determinism I would think the calculus required to predict how all these become resolved in ones life is beyond anyone's understanding.  Therefore it would be naive to suppose that each action a person takes was ever inevitable from any possible point of view - including a divine one.

---

But please tell me first, do you trust or not 'your' personal observations and logical reasoning (to analyse them) more than of anyone else?
 
It happens, I didn't meet yet a mature sane person who can 'fully' trust his abilities to discover his 'deep' nature and the world 'as it is' (far from the great speeches and famous stories).
So when I talk to a person I know in advance he will compare what I may say with what his trusted sources used saying on these days. In other words, one of the main differences of a formal theist and a typical atheist is actually the name/kind of the sources/references that should be trusted for knowing the truth(s).
 

Not addressed to me but I can't help but make a plug for self reliance here.  Of course I trust my personal observations and logical reasoning (and intuition for that matter) more than of anyone else.  What choice do I or anyone else have?  If I am incapable of applying my own judgement directly what chance would I have in choosing the correct source of guidance?  Accept no substitutes: we each have a sensory cognitive array on par with anyone else's.  No expert, living or dead, ever started off better equipped than ourselves.  Rather than seek a shortcut by looking over the shoulders of others to crib their answers I suggest we make our own choices.  Right or wrong, we have a better chance of eventually going right when we allow the consequences of our own choices feed back on our own impulses rather than on those that never issued from us in the first place.

---

---

Thank you for your interesting notes.
 
Yes, if someone did never feel the need to search for which end purpose he was forced to exist in this life, why should he bother himself by even just believing there is a Will/Power behind his own existence? After all, the instructions about how to play his role in this life are already embedded in his living cells (forming his human living flesh). So he has no choice but following them (though they are very complex in order to give him the feeling he has a free will). He does it with or without his knowledge.  
 
On the other hand, what is the difference in your opinion if I say my computer is made (through many processes) by a certain company and my being is made (also through many processes that needed millions of years) by a certain Will/Power?
 
About Geometry, I meant if someone is not interested in learning Math seriously, the reason won't be because Math has abstract notions but because he doesn't see in it a useful knowledge for his life.
 

So, we may say that typical atheists and the formal theists have no real interest in knowing more than what their human living fleshes may need. To express this satisfaction, a typical atheist says: 'God doesn't exist'... no matter what the word 'god' may refer to.
And a formal theist glorifies, when necessary, the god and some Elite (as Pharaohs, Prophets or Messengers for example) who are approved by the authority that organizes the community he belongs to.

---

 

---

In my experience most atheists like myself do not say 'God doesn't exist'.  They merely never get a satisfactory answer to what it is "a god" refers to.  We then go back about our business knowing that in the minds of those who asked, we now meet the description of one who does not believe in 'god'.  But it was never the case that belief was withheld from any actual god.  From a myriad of descriptions given for 'god', not one of one of them could ever be demonstrated.  Your typical atheist is simply someone getting on with their life who has stopped waiting for a coherent answer to his return question "what is a god?"  But apart from the question "do we believe in god X" it would not have come up.

---

You did well.
And you are the first person I met on the internet (among theists and atheists) who says clearly that he doesn't have any Elite (and books/references written by some Elite) to trust more than he trusts himself.

For instance, is it the first time you write something like this (in atheistforums in the least; after being a member since many years)?