My beliefs

[mudbuck]

I came up with this a long time ago. It's a step-by-step approach to explain life.
___________

Step 1: Definition of the Universe

First, let's define the universe, or, at least the universe that we know of.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

I disagree.

[Mackay]

I do not understand the part about the CPU ceasing to function and then immediately vaulting through time and space in order to begin a new life. Your theory does not appear to allow for consciousness to exist outside of one individual lifespan, and I would include in that the infinitesimal amount of time spent switching from one life to another. Could you explain this more clearly?

Three more questions.
What do you mean by "benefit"?
Does this system allow for good and evil, or are you a moral relativist?
Could you please be a little less inflammatory toward those of us with faith?

[mudbuck]

I do not understand the part about the CPU ceasing to function and then immediately vaulting through time and space in order to begin a new life. Your theory does not appear to allow for consciousness to exist outside of one individual lifespan, and I would include in that the infinitesimal amount of time spent switching from one life to another. Could you explain this more clearly?

You simply don't experience anything after death. "Consciousness" is part of the brain. When you die, your brain stops functioning, and therefore you don't notice anything until you begin another life. Immediately is used since the jump occurs outside of the boundaries of time, so it really can't have any value in time.

Think of it this way: When you die, you go into a dreamless sleep, and when you wake up, you begin a new life. You don't experience the time in between as hours of boring darkness. You can't count the time between when you fall alseep and when you wake up without the aid of a clock, which such a clock for life does not exist.

What do you mean by "benefit"?

Other beings should feel happy, simply put. Whatever makes the most people "happy" and not sad should be used, SINCE YOU WILL EXPERIENCE THE HAPPY TIMES MORE THAN THE SAD TIMES.

Does this system allow for good and evil, or are you a moral relativist?

"Good and evil" can be based simply on the Golden rule: Do unto other as you would do onto yourself.

Except, now it has a literal meaning.

Say you severely injure five thousand people. Now, you have five thousand lives that have to live a life in pain and misery because of that one act. However, if you give a thoughtful present to five thousand kids during their special holiday, then you have five thousand lives which will experience joy when opening that present.

See, for every action you do, you'll either be rewarded or punished by yourself. Simple as that.

Could you please be a little less inflammatory toward those of us with faith?

I was? Hmmm. I admit I'm a bit of a religious enthusiast myself for my beliefs. However, I can't lie. I firmly feel that I am right, that I have found a solid proof and answer. Sorry if it feels pushy, but this does squarely fall where I said that displeasure can cause much more pleasure later on. A simple investment where you could believe what I'm saying could save humanity from religious conflict. If a unifying theory takes place, then there would be less conflict.

And remember, just because your parents said a religion is true doesn't mean it's true. I wish there was a nicer way to put this, but your parents had placed religion during your developing years. This creates a mindset that is hard to remove later on in life. I even have this problem.

[Mackay]

[The Ragin' South Asian]

You're obviously stuck on your parent's beliefs still. Don't feel bad, even Mudbuck has that problem!

[Mackay]

Sigh. That was a bit mean of me.

Mudbuck, if you sincerely do not realise you are being inflammatory, I don't know what to say. You have said that believing in a God or gods is primitive. You have accused every GLer with any faith of putting no thought into it themselves, but rather following their society or their parents and being blindly led. You have isolated yourself with your words as being the only person with a worthy, believable or logical set of beliefs. This is sheer arrogance and blatant flamebait. Seriously.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

Seriously Mackay, your post smacks of basing your life on a past too far and too unstable to rely on. You and your primitive explainations. You probably also use primitive ideas like the wheel and eating meat. Frodo worshipper.

[Jedo the Jedi]

Frodo worshipper. That's a good one.

mudbuck, I would like to ask you where the Goldern Rule came from? Obviously, it had to come from somewhere.

[Mackay]

Oh, another question: You were not clear on the number of actual consciousnesses in existence. Is everyone a single consciousness living multiple lives simultaneously? (as allowed for by your time travel stuff) Or are there merely a discrete number? Is it possible for the same consciousness to coexist with itself simultaneously in time?

If offered the choice between doing something which is good for you but bad for someone else, or what is bad for you and good for someone else, which self do you indulge?

[mudbuck]

I understood this part. I am asking how the consciousness itself is able to exist outside of a brain which is dead (rock-like?) in order to be able to transfer itself into another being. You indicate that it does exist outside, by not limiting each consciousness to one body, but rather to a series thereof. What I am asking is, is consciousness therefore larger than a single existence, and if so how do you recognise this without acknowledging a supernatural?

Wrong. Consciousness can't exist outside death. It is not what is being transfered from life to life. You are still thinking too much about the "soul." See it as this: Your death has freed your restrictions. You are once again the Universe, but it has no CPU. You can't be the Universe because of that, so once again you experience life through a portion of the Universe, called the body. That existance has a different mind, but a mind nevertheless.

...and I see you're thinking that each series is limited to a few individuals. No. It links all individuals, whether dogs, monkeys, cats, humans, horses, or any other animal that can think.

Again I appear not to have asked clearly. Do you believe in "good" and "evil", regardless of its effects on others? For instance, do you believe that the act of murder, etc, is inherently worse than an act of charity? Or, for something a little less reliant on effect on others, is lying to someone to preserve their feelings worse than telling the truth and hurting them, provided that withholding the truth would have no adverse consequences whatsoever?

It matters how all of the people involved think, but some of them are obvious.

Murder is the cutting off of a life. Definately bad. For each murder you have to live through a painful death.

Charity is good if it is generous, but not if it leaves the impression that "I don't care, I'm just doing this because I'm have to."

Lying to others for minor things, such as wearing bad clothing, is okay. However, there are times where the style is really bad, and you have to comment about it politely to prevent him or her from looking like a complete fool. She might embarass herself. Say, "That does look good, but I think you could just improve it by..." Then again, the people that see her might be amused, and that is a good thing, but bear in mind that the cost of having those people amused is to have one person devestated.

It is a complicated balance. You must consider much about which is heavier in the situation, bad or good?

I would like to see your "proof"...

Scroll up to the top of the page. You will see a step-by-step showing how I came up with this theory.

Uh... my faith is completely different from that which is held by either of my parents who, by the way, have different beliefs themselves. I also spent several years as an atheist before deciding that *gasp* the existence of a God seemed more logical! Several years after that I became a Christian. So please. Do not patronise me, or any of the other believers on this site.

However, there are too many that do in today's society. So bear in mind that you are excluded, and likely others on this site as well. I'm just asking of the few to take time to find out what seems most logical to them. Which theory makes most sense to them.

Mudbuck, if you sincerely do not realise you are being inflammatory, I don't know what to say. You have said that believing in a God or gods is primitive. You have accused every GLer with any faith of putting no thought into it themselves, but rather following their society or their parents and being blindly led. You have isolated yourself with your words as being the only person with a worthy, believable or logical set of beliefs. This is sheer arrogance and blatant flamebait. Seriously.

Wrong choice of words. Ancient. These are ancient beliefs. "Primitive" induced a feeling of lack of intellegence, and that's not what I meant. The ancients made educated guesses about life using what they had at hand. They didn't have a grasp on the Universe, or matter, or their own bodies, even. It is important, though, that we continue on with trying to explain why.

...and again. I didn't point a finger at everyone else in this site. I was provoking those who had their old religion and were faltering on it even. They should explore what they believe.

mudbuck, I would like to ask you where the Goldern Rule came from? Obviously, it had to come from somewhere.

It comes from almost all major religions. You will find the Golden Rule from Judism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jebbodiah's Witnesses, and also some lesser religions.

Oh, another question: You were not clear on the number of actual consciousnesses in existence. Is everyone a single consciousness living multiple lives simultaneously? (as allowed for by your time travel stuff) Or are there merely a discrete number? Is it possible for the same consciousness to coexist with itself simultaneously in time?

There is no consciousness after death as explained above.

Right now, you have either lived or going to live everybody else's lives.

You cannot live more than one life at once. It is impossible by nature of the brain. The brain cannot link to other brains like a wireless network. Each one is independent. There is no wireless network in the spiritual world, which does not exist either.

If offered the choice between doing something which is good for you but bad for someone else, or what is bad for you and good for someone else, which self do you indulge?

It really matter upon the thinkings of the people and the importance of the people. Which will benefit more? Which will lose less?

Say you are on a deserted island waiting for help with fresh water but no edible food. You have only one other person with you. You are both going to die of starvation soon. There are three things that can happen. Both of you die of starvation, with the displeasure of starving in your stomache to death. You will eat the other person. Or, the other person will eat you. What situation has the greatest ratio of good to bad? Which person is important enough to sacrafice the other to? Who is willing to be sacrificed? Who is willing to eat the other? Or should you live until the end in peace? Or perhaps both sides will benefit. One will die and will no longer have to feel hunger, and one will live, feeling satisfied.

It truly matters upon the people involved. What outweighs the other in the current situation.

[Ctorj]

There is something which you did not take into account. These "ancient" religions that people believe in today...what about the miracles that happen these days that people pray to God or go to various places in the world where miracles are a common occurence? What is your explanation for those? I know many miracles because a handful have happnened to members of my own family as well as a couple to trusted frineds. These miracles go as "unexplained" to many in the medical community.

I'm curious as to what is your take on this based on your belief system.
_________________
"Love is the absolute expression of the human perfection" -Me!

Created by MyFitnessPal.com

[mudbuck]

There is something which you did not take into account. These "ancient" religions that people believe in today...what about the miracles that happen these days that people pray to God or go to various places in the world where miracles are a common occurence? What is your explanation for those? I know many miracles because a handful have happnened to members of my own family as well as a couple to trusted frineds. These miracles go as "unexplained" to many in the medical community.

Yes, but how many people have prayed to their God and did get what they wanted? Many. It's just the media coverage. We see that someone had died, but rarely do we see anyone blaming God. However, when someone doesn't die, they say it's a miracle. And some of these miracles could be urban legends or rumors that have been so widespread that they are considered fact.

A miracle is essentially something that is good but very unlikely to happen. It is not a miracle you aced the test. You had the mentality and skill to pass that test. It is a miracle that someone from the vegetative state has returned, but I don't believe that it is an act of God. That person is just damn lucky.

[Ctorj]

What about when people get cured of cancer? And please elaborate on what luck is considered in your definition.
_________________
"Love is the absolute expression of the human perfection" -Me!

Created by MyFitnessPal.com

[GH]

So, mudbuck, your claim is essentially that we're simply bundles of stimulus receptors with no free will, trapped in a never-ending sequence of relative perceptions of the universal experience.

[RSA]

Claim? With so much conjecture proof the back it up, I'd call it fact.

[Jedo the Jedi]

In science, I believe they would call this a theory. However, I believe things have to be tested and verified by many people of the scientific community before that can even happen. Of course, science and religion aren't really mixed, so I don't really know what to call this.

[mudbuck]

What about when people get cured of cancer? And please elaborate on what luck is considered in your definition.

It matters how bad the cancer is. And your definition of "cure." I have never seen the word "cure" use with surgical means. If fact, there is no cure for cancer... yet.

The probability of someone living is determined by how early is it found, the skill of the doctors, and the size and threat of the tumor. It really is determined by these factors whether the cancer is sucessfully removed or if some was left in the body.

I have, so far, never heard of any cancer suddenly disappearing.

So, mudbuck, your claim is essentially that we're simply bundles of stimulus receptors with no free will, trapped in a never-ending sequence of relative perceptions of the universal experience.

Yes, but no. We can't determine this future, and thus we are in the same situation as if we had choice.

[GH]

[Jedo the Jedi]

Apparently, there is no free choice somewhere down the line because if we live everyone else's live at some point, we have to follow what they did when they were in control of that consciousness. Or am I missing something?

[The Ragin' South Asian]

Yes

[Jedo the Jedi]

Thanks for the answer, mudbuck-using-RSA's-name.

[doormouse11]

[mudbuck]

I can't grasp this idea. Surely someone else has already experienced the relative perception that I'm having now. It can't change. So I must have no affect on it, regardless of what I do. I'm bound to experience it the same way. That means no free will. I just didn't realize it before I experienced your "proof" above. Now the rest of this relative perception seems futile. I'm glad I get to reset my consciousness before I start the next one.

Yes. Our lives are predetermined. However, we do not know what will happen. So we are given an illusion of free choice. You can either indulge in the illusion and go on with life, or you can indulge in the fact our lives are determined by fate, and pretty much not accomplish anything.

Your post made me wonder - Does your theory imply that the average life has slightly more positive experiences than negative?

There's no way in calculating that. Look all around the world. You'll see first, second, and third world countries all with different values and lifestyles. Which of these people are content with their miserable lifes and who think they don't have enough? How many times is a person happy and sad throughout his or her life? And what about the other animals? How do they feel?

[tigerbalm]

[Ctorj]

[extro...]

[mudbuck]

In "Step 2" you say there is no soul, no identity or being beyond the physical. But right here you decide that life exists beyond the physical. You declare that a being shares the experiences of more than one physical body, through non-physical means.

You cannot have it both ways.

Further, you offer no reason, specious or otherwise why this should be the case. Pure materialism makes far more sense. Why would you bother guessing at this kind of continuity?

My theory is pure materialism. Life does not extend beyond the physical! You've misread. Lives are just a complex system of chemical exchange. The mind is enabled through this complex system, since the mind is complex itself. However, you must remember that the body is only physical, and so is the universe. Every living thing is a unit of the universe, so when a living thing dies, this complex system no longer works. All lives right are living at the time, it's just the fact that physics prevents us from sharing thoughts.

I'm not saying that there is any spirit that flows, or any lines that connect lives from one-another. Rather, it is a property of the universe.

You give no reason why there is no heaven or hell beyond simply declaring it right here. Further, their nonexistence does not indicate whether a God exists or not. Your system does not at any point exclude a God.

Wrong again. I said two things: there is no such thing as the soul, and "rebirth" takes place. Heaven and hell were the ideas of the afterlife used by the ancients who thought that the mind and body are seperate. However, mind is part of the body, as evident from the brain. It's the brain that produces thoughts, not some spirit from the outside controling your body. Since there are no spirits created from death, then there is no need for heaven and hell. Everything about the afterlife and the goal of humanity are then wrongly concepted in these religious texts.

I see your point here, but I don't think you've been particularly rigorous. Why should I care what I will experience in another life? As far as your system is materialist, my memories will not survive my CPU, and thus cannot be detrimental to the being "after" me in the cycle.

You again miss the point. Your "argument" uses two unrelated arguments! You are saying that everything in this life will be gone (which is true), so why care about what happens in the next life? Look, is you live your life to make others happy, then you live the next life you influence with those happy moments, not remembering that you've done it in the past life. As you had said, the memories cannot survive death, so the next life will have a completely different way of thinking. Including religion, if that next life is human.

This is simply not accurate. Many of the major religions were based on of "factual first-hand experience", and none of the major religions began as stories told to children.

Yes they do. Look at Genesis in the Bible. Adam and Eve were said to be the first humans on Earth. While this could happen, there are many other points that are hard to explain. How do we know what happened before Adam and Eve were created? Who found out how the Earth was formed. And better yet, how could history preserve itself in such a way that the beginning of humanity is accurately recorded? The earliest records of a writing system was Mesopotamia, 8000 years ago, and those writings were nothing more than charts and records of the present day. The next earliest evidence of writing was 4000 years after that. History can't preserve itself that well through family legends.

Also, was Adam and Eve even intended for Judism? Or was it just a popular story that got so widespread that it was thought of as true?

You declare he worked no miracles because...?

The miracles are farfetched and outlandish. Many of them can't be done even at the rarest chance. The only support for these miracles is that he had the power of the Christian God with him. The only support.

His miracles could had easily been rumors from his followers spread to people who didn't know Jesus very well. The people they talked to were either convinced or distgusted at the outlandish story. However, when they came to socialize and the subject came up, the story was either spread to another individual who didn't know about the rumors or reenforced when both sides had the same rumor to tell and all the fact they heard of lined up. Soon, the "miracles" were thought of as fact. This trend is present even in today's society, with the media to guide us.

You declare he was lying because...?

That was an either/or statement. I was telling of the possibilities that the facts provoked. Since he was alone in a cave everytime the angel appeared to him, he could either be lying of the whole experience, wanting people to follow him, or he could simply be a madman, declairing what was a figment of his imagination as truth.

Also, if you are not Muslim, I would suspect you would have the same reasons against Muhummad Ali. Otherwise, why aren't you Muslim if you don't argue against such heresay?

Finally, as mentioned, you are far, Far, FAR away from anything approaching any kind of proof. Not only are your axioms arbitrary, but the conclusions you reach are not developed from them (except in the cases when your axioms are your conclusions, which is problematic for any number of reasons.

Looking at how uneducated each one of your previous arguments were, I doubt you have any authority to demote my reasoning.

It happens ALL the time. Read any article about people who have visited sites such as Fatima or Lourds. Here's another example: My mom. When? Just last week. Cancerous lump in her breast just recently discovered. I asked her to pray to St. Agatha (patron saint for breast cancer) because she doesn't really pray. She did a novena (9 times a day for 9 days) and at the end went back to the hospital for more testing. The lump had completely disappeared and the doctors did not know what to say. My mom said they were stammering. Another one: my daughter. A painful cist on her spinal cord that could not be removed thru surgery due to its location. A little dirt from Fatima combined with holy water was applied to her back every day for a year and the cist disappeared. This is not normal for the kind of cist she had.

I'm very surprised you have never heard of miracles. You must be living under a rock or something! They happen quite often. Ecstatic Happiness

Many people don't know that the immune system has immunity against CERTAIN cancers. I am guessing that the cancer was one of those cancers.

Cist? Oh, cyst. Well, if what you were say is educated enough by the opinions of doctors, then still there are reasons. Your daughter might had some immune responce to the cyst, and it could had taken long to heal. Also, you say it isn't normal for the type of cyst to disappear, but can it happen? Yes! That means that it is a rare, but natural, occurance.

There are reasons for every miracle. Some of them just haven't been explained yet!

(I do question your thinking when mixing holy water with dirt.)

Is consciousness also an illusion? Does it serve any purpose?

The consciousness is the illusion percieved by the complicated chemical system that makes you. Consciousness serves whatever purpose you make for it.

If a central processing unit is complicated enough to produce all the myriad responses and actions that a human produces, and does this using ordinary matter obeying ordinary laws of physics, do we conclude that it has experiences like a human does - that, for instance, it sees the color green like a human does?

Only if it's able to percieve green. A CPU must be complex enough that it has thoughts and not just instinct. Otherwise, the illusion of consciousness cannot exist.

If I hook a video camera to a PC, I can make it speak the colors it "sees". Would you say it has experiences of those colors? If not (I'd say not), what does such a system need to do to convince you it has such experiences? If so, is there any system that does not have experiences?

I doubt that your video camera is mechanically complex enough to understand what it is seeing. The video camera does not interact with anything, but rather you interact with it and the PC at the same time. I would say that the system would have to interact with the color green more deeply for the level that the mechanical complexity required.

Using movies as an example, AI definately shows the level of life. Sunny from I, Robot also qualifies, but the other robots are rather primitive in thinking, but I would still say they live. In the Matrix and Terminator movies, it is suggested that the machines have the complexity needed for complex thinking, and they may, but it is hard to tell due to the command-like nature of the robots.

[tigerbalm]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

[mudbuck]

What no longer works? Gravity is not broken when a man dies. Nor is the strong nuclear force. You say my thoughts are having some impact upon the universe beyond how they make me physically act. This is not materialism. Further, the "rebirth" you keep mentioning is absolutely not materialism. I cannot see how that is unclear to you.

Wrong. The body is not the property of physics. The process is the property. The body may die, but the process won't.

Also, it's rebirth in the literal sense. You are born again. Simple as that.

You keep on getting confused on my theory. It is completely material. There is no inner force of the body. It's just organs and such. The illusion of life is produced by the body, but it means NOTHING when you die. The body, being made of matter, is the same as everything else in the Universe. You are always part of the Universe. That doesn't change. The illusion of life is limited, though, by physical forces. The end of one illusion allows another to take place.

What "the ancients" thought or did has no relationship with whether or not the existence of a Heaven or Hell demonstrates whether there is a God. You declared there is no H&H, and therefore no God. I disagreed. I notice you didn't actually respond to this at all. Every conclusion you are making is not a conclusion, but rather a presupposition.

That's NOT what I based my conclusion on! You are jumping all around in what I'm saying. Read top to bottom and don't get the facts mixed up!

Erhem... I said that since there is no heaven and hell, the RELIGIONS are fundamentally wrong. I know there are supposedly gods who control realms not conflicting with my theory.

I BASE my atheism upon the fact that every region had invented their own god or set of gods. Since all of them have different gods, then I can infer that they made all of their gods up through deductive reasoning.

I did not miss the point. You did. I'll repeat: Why should I care about making my next life happy? I (in this life) do not experience that happiness. I (in that next life) will not regret any action I (in this life) takes, because I will not remember it. Perhaps you could answer me instead of declaring that I'm misunderstanding something?

If you do inflicted pain upon yourself during this life, then you live with that pain this life. If you inflict pain upon OTHERS, then you will have to live through that pain, suffering, and agony in how many lifes you had inflicted pain upon. DO YOU WANT TO BE CRIPPLED IN FIFTY LIVES BECAUSE YOU DETONATED A BOMB?! I DON'T THINK SO!

The same is true with happiness. You WANT happiness. If you give others happiness in ONE life, then you'll be happy in MORE THAN ONE life.

Who cares what happened before Adam and Eve? Who cares about how the Earth was formed? Who cares if the beginning of humanity was "accurately recorded?" Those are questions for Science, not Religion.

Neither Judaism nor Christianity are "based on" the Genesis story. Judaism is based on the teachings of Moses and Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus (and Paul). Likewise, Islam is based on the teachings of Muhammed, and Buddhism on those of Siddhartha.

However, the entire beginnings of some religious books are like this. Almost all of the old testament is like this, and I believe all of Judism is like this, including Moses. Should I ignore all of this crap that was included for me to become a holy one? Then why include it in the first place?

The miracles are farfetched and outlandish only because you have decided that they are. You declare that something is impossible, and conclude that it is therefore impossible. You have still given no reason whatsoever why there cannot be miracles other than you just plain don't think there are.

If I did all of those miracles right now, would you considered them farfetched and outlandish?

If those miracles are indeed possible, do them now for me to prove it.

There can be miracles. I just don't believe the ones of Jesus.

The miracles weren't spread as "rumors." Jesus' followers came right out and declared that they'd happened. Implying that they were secretive and methodical about it is just silly. And... again you have not answered. You decide that Jesus' followers were lying about miracles simply because you think miracles don't happen.

Miracles DO happen. Haven't you been reading my responces to people other than yourself?

And how do you know that the followers WEREN'T as I said them to be? Are you even sure that they came right out and declared? Or did they included that, in hopes to take down the Roman Empire? You are at equals with me in this argument, except I have based my argument on what reasonably could happen. You have based your argument on history of what had happened during that time, meaning you have trusted yourself upon unlikely events written upon ever-unstable recordings.

Anyone could have been lying about anything. Being alone in a cave does not make you a liar. Have you ever been alone? Ever? Does that make you a liar? Yet again, you declare he was mistaken for no other reason than your feeling that angels don't exist.

First of all, why are you ignoring the fact that I also think he could be a madman and attacking me upon the other?

Secondly, everyone lies sometime or other. However, if he was he was lying to gain popularity. If he was, his lies had lead to the creation of another religion, for better or for worse. You decide.

I'm am not denying that the Koran is based upon Muhummad's words, but rather the words aren't the wisest to follow. His followers are putting their trust upon what a man said he did. I do not believe him because I do not trust him if he was visited by angels. Not that you should not believe in him, but that I don't. I'm proving my own atheism, right?

And before you dare, don't try to point that argument at me to prove that you don't need to trust in anyone. I'm basing this upon the situations he said he had been in. I can mostly trust others who said they did something. However, his tales are too outlandish for me to believe.

Also, don't point that argument at me. Putting your trust upon what someone for what he or she done is different from putting your trust upon what someone thinks. This theory is the type of thinking that no one has a reason to lie for.

Whether or not I am Muslim (and I am not) is completely irrelevant. We are discussing the system you have developed, specifically that you are not offering any reasons why your system is better or more logical than other systems (which you are declaring based on deliberate lies or madness just because you feel like it).

For the record, though. I do not believe Muhammed was lying or mad, unless you use very loose definitions for the words.

I'll let you think what you think. However, you are arguing against my thoughts against Muhammed when you have your own thoughts against Muhammed. You are on my side of the argument yet you're attacking me. Please share them with me. I'm interested to know. Really.

I am having trouble not responding to this with vicious sarcasm and personal attack of my own. Nothing I have said so far is uneducated, and I am not making arguments. Reasoning is starting with certain assumptions and developing conclusions from them. You have made a lot of assumptions and are using them as your conclusions. That is not reasoning, and I am simply pointing that out.

As to my "authority" for "demoting" your reasoning... I claim no authority of any kind. You threw your system out in the open, presumably for discussion. I am discussing it. If you are actually interested in truth, you should consider my questions and observations, actually interact with them, instead of dismissing them simply because you seem unable to understand them.

You say this thread is for my theory, yet you're attacking my atheism more than my theory. The atheism part was thrown in as a bonus, showing the detail of why I believe in no god. However, my showcase is about my theory. From now on, I'm refusing to answer anything against my atheism.

Also, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? With the way your arguments are structured, it seems you are poking me and hoping you will get a hole. Everything you have thrown at me so far appears to be underdeveloped.

I have the right at anytime to remain silent to you, and I will when my tolerance for such babble runs out. And it will if you continue attacking me with such mediocre responses.

[mudbuck]

It doesn't seem to explain anything, as far as I can see. Furthermore, it seems completely contrived, unsubstantiated and shallow. Well, you asked for opinions.

Oh well. I guess it will not make sense to you.

Proof of what? And answer to what? Proof, especially "solid" proof, is something that can be laid out for all to examine, and either accept or find fatal flaws in. So lay it out, and we'll do one or the other.

I believe it is solid proof. You don't have to. It just makes sense in my mind, since it has been baking in there for quite a while.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

Seriously. Mudbuck gives us this lovely bonus about his atheism and instead of appericiating it, you poke it with underdeveloped babble.

[tigerbalm]

[mudbuck]

Okay. You're sounding a bit better, tigerbalm. I see I made you confused. Sorry for being harsh.

Your "atheism," by which I mean your declaration that there is no God, is the first thing listed under the heading, "WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN? You place it as a conclusion based on what you had said before. It did not look like you had thrown it in as a bonus or side-issue, but as the first conclusion to be drawn from your system. That's why I understood it to be topical to question it.

Maybe I worded that statement weirdly. However, that statement alone doesn't say "there is no god," it's just that this theory is incapatible with certain religions, and if I'm right, then those religions are wrong.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. You make it clear that you find certain religious systems incredible, because they are unprovable, and there are reasonable explanations for how the religions developed without accepting them as truth. My primary thrust has been to wonder why you seem to have decided not to turn that healthy skepticism toward the system you have just set forth.

I simply do not trust beliefs based on history. I trust beliefs that can be applied now and always.

You declare that the laws of the universe keep our beings seperate. You say we cannot know the experiences of one another while we are limited to physical form. Thus, you make it quite clear that there is no means of gathering direct evidence about your system. Your system is not merely difficult to prove, but rather impossible, by the very nature of your system.

The laws of the Universe keep the illusions of life seperate.

Also, we aren't limited to physical form for only a part of the time. The way you might be imagining my system is that after we die, a spirit of us goes flying through space to the next body. Do not think of it that way.

Instead, think of the Universe as a computer and each life as a program on that computer. Only one program window can be on the top, and due to some reason, the only way to switch to another program is to close the top one. Essentially, the programs are all part of the computer's memory. Even though they are all running at the same time, you can only view one at a time. However, closing a program does not erase the program from its memory. It is still there, existing as memory, but not as a window.

I again protest the "underdeveloped," "mediocre," and "babble" labels. Extro is asking the same questions as myself, and so is Mackay. Any thoughtful response you gather will ask those questions, because they are fundamental. When you declare a religious or cosmological Truth in a public forum, you really should expect to be asked how you know your Truth is true.

Some of your arguements didn't quite click a sense of solidness to me. Sorry again for the hasty bite.

This statement is what I'm talking about. You say I am reborn. What is the I you are talking about if I am absolutely contained by my CPU? If nothing continues beyond my life, it is not I who will be living that next life you are talking about, but someone completely seperate, contained by their own CPU. If you declare otherwise, that there is some kind of continuity, that I am reborn, then that would mean there is something beyond the material.

I say "you" as an audience. I'm really talking about all of us, everything. However, just to make it more personal, I used "you" for a visual responce.

However, I could also say I reborn, since what I'm thinking is that we are all part of one, and by that, I mean that we don't have individual spirits, but rather there's a flow that connects our lives together. Yes, this probably goes against my character, but it sticks in my mind that way.

I understand precisely what you are saying. I think perhaps I have not been clear enough with what I am saying. If there is no continuity of memory, if as the next person in line I do not remember my actions from this life, and if there is no continuity of spirit (you have said there is no soul), then in what sense will it be me feeling the pain? In what sense will it be me experiencing the happiness?

Simple. If you inflict pain upon yourself, you'll get punished now. I hope you don't want pain. If you make yourself happy, you'll get rewarded now.

The individual goal of a person is to utilize one's natural goals, that is, simply, to have things your body naturally wants and avoid things your body natually doesn't want. You must abide that or your body will naturally be miserable. By naturally, I mean how your mind was initially programed.

The rest of it seems to be about the other religions you are no longer interesting in talking about, so I will stop here.

Yeah. That stuff is distracting me. Right now I'm in an agenda to be angry with some of the things happening right now in the world, country, city, etc.

[tigerbalm]

[extropalopakettle]

[Tahnan]

This is fascinating, in a train-wreck kind of way.

I'm amazed at how much of the "proof" in Post 1 involves unproven assumptions, e.g.

[Tahnan]

Also, hm, let's see. Suppose I get in a car accident, lose my left arm, and decide that my life is better because of the adversity I've overcome, and because bilateral symmetry is way overrated. Doesn't this, for lack of a better term, "system of morality" suggest that I should run around cutting off everyone's left arm, knowing that when the time comes for me to live their lives, I'll be happier in them?