Most irritating theological argument ever

[Nyarlathotep]

Recently, I have encountered a particular argument in favor of God several times, once on this board, a couple of times away from it. This argument is the one that says, at its core, "God must exist because life would be meaningless if he didn't". I have also seen this argument used to justify why several other superstitions must be true.

It is, in my opinion, the most irritating, asinine, stupid argument ever conceived. This argument more than any other makes me want to club the person uttering it like they were a baby seal. Any other argument at least presents a REASON why God (or whatever) must exist, even if that reason is completely flawed. This argument says nothing except that belief in God makes them happy therefor it must be true. Just because something makes them happy doesn't make it true. Lot's of things would make me happy, I would like to be good-looking, I would like to be rich and I would like my son not to have Down Syndrome. All of these things would make me happy. Unfortunately I am not good looking, I am not rich and my son does have Down syndrome, my wishes in the matter not withstanding.

THe next person who says to me "God must exist because life would lose all meaning if he didn't" or any variant thereof gets clubbed like a baby seal.

Rant over.

[roger]

Then whatever you do, do not click on this link. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28461)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by roger
Then whatever you do, do not click on this link. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28461)

That thread was one of the instances of the argument I mentioned. Plus hearing it a couple of times from people in real life. Grrrrr......

[whitefork]

"If god does not exist, then life is meaningless.
But life has meaning
Therefore god exists"

Unfortunately you can't counter "but life is meaningless, therefore god doesn't exist" because that's not a valid inference. But you can confound the person making the argument by accepting the meaninglessness of life, or asking them to prove that life has meaning - equally as difficult as demonstrating the existence of god, I guess.

Yeah, it's annoying.

Or you could ask Cthulhu to devour them.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Kullervo
"If god does not exist, then life is meaningless.
But life has meaning
Therefore god exists"

Unfortunately you can't counter "but life is meaningless, therefore god doesn't exist" because that's not a valid inference. But you can confound the person making the argument by accepting the meaninglessness of life, or asking them to prove that life has meaning - equally as difficult as demonstrating the existence of god, I guess.

Yeah, it's annoying.

Or you could ask Cthulhu to devour them.

I think I will take the Cthulhu option. It won't work any better than the first option but it will at least have novelty in it's favor. Been there done that on the first, more times than I can count (i.e. more than 11:) )

[c4ts]

The worst argument I keep running into is "but you'd kill yourself without any beliefs," which is a belief itself.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by c4ts
The worst argument I keep running into is "but you'd kill yourself without any beliefs," which is a belief itself.

Yeah, that's a variant of the argument I am talking about. Just as annoying too. The people using these arguments are so wrapped up in their fantasy worlds that they can't see how anyone could survive without it, I guess.

[Tricky]

I vote for
"They laughed at Galileo too!"

[Marquis de Carabas]

The worst I ever heard (and admittedly, I only heard it once) was essentially: "Look at the martyrs. People wouldn't die for their faith if it was untrue."

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
- snip -

....Lot's of things would make me happy, I would like to be good-looking, I would like to be rich and I would like my son not to have Down Syndrome. All of these things would make me happy. Unfortunately I am not good looking, I am not rich and my son does have Down syndrome, my wishes in the matter not withstanding.

- snip -
Rant over.

I would have to disagree with you. You are very good looking. You are much better looking than Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, if you want a comparison.

The rich thing, well, don't we all. And I would sacrafice everything unto my very life, except the other people's lives, for the boy not to be Downs, but alas, he is a great kid just the way he is as well.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
The worst I ever heard (and admittedly, I only heard it once) was essentially: "Look at the martyrs. People wouldn't die for their faith if it was untrue."

You're right, that one IS more annoying. Luckily no one has tried that one on me yet, but if they do, they are in line for a clubbing as well.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


I would have to disagree with you. You are very good looking. You are much better looking than Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, if you want a comparison.

Flattery, I knew I married you for a reason.

The rich thing, well, don't we all. And I would sacrafice everything unto my very life, except the other people's lives, for the boy not to be Downs, but alas, he is a great kid just the way he is as well.

True enough on both counts. My point was that what we want is irrelavant, what is..is. What isn't....isn't.

[Graham]

Flattery and Nyarlathotep,

Thank you for making me smile on a night filled with otherwise very much "downing" philosophy.

You remind me of myself and my wife and I just want to tell you how lucky you (and we) are.

The conflict between the proactive "I would do anyhting to make my son other than he is" and the accepting "My son is what he is and I love him for it" is . . . well . . . it kills me sometimes, you know?

You are fortunate to have "another similar" to share it with - as am I.

There should be a smiley for this crap, words cannot express it . . .

Graham

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
This argument is the one that says, at its core, "God must exist because life would be meaningless if he didn't".

Originally posted by roger: "Then whatever you do, do not click on this link."

That thread was one of the instances of the argument I mentioned. Plus hearing it a couple of times from people in real life. Grrrrr......
My thread does not infer that God exists because life would be meaningless without 'him'. My thread infers that atheism kills the spirit of morality and life, even if atheists are correct. Do you (or Roger) bother to listen to anything you read which disagrees with your own philosophy? I would suggest that you do.

[Lord Kenneth]

I think the worst one is either "you can't disprove it" or "you can't see love either!".

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I think the worst one is either "you can't disprove it" or "you can't see love either!".

Those definately rank right up there. Though I have a worse one than "You can't see love", I have honestly heard people say "you can't see air, either!".

AIR!!!

Love at least is an abstract concept that some people have trouble defining, but air?!?!?!?!?!?

the mind truly boggles at what this nit-wit was thinking.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Those definately rank right up there. Though I have a worse one than "You can't see love", I have honestly heard people say "you can't see air, either!".

AIR!!!Luckily, that one's nice and easy to trash. You don't even need to use words.

http://www.didaxinc.com/images/images_lg/8-880.gif

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I think I will take the Cthulhu option. It won't work any better than the first option but it will at least have novelty in it's favor.


You don't get the same kind of **chockkkkk** sound, or that great contact shock in the wrist with the Cthulhu option.

Clubbing people can be SO very satisfying.

or ... um .... so I've read.

My favorite frother is the "Your views are based on belief and faith too! You believe that science is true. You have faith that the sun will come up tomorow ..... yadda yadda yadda .... why are your beliefs any more valid than mine?"

I need to work on my overhand wrist-snap some more.


Whomp!

[triadboy]

I like the one that goes: "For life to exist everything has to be perfect. Everything is too perfect!"

[69dodge]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My thread does not infer that God exists because life would be meaningless without 'him'. My thread infers that atheism kills the spirit of morality and life, even if atheists are correct.First, a number of people have said in this thread that they are perfectly happy being atheists. (And I will now join them in saying this.) You just don't seem to believe them.

Second, suppose you're right about atheism killing some sort of spirit or something, at least for some people. Now what? Should those people pretend that God exists even if they really think he doesn't?

[espritch]

My thread infers that atheism kills the spirit of morality and life, even if atheists are correct.

What spirit exactly is it you refer to? Is it the spirit of devout fanatics who crash airplanes into building and kill thousands? Is it the spirit of cults that drink poisoned coolaide because the “prophet” they chose to blindly follow told them too? Is it the spirit of the parents who let their children die for lack of available medicine because God was testing their faith? Is it the spirit of the witch burners who torture confessions from the innocent and burn them at the stake? Is this spirit really preferable to the truth?

And what is this morality you babbled about? Is it morality of fear and greed - the fear of hell and the greed for immortality (or 72 dark eyed virgins and ever flowing fountains of wine)? If you thought you wouldn’t be punished for it, would you just go out and start killing, raping, and pillaging? Are you really such a monster that only fear of eternal torment will make you treat your fellow human beings decently? Or do you just think everyone else is?

If atheism kills such "spirit" and "morality", that would appear to be a major plus for atheism.

[Skeptical Greg]

Another happy atheist here...:D

My life has more meaning than ever, now that I'm not worried about some nasty God having a temper tantrum and drowning everybody..

That crap about the rainbow, was something I was never really sure about, even when I was holding out on some of the other stuff...

[UnrepentantSinner]

You might find my Bad Apologetics (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15094&highlight=apologetics) thread interesting. I covered several of the ones being discussed here.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Okay, enough with the crack-pot idea that "God gives life meaning" and "lack of belief in the mystic hooey kills the human spirit".

Let's examine me. Why? COZ I SAID TO!

I was thougroughly indoctrinated into a religion at a very young age. I honestly believed that there were factores at work in the universe that I couldn't POSSIBLY understand. There was a god in his heaven and he was controlling the destinies of all living things through his magical remote control device (Batteries included, since he is god.)

Anything that happened to em was god's will and anything I did was because he told me to.

Then reality hit me like a ton of bricks, though less bloody.

Without boring people again with my story, I realized that there was no god. There was no mystery that mankind (humanity to be a little more correct.) could not solve through their own power. No mechanism in the cosmos that could not be understood by the human mind.

There was an answer for everything, not just an excuse "god did it and we can't understand coz we're just his creations." I decided to spend my life looking for those answers.

Starting with what makes me the way I am. (I've been a little stumped on ths one. I think maybe my parents had a little too much fun at Woodstock, but I'm not too sure.)

And you know something? My "human spirit" is one HELL of a lot stronger now that I reailze I am a living, ration being, rather than god's Some Friggin Guy Action Figure with the Kung-Fu grip.

Now that I've said my piece, it's time for my medication.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My thread does not infer that God exists because life would be meaningless without 'him'. My thread infers that atheism kills the spirit of morality and life, even if atheists are correct.
I would beg to differ.

"Atheism kills the spirit of morality", Atheists are just as moral as everyone else, we adopt our morals through our environment, it is a psychology called "Social Ethics".

"Atheism kills the spirit of life", I dont know exactly what definition of spirit you are referring. I'm going to make a guess and assume the definition of "spirit" you were inferring is synonymous with "zest for life". In that case, Atheism does not kill the spirit of life, it's simply the attitude of the person that kills his own spirit. Athiests can be optimists, too, ya know.

[Yahweh]

Here's one that left me simply dumbfounded (translation: it made me dumber) when I heard it:

"It takes more faith to believe evolution than it does to believe in god."

[Yahweh]

Here's another:

"My proof for my belief in god is my faith in him, that's all the proof I need."

Of course, plenty of other people have just as much (or more) faith in Hinduism, Siikism (spelling?), Rain Gods, or [fill in the blank with your favorite non-Christian religion here] than the person who stated that, so I would say using "faith" as evidence pretty much defeats itself.

[Yahweh]

Ooh! And I just thought of another (sorry, I'd usually dont make so many short posts in succession):

"I know God exists because I can feel his love."

Gah?


"The bible is the word of God, and the word of God is infallible, therefore the bible is infallible. So there!"

Blehhhh?


"Just you wait until you die, let's see what you say when God doesnt let you into heaven."

Sorry, I cant be scared into religion, save that for the younger more impressionable children.


(Usually in response to a "god sucks" comment) "To hate/reject God, you first have to accept its existence, so you arent even an Atheist!"

Go f**k yourself, you ignorant bastard.

[Yahweh]

Here's a common thing I see on the internet:

"How can you not believe in God, look at all he's given you..."

This usually tells me two things: First, I'm dealing with someone who is young. Second, this person undoubtedly thickheaded and/or has no reasoning skills beyond "Fire bad, tree pretty". These people will never get it through their heads that their overtly ridiculous approach to evangelism only annoys people, aside from the annoyance there is nothing coherent coming out of their mouth. Oh well, if someone wants to vocally express their lack of intelligible thought, so be it...

[Psydox]

One of the things that I see as being a flaw in the construct of sound argument is lack or loss of a clear objective.

What exactly is it that you are trying to achieve with your argument ?

Because what you have posted here does not clearly identify an objective, it allows for assumption of meaning. In other words, is the objective of this thread bitching for the sake of bitching, do you want people who believe in God to leave you alone, do you want people to stop believing in God....what do you want ?

Once you identify your true objective, and based on the evidence of what has been presented in this thread, you may want to consider asking yourself if the argument is logical.

Same goes for the "other team"

There is one last thing I want you to ask yourself.

Do you project the concept of faith to things external or do you internalize the concept of faith by applying it to your own opinions and then project it ?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Psydox
One of the things that I see as being a flaw in the construct of sound argument is lack or loss of a clear objective.

What exactly is it that you are trying to achieve with your argument ?

Because what you have posted here does not clearly identify an objective, it allows for assumption of meaning. In other words, is the objective of this thread bitching for the sake of bitching,
I think you hit the nail pretty much right on the head.

This thread really has no objective, it was made for the sake of ranting.

Myself, I chose to take the much more cynical approach to humoring some of the funny theological arguements (I made several posts in a row because everytime I thought I was done and I clicked the submit button, a new idea came into my head...). I've seen a few others use a more light-hearted approach.

The goal of this thread is undefined, but I think its somewhere between ranting and humoring. No real discussion to expect from this thread.

do you want people who believe in God to leave you alone, do you want people to stop believing in God....what do you want ?

I wouldnt care whether or not they "just left me alone", but in actuality I dont expect they would or should. But hey, if they didnt, I would have been able to fit in my last 5 posts or ranting, could I?

I wouldnt care if they stopped believing in God or not, its not my decision to make.

What do I want... ummmm... a million dollars.

Once you identify your true objective, and based on the evidence of what has been presented in this thread, you may want to consider asking yourself if the argument is logical.
Most, if not all, of the theological arguements presented are of one form or another of any common logical fallacy you can think of. But again, the true objective is simply for humor value.

Same goes for the "other team"

There is one last thing I want you to ask yourself.

Do you project the concept of faith to things external or do you internalize the concept of faith by applying it to your own opinions and then project it ?
I project the concept of faith as applying to things which can or do exist externally and seperate from me, I also apply them internally in that I try to rationalize my own opinions and beliefs to determine whether they are statements of faith or not.

[Psydox]

Hummm Faith.

A concrete acceptance of a concept by both sides because to deny it would be to say that you do not believe in your own opinion (which in this case has no solid evidence to base it on or to prove it by).

Ultimately, what does it matter the name given to the recipient or object of that faith be it called God, or Atheism ?

Before you answer this question I want you to take an objective look at what the word God means and also at what the word Atheism means. Then relate those meanings to one another in terms of comparison and contrast. Once you have done that, read the question again then answer.

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Psydox
One of the things that I see as being a flaw in the construct of sound argument is lack or loss of a clear objective.

What exactly is it that you are trying to achieve with your argument ?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psydox
A concrete acceptance of a concept by both sides because to deny it would be to say that you do not believe in your own opinion (which in this case has no solid evidence to base it on or to prove it by).

Psydox,
First, I don't see that the original intent of this thread was sound argument. Did you not read the original post?

Secondly, I beg to differ with your statement that my opinion (I assume you mean about god) has no solid evidence to base it on.

This is where many believers go wrong. I do have solid evidence on which to base my opinion.
It's called the entire history and body of science. (You may want to look it up some time.)
Nothing we have learned about the universe we live in requires or suggests a god. God is not needed for any of the explainations we now have about the way the universe works.

So why include god?

Whomp!

[The Thrasher]

The worst argument I ever heard was "but everyone has faith in something, you believe in something irrational so why not in god?"

My simple response was "Bulls**t!". I don't have faith in anything. When presented with a question I go with the answer that makes the most sense given the information I have. This girl believed that someday jesus will return to earth, the sky will split, and we will all be judged. This is faith. She believes in spite of all the evidence that this will never happen. I do not believe jesus is coming back because there is no good evidence to believe he will.
It was quite humorous actually. She couldn't get over the idea of simply going with the most logical answer to any question.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Psydox
... do you want people to stop believing in God....what do you want ?


Yes. The world would be a much safer, constructive place if we could all stop believing in invisible creatures. This would nullify their appointed, earth-bound representatives also.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]Recently, I have encountered a particular argument in favor of God several times, once on this board, a couple of times away from it. This argument is the one that says, at its core, "God must exist because life would be meaningless if he didn't". I have also seen this argument used to justify why several other superstitions must be true.

It is, in my opinion, the most irritating, asinine, stupid argument ever conceived.



I think it is an excellent convincing sentiment. It is not an argument though, and it should be life would have no purpose rather than saying life is meaningless.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Whomp




This is where many believers go wrong. I do have solid evidence on which to base my opinion.
It's called the entire history and body of science. (You may want to look it up some time.)
Nothing we have learned about the universe we live in requires or suggests a god. God is not needed for any of the explainations we now have about the way the universe works.

So why include god?

Whomp! [/B]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire history or body of science to remotely suggest that a God doesn't exist. Arguably the converse. What is it about science and its history I should look up which is suggestful there is no God?

And incidentally, you appear to conflate metaphysical explanations with scientific ones.

In short it would seem you have no reasons nor evidence to support your beliefs. You are at liberty of course try to persuade me otherwise.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by triadboy


Yes. The world would be a much safer, constructive place if we could all stop believing in invisible creatures. This would nullify their appointed, earth-bound representatives also.

Which would result in each and everyone of us not believing that other people exist, since it is not just God's mind which is invisible, but all minds whatsoever :rolleyes:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is absolutely nothing in the entire history or body of science to remotely suggest that a God doesn't exist.

I assume you don't believe in the god of the OT/NT, the god of the Koran, the gods of Hinduism, etc. They can be quickly dispatched by reading their "inspired" writings and realizing they are born of myth.

I think you are speaking of an "initiator" in a deistic sense.

I believe Whomp is saying - belief in an initiator - without any need for an initiator - is an added feature without evidence. Science has not yet spotted this added feature, so there is no need to believe in it - except to sooth and validate the frightened human mind.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Which would result in each and everyone of us not believing that other people exist, since it is not just God's mind which is invisible, but all minds whatsoever

That is odd thinking. I don't believe in a god, yet I believe you exist because you are real. People aren't just minds - people are also toenails.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Those definately rank right up there. Though I have a worse one than "You can't see love", I have honestly heard people say "you can't see air, either!".

AIR!!!



Presumably this was in response to an argument that God doesn't exist since we cannot see a God.

Such idiocy between both people in this exchange is quite breathtaking.

First of all one presumes that the atheist meant that we cannot detect God through any of our 5 senses, which one can liberally interpret to mean either direct or indirect observations. Thus any putative God does not play any fruitful role in our scientific theories in the world.

But this is just completely irrelevant. For a kick off it essentially begs the question by presupposing the correctness of materialism and also that all exists can be encompassed by a scientific description of the world. This begs the question because believers will not generally be materialists. Thus simply asserting the tenets of materialism under the guise of an argument is scarcely going to convince people. Or at least it bloody well shouldn't!

But in any case, even if believers were materialists it would still be irrelevant because it's not just God's consciousness we can't see, but all consciousnesses whatsoever! But since from the perspective of each person they know that at least that they exist, and they cannot see their own consciousness, it follows that the fact we cannot see God's consciousness is wholly irrelevant. Of course one might argue that by observing the appropriate physical activity in ones brain, one thereby "sees" consciousness. But even if this were so one could argue that by looking at the activity of the Universe as a whole one is thereby seeing God.

And the response by the believer that you cannot see air is of course wholly irrelevant. The believer doesn't seem to understand that the atheist is presupposing the materialist metaphysic! :eek: Anyway, it is clear that air does play a fruitful role as an existent in our scientific theories describing the world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by triadboy


That is odd thinking. I don't believe in a god, yet I believe you exist because you are real. People aren't just minds - people are also toenails.

I disagree. And I suspect many theists would disagree also.

[volant]

"So you believe you are an accident?"
"You are not truly happy."
"Why do even get out of bed in the morning, when you believe your life has no meaning?"

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


There is absolutely nothing in the entire history or body of science to remotely suggest that a God doesn't exist. Arguably the converse. What is it about science and its history I should look up which is suggestful there is no God?

Hmmm, science has managed to explain all of the wonders it has uncovered so far without the use of god. There isn't an accepted scientific theory, explaination, or mathmatic equation that falls apart if god does not exist.
All of what we know and understand about the world around us has been explained without god.
So... science conversely suggests god exists?

And incidentally, you appear to conflate metaphysical explanations with scientific ones.

(shakes head) um ... what?

In short it would seem you have no reasons nor evidence to support your beliefs. You are at liberty of course try to persuade me otherwise.

I do not believe god exists because there is no reason for me to believe otherwise. (shrug)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Kullervo
"If god does not exist, then life is meaningless.
But life has meaning
Therefore god exists"

Unfortunately you can't counter "but life is meaningless, therefore god doesn't exist" because that's not a valid inference. But you can confound the person making the argument by accepting the meaninglessness of life, or asking them to prove that life has meaning - equally as difficult as demonstrating the existence of god, I guess.

Yeah, it's annoying.

Or you could ask Cthulhu to devour them.

My buddy who you mentioned will straighten everybody out once he finishes his breakfast of primitive villagers who don't propitiate him quickly enough, and visits me in Chicago.

But I have to tell you that long before he bothers with folks who reason stupidly about religion he's going to devour folks who misuse their laundry room privileges.

Then he's going to redirect his attention to folks who talk too loud in theaters.

Folks who fail to rebuke their toddlers who mess with merchandise in stores are also high on his list.

In fact, he kind of likes religious stupids. Their clulessness before being devoured renders the looks on their faces so much more piquant.

But that's dessert!

Examine how you live, pal! :p

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I disagree. And I suspect many theists would disagree also.

So to a theist - what you are is the 'feeling' you have inside the shell of your body? What happens when you die and your brain dissolves - along with all of your memories?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think it is an excellent convincing sentiment. It is not an argument though, and it should be life would have no purpose rather than saying life is meaningless.
I'm forced to disagree. I think "You're life would have no meaning" is a terrible arguement (or whatever you feel like calling it). It insists that life is without meaning or purpose unless you are serving god, it's not an arguement or even a conditional statement, it is a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is.

And the obvious answer to that statement is: My life has meaning and purpose, unfortunately it's not to serve your god, I'd much rather invest my time educating humanity or contributing in any positive way possible to the people around me.

And honestly, I dont think you can find a single atheist who sits in his bed all day being depressed because he doesnt have a god to give his life "purpose".

Edited: Changed one word, I didnt think it looked right...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm forced to disagree. I think "You're[sic] life would have no meaning" is a terrible arguement[sic] (or whatever you feel like calling it). It insists that life is without meaning or purpose unless you are serving another, it's not an arguement[sic] or even a conditional statement, it is a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is.



Don't be absurd. Simply because one believes a "God" exists does not mean that one is serving anyone. I certainly don't for a kick off.



And the obvious answer to that statement is: My life has meaning and purpose, unfortunately it's not to serve your god, I'd much rather invest my time educating humanity or contributing in any positive way possible to the people around me.

And honestly, I dont think you can find a single atheist who sits in his bed all day being depressed because he doesnt have a god to give his life "purpose".

Never said otherwise.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Another happy atheist here...:D

My life has more meaning than ever, now that I'm not worried about some nasty God having a temper tantrum and drowning everybody..

That crap about the rainbow, was something I was never really sure about, even when I was holding out on some of the other stuff...

I think people are afraid - terrified - to take the leap into the abyss. But if they would take they would realize there really is no abyss at all. It took me a long time to overcome the God idea - from the age of 12 until I was around 30 or 35. I tried for a long time to make the God idea make sense, but never could. The letting go was gradual process, but the first steps, the first "dare to thinks" felt like blasphemy (like the first times you swear when you are a kid), but then it got easier. It is, in a sense, a leap of faith to become a free thinker - you have to have faith in your own judgement and faith you are competent to determine what is real and what is not.

[uruk]

Don't be absurd. Simply because one believes a "God" exists does not mean that one is serving anyone. I certainly don't for a kick off.

So what view of god do you have? Is it based on any established religion or is it pieced together from the various religions, or is it a view that you came to understand by yourself?

If the latter is true then why do you belive that your view is more correct than others? Any evidence to support it?

[Psydox]

I go by the "what if" rule in this situation.

"What if" there is a God ?

"What if" there isn't a God ?

Give this "what if" rule a try by taking the above questions and use a logical reasoning process to work out the pros and cons of each. Granted you will have to take into consideration the associated ideas of each question/concept despite your current beliefs.


As for me, I decided that in the event there was NOT a God then what would it hurt to believe there IS a God....just seems to be the logical thing to me considering the alternative. :cool:


PS- keep in mind that science has not stopped yet and makes new discoveries all the time. What if......

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Psydox
I go by the "what if" rule in this situation.

"What if" there is a God ?

"What if" there isn't a God ?

Give this "what if" rule a try by taking the above questions and use a logical reasoning process to work out the pros and cons of each. Granted you will have to take into consideration the associated ideas of each question/concept despite your current beliefs.
Well, let's flip that "what if" scenario around...

What if the bible is incomplete?

What if the bible is inaccurate?

What if Wiccan is the right religion?

What if there is no god?

What if God had to die to create the universe?

As for me, I decided that in the event there was NOT a God then what would it hurt to believe there IS a God....just seems to be the logical thing to me considering the alternative. :cool:
I would disagree.

I am absolutely incapable of accepting god's existence anymore than I can accept other religious or paranormal claims that exist outside scientific explanation, I cannot accept faith as any means of reasoning. "What if faith in Jesus Christ is the only way into Heaven", well then I wasnt really given much of a chance seeing as how god deliberately designed me to be incapable of believing in him.

"You're going to hell if you dont believe in god", I cant be scared into belief in God.

"If you have faith in god, you get to spend the rest of eternity in the blissful love of god", I cant be bribed into belief either.

And no, Pascal's Wager is not the logical alternative. Keep in mind, "logic" is not a set of laws that govern human behavior, and Pascals Wager isnt reasoning that will show people "the light".

PS- keep in mind that science has not stopped yet and makes new discoveries all the time. What if......
What if I told people I was son of God?

What if people didnt believe me?

What if...

"You've just got to have faith, then you will BELIEVE..."

Edited to correct spelling errors

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Yahweh
And no, Pascal's Wadger is not the logical alternative. Keep in mind, "logic" is not a set of laws that govern human behavior, and Pascals Wadger isnt reasoning that will show people "the light".

Pascal's wager, in context, isn't as stupid as it sounds.

Pascal starts out by refuting polytheism, Judaism, and Islam, leaving only the alternatives of "philosophy" and Christianity.

OK that doesn't cover all bases and some of the refutation arguments are laughable, but Pascal did think it through better than a fundie.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Psydox
IAs for me, I decided that in the event there was NOT a God then what would it hurt to believe there IS a God

Four aircraft, two buildings, and 3,000 lives later, people can still ask what harm could come of beleiving in things that aren't true.

Are you naive, ignorant, retarded, or just mind-numbingly self-centered?

[Psydox]

Are you naive, ignorant, retarded, or just mind-numbingly self-centered? ....as per Yahzi


YES!! enjoy ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK that doesn't cover all bases and some of the refutation arguments are laughable, but Pascal did think it through better than a fundie.
While Pascal did think it through better, and his Philosophy does make plenty of sense, however its very hard to "make" yourself believe.

Oh well, I'll take the George Carlin approach, I'll worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Four aircraft, two buildings, and 3,000 lives later, people can still ask what harm could come of believing in things that aren't true.

Are you naive, ignorant, retarded, or just mind-numbingly self-centered?

I think you're being unfair.

When it comes to belief in The Big Guy who loves us but treats us like s**t, otherwise known as the Gaseous Vertebrate, some false beliefs are quite clearly more harmful than others, though none are completely harmless.

Exterminating infidels is rarely part of the deal, at least among American types.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Yahweh

While Pascal did think it through better, and his Philosophy does make plenty of sense, however its very hard to "make" yourself believe.

Quite so. Whoever says to him/herself "The trouble with me is I need to be more delusional."!?
:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]Recently, I have encountered a particular argument in favor of God several times, once on this board, a couple of times away from it. This argument is the one that says, at its core, "God must exist because life would be meaningless if he didn't". I have also seen this argument used to justify why several other superstitions must be true.

I am guilty of saying such a thing...in the past. Now I have found that the more I have pushed "God" out of my life, the more real my life becomes. Life has far much more meaning to me now.

However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God. I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!:eek:

[Psydox]

I wouldn't call it unfair as much as I would call it limited. Yahzi tends to maintain his ideas and opinions in terms of absolutes. As a result he likely jumps to conclusions quite frequently when in debate on issues that are not in agreement with his own or based on an all or nothing type of reasoning.

For the most part, I was goofing around when I made the post. Yes I do believe that there is a God. Does it mean I follow a Church ? Nah but I'd be willing to bet that Yahzi thinks so because it falls into that absolute thinking style of his. He got all bent out of shape over a comment that I referrred to myself only and any attempt he could have made to convince me to think otherwise was FUBARED by his touching display of those Bill and Ted "Be excellent to each other" kind of qualities he has. HA!! what a genius :cool:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Psydox
For the most part, I was goofing around when I made the post. Yes I do believe that there is a God. Does it mean I follow a Church ? Nah but I'd be willing to bet that Yahzi thinks so ...

Never mind Yahzi. Cut to the chase. Define your terms.

I am effectively an atheist, but I don't quite own up to it because I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't absolutely disprove that a uniquely self existent being may have willed the universe into existence.

This orients me toward no known religion.

I'll say I'm an agnostic for now, but for all practical purposes I'm an atheist.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'll say I'm an agnostic for now, but for all practical purposes I'm an atheist.
(Just humoring the most hilarious line I've ever seen...)

I'm much more cynical, I'm the bastardized version of agnostic, I'm an atheist. :D

[hypnotoad]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I am effectively an atheist, but I don't quite own up to it because I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't absolutely disprove that a uniquely self existent being may have willed the universe into existence.



I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Ruby

However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God. I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!:eek:

Perhaps, but the point of my post was more to vent my frustration than to convince anyone of anything. I was in a bad, bad mood the day I wrote that and everything was getting to me. When I get into one of those moods, I have no patience for anyone or anything that irritates me.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hypnotoad
I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.
The most logical way to prove something does not exist is to prove that it cannot logically exist (God is obviously something that cannot be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, my only option is to attack him with Philosophy). I do happen to have a handful of "proofs" in my backpocket, there really nothing remarkable or that you havent seen a few times before, but I can recite them if someone likes.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.
Entirely correct. Too many people think atheists and skeptics are "closeminded", but I would think atheists and skeptics are the ones who would be the most happy to evidence for the paranormal or gods.

[Roadtoad]

After reading through this thread, I think clubbing is too good for some of the presenters of these inane, childish arguments.

Permit me, please:

(1.) We believe in God because we choose to. Regardless of why we choose to believe, the fact remains that it is a choice. It always has been, it always will be. The "God-shaped hole" has been filled with a broad variety of clutter, including religious prattle from well-meaning sycophants to the damnable poison of the cults. It has also been filled with the search for genuine truth, which is made comprehensible by FACT. Without FACTS, you have NOTHING.

(2.) Life is given meaning by your own choices, and by your own actions. I find it tremendously insulting that there are those who feel that unless I'm being preached at on Sunday, and there every moment the church doors are open, my life lacks meaning.

Big shock, here, kids: My life has NEVER ONCE lacked meaning. I am a father of four, the husband of a wonderful woman, and I'm finally (Hope!) going to be getting into a career that will be wonderous, insipring, challenging, and fulfilling. It has taken me time to reach this point, (and thanks, again, to friends here), but I finally came to the realization that the Church was trivializing what was giving my life meaning. If I am only a good man if I am telling my sons what gives life value, but not demonstrating it, what have I really done? If I tell my wife I love her, but don't show it, it might make God happy, but what have I done for her?

If I am not available to my sons, or to my wife, but instead, commit our resources to the pursuit of a God who has no interest in our lives, (which, I would suspect would invalidate His Deity), then does my life, in fact, have meaning? These are the relationships which in part define who I am, and will live on after me. My connection to these people provides the meaning to my life, and ultimately, reveals what I value.

The Church is right on one point: No one ever laid on their deathbed and said, "I wish I'd spent more time at work." In my case, I won't be saying, "I wish I'd spent more time at church."

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Psydox
INah but I'd be willing to bet that Yahzi thinks
Yahzi thinks you are simply shallow. You make your comments and your descisions without any regard to history, common sense, or reality. Your only concern is your own emotional satisfaction.

The Catholic Church has just now condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of Aids. How many people will die because of this? A million, a hundred thousand, or just a few tens of thousands? But no, you go on claiming that your little irrational indulgence is perfectly acceptable, while their irrational indulgences are obviously bad.

I just have very little patience for people so thick they don't even understand they are hypocrites.

[Nyarlathotep]

A church sign on the way home reminded me of another irritating tactic on the part of theists, usually those of the Christian perusasion (though I am sure others use it too). It's not a specific argument per se, just a tactic that they use. That tactic is when they know that they are talking to an atheist and they try to use quotes from the bible to convince said atheist of their point. If someone is an atheist and doesn't beleive in God, why would that atheist give any credence to a book supposedly revelealed by that god? It makes no sense but I see it all the time. In fact it makes me want to break out my club..........

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Ruby


However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God. I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!:eek:

Ruby, you are much more tolerant than I, I'm afraid.

I was also "on the inside" and we all know how well that went. I do tend to keep my mouth shut most of the time, but there are sometimes these fundies around here just hit me at the right time and I open up both barrels of the debate shotgun. 9 times out of 10, they don't know what hit them. Sometimes all it takes is a single sentence to shut them up, other times, the debate rages for days (interrupted, of course).

Then, of course, there is the rare occasion that I envoke a tactic I learned from here:

I tell them I am preparing for the coming of Cthulhu.

For some reason, that always seems to get them.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Four aircraft, two buildings, and 3,000 lives later, people can still ask what harm could come of beleiving in things that aren't true.

Are you naive, ignorant, retarded, or just mind-numbingly self-centered?

That's an unrepresentative sample of behavior based on belief in things that aren't there.

[hypnotoad]

Originally posted by c4ts


That's an unrepresentative sample of behavior based on belief in things that aren't there.



So? Are you saying we should take an average of the good and bad instances of behavior based on belief in things that aren't there - and then rationally decide whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? Are you defending that sort of behavior?
What are you saying?

Can you please give a representative sample of this behavior?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Yahweh

(Just humoring the most hilarious line I've ever seen...)

I'm much more cynical, I'm the bastardized version of agnostic, I'm an atheist. :D

Wow! Someone got it!

As for the origin of the universe, my mind is still open. He isn't a member of the sex police or the genocide police, but there may be an intelligence behind our existence.

I don't think so, but I can't absolutely prove it.

Which line is the most hilarious? Please tell me so I can repeat it all over. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hypnotoad


I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.



This is of course complete crap. At the very least you need to argue for your claim here. How many people who subscribe to the "supernatural" agree with you? BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?



Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.


Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

You use reason. It's no good spouting forth about evidence because no-one has a clue what evidence would count towards the existence of a God or count towards the possibility of atheism until one understands what one is precisely saying in asserting there is, or is not, a God.

A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ruby
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Recently, I have encountered a particular argument in favor of God several times, once on this board, a couple of times away from it. This argument is the one that says, at its core, "God must exist because life would be meaningless if he didn't". I have also seen this argument used to justify why several other superstitions must be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am guilty of saying such a thing...in the past.



Nothing to be guilty about at all. A perfectly reasonable sentiment. Nyarlathotep is attacking a strawman in describing it as an argument.



Now I have found that the more I have pushed "God" out of my life, the more real my life becomes. Life has far much more meaning to me now.



There should be no reason why life should have more meaning if one is an atheist. If anything there should be less meaning.


However, having been on the other side, I am tolerant and patient with those who still think life has no meaning without God.


No, not no meaning, rather no purpose.


I will never convince them I am happy not worshipping God if I rail at them!:eek:

Worship God??? Why on earth should any one do that even if God should exist?? :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
After reading through this thread, I think clubbing is too good for some of the presenters of these inane, childish arguments.

Permit me, please:

[b](1.) We believe in God because we choose to. Regardless of why we choose to believe, the fact remains that it is a choice. It always has been, it always will be. The "God-shaped hole" has been filled with a broad variety of clutter, including religious prattle from well-meaning sycophants to the damnable poison of the cults. It has also been filled with the search for genuine truth, which is made comprehensible by FACT. Without FACTS, you have NOTHING.

(2.) Life is given meaning by your own choices, and by your own actions. I find it tremendously insulting that there are those who feel that unless I'm being preached at on Sunday, and there every moment the church doors are open, my life lacks meaning.



Has anyone ever suggested such a thing? Or are you simply attacking a strawman? Even if it were the case that people were so stupid as to express such a feeling, how does this give any evidence against an appropriately defined God?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Big shock, here, kids: My life has NEVER ONCE lacked meaning. [/B]

That doesn't alter the fact that it may lack purpose.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Yahzi thinks you are simply shallow. You make your comments and your descisions without any regard to history, common sense, or reality. Your only concern is your own emotional satisfaction.

The Catholic Church has just now condemned the use of condoms to prevent the spread of Aids. How many people will die because of this? A million, a hundred thousand, or just a few tens of thousands? But no, you go on claiming that your little irrational indulgence is perfectly acceptable, while their irrational indulgences are obviously bad.

I just have very little patience for people so thick they don't even understand they are hypocrites.

Very stupid of the cathjolic church I'm sure. But how the hell does this constitute any evidence against the existence of a God?

[Psydox]

There's that absolute thinking again. Your reasoning, Yahzi, continues to hold an individual belief (individual being that I am an individual with this belief) responsible for actions of others.

Aren't you the one who thinks that people are inherently bad ?

As posted by Yahzi in the following thread : http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28536&pagenumber=2

First, people are not inherently good. They have the inherent capacity to be good, and an instinctual desire to be good. Just like they have the capacity for language, and a desire to communicate. But if you raise a child in an isolation box until puberty, he won't ever be very good at language, and he won't ever be very moral.

So are you now going to take away my inherent capacity, my instinctual desire to be good because I choose to believe in something you say is false but yet can't prove is false....Doh!! who do you think you are >.. God :roll:

Yahzi, take yourself out of your isolation box and consider that all the bad actions come not from an individual belief but instead from a thing called Hate.

Who is the one that used words like : naive, ignorant, retarded, mind-numbingly self-centered, just because I will not agree with you and choose instead to maintain my individual belief.

Finally let me ask you this.....is it the belief that does bad or is it the person ?

I think you are a total *&^* hole .....but hey that's just my belief. Dosen't mean I'm going to go to Wal-Mart now and blow everyone away because I think this of you.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by hypnotoad


I think that very few atheists claim that they can disprove the existence of God. It is up to the proponents of a supernatural phenomenon to prove its existence, and its nonexistence can be assumed until that happens.

Do you admit that there is no evidence that God/Gods exist? If so you can call yourself an atheist. If you are still trying to determine whether there is evidence I would say you are an agnostic.

If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean that they are closed minded if some evidence were to come along, though they have every right to be skeptical.


All right then. By your terms I am unquestionably an atheist. That doesn't bother me. I don't shrink from being so called. But I can't help having a sneaking suspicion that some meanie is responsible for existence.

It feels good to blame somebody. :p

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Perhaps, but the point of my post was more to vent my frustration than to convince anyone of anything. I was in a bad, bad mood the day I wrote that and everything was getting to me. When I get into one of those moods, I have no patience for anyone or anything that irritates me.

Then it sounds like you need you a hug!:D :rub:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


Ruby, you are much more tolerant than I, I'm afraid.

I was also "on the inside" and we all know how well that went. I do tend to keep my mouth shut most of the time, but there are sometimes these fundies around here just hit me at the right time and I open up both barrels of the debate shotgun. 9 times out of 10, they don't know what hit them. Sometimes all it takes is a single sentence to shut them up, other times, the debate rages for days (interrupted, of course).

Then, of course, there is the rare occasion that I envoke a tactic I learned from here:

I tell them I am preparing for the coming of Cthulhu.

For some reason, that always seems to get them.

Well, I certainly get angry and frustrated sometimes. There are some very unfortunate Christian arguments out there that make it hard to keep from laughing or pouncing into a debate. However, I know what it feels like to be made fun of for believing a certain way....whether as a Christian or now as an agnostic, and I just don't want to do that to someone else. I do want to debate and disagree and give another point of view...................but hopefully, I can keep from being insulting.

My hubby has been having a little debate with a guy at work. This guy is trying to convince my hubby that the bible is the true inspired (magical) word of god. My hubby was born and raised a Christian all his life. Now, like me, he is agnostic....but he studying like crazy to get answers. Anyhow, he has said some very good and clever things to this guy who is trying to win him back to god. The guy's only "good" argument for the legitimacy of the bible was that it is "powerful" . He says the Holy spirit moves you as you read it. You "feel" something. Personally, I "feel" more reading a novel or watching a comedy or horror movie. I am much more moved by listening to Vivaldi or Puccini.

Anyway, I guess that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I hear a lot from Christians. They think that the bible is so powerful that the very words you read will cause magic....and they think that praying or singing in a church can cause amazing "moves" of the "holy spirit". That usually means someone starts running around the church or other start dancing in a frenzy or people are rolling around or falling out. The holy spirit has been blamed for doing some pretty bizarre things to people!!!!:wink8:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nothing to be guilty about at all. A perfectly reasonable sentiment. Nyarlathotep is attacking a strawman in describing it as an argument.

There should be no reason why life should have more meaning if one is an atheist. If anything there should be less meaning.

Well, I am not an atheist......not yet. I just know that as I have left my Christian beliefs behind, things have made more sense and life has opened up to me. I feel more feel.



Worship God??? Why on earth should any one do that even if God should exist?? :confused:

I am still learning and it seems hard for me to grasp the concept of there being a god who pays no attention to us and has no interaction with us. It would be hard to worship a god who does nothing to help you or anyone else.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Ruby


Then it sounds like you need you a hug!:D :rub:

Um, thanks.

THough when I get into one of my foul moods, it is usually best for everyoe to steer clear of me. I always calm down eventually.

[Acrimonious]

The best thing to do in such situations is present the exact same argument back to them, but replace "God" with another deity that they do not believe in. Greek, Norse, Egyptian, or even other current religious deities (Allah, Shiva, etc) are choice examples.

How do you even get up in the morning without Artemis?

Do you lie there, knowing full well that life without Artemis has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, and wonder if you should simply stay curled up in bed and sleep for the rest of your days?

When they point out that you're referring to a mythological figure, it's always fun to point out how "Mythology" basically equates to "Out of style Religion." Then ask them how long they think their mythology is going to stay en vogue.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
The best thing to do in such situations is present the exact same argument back to them, but replace "God" with another deity that they do not believe in. Greek, Norse, Egyptian, or even other current religious deities (Allah, Shiva, etc) are choice examples.

How do you even get up in the morning without Artemis?

Do you lie there, knowing full well that life without Artemis has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, and wonder if you should simply stay curled up in bed and sleep for the rest of your days?

When they point out that you're referring to a mythological figure, it's always fun to point out how "Mythology" basically equates to "Out of style Religion." Then ask them how long they think their mythology is going to stay en vogue.

I like it. I am rather fond of Bacchus myself, I just don't see how anyone can live without believing in Bacchus, God of wine and revelry.

[hypnotoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is of course complete crap. At the very least you need to argue for your claim here. How many people who subscribe to the "supernatural" agree with you? BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?


There is no evidence that any supernatural things exist in any real sense. Therefore, to act as though they do is foolish. At some point a person has to choose which supernatural phenomena they are going to believe in, because they can't believe in all of them, there being an infinite number of possibilities. So people who believe in supernatural phenomena are choosing to reject the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence) and to accept the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence). They are choosing based on what makes them feel good. Is that good? Is it bad? I think it doesn't matter until they start making decisions that affect their life.

Why do you say our conciousnesses are supernatural? Just because they have not been naturally explained? Do you hold that they will never be naturally explained? Be careful now - that could be stated as a testable theory.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?


Sure they are. They apparently don't require evidence. Therefore they are untestable. Therefore they are useful only as mental exercise. I could be wrong of course. If so enlighten me.



Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is of course complete crap. At the very least you need to
You use reason. It's no good spouting forth about evidence because no-one has a clue what evidence would count towards the existence of a God or count towards the possibility of atheism until one understands what one is precisely saying in asserting there is, or is not, a God.

A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

There is all kinds of evidence that would count. For example, say there were some religious writings that made accurate predictions of the future. Or gave accurate information about the distant past. Or really any kind of information that was otherwise unknowable. Of course it would have to be more accurate than chance. Spewing out countless pieces of information and getting a couple right doesn't count.

I can't say that a God doesn't exist. I say that if God exists it doesn't matter because (up to this point at least) no valuable information can be obtained about him/her/it. Why believe in something like that? Tell me what is the difference between believing in the existence of God and believing in the existence of glarshnaks.


There are many ways I could be converted to theism. Say the bible, koran, talmud, etc. could be proven accurate. Say a booming voice from heaven told everybody "I am God. I exist."
I don't accept the existence of something unless there is a reason to. Do you?
Are there any reasons to accept the existence of God?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
How do you even get up in the morning without Artemis?

Bloody Hell! I never thought about that! How do I?

Wait a minute. I'm The Mad Arab. I worship a God what does stuff for me. Like bring me fish! :p

Just because I'm an Arab doesn't mean I go for that Allah stuff. That's just another version of the Big Guy who loves you and treats you like s**t.

I'm The Mad Arab. I'd rather worship my buddy who is coming to visit me in Chicago.

Y'all better behave! :p

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ruby

II
Worship God??? Why on earth should any one do that even if God should exist??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am still learning and it seems hard for me to grasp the concept of there being a god who pays no attention to us and has no interaction with us. [/B]

Or one could hold the view that everything we ever experience is an interaction with God.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hypnotoad


There is no evidence that any supernatural things exist in any real sense.



Oh for God's sake. Please comprehensively explain your terminology and give reasons :rolleyes:

You really must give a precise definition of what a "supernatural" thing is. In particular explain why a putative material world and consciousness are not "supernatural". Explain in detail why you think God's consciousness is "supernatural".

After doing that explain what would constitute evidence for the existence of these allegedly "supernatural" things. Or is your metaphysic (materialism or whatever) unfalsifiable?



Therefore, to act as though they do is foolish. At some point a person has to choose which supernatural phenomena they are going to believe in, because they can't believe in all of them, there being an infinite number of possibilities. So people who believe in supernatural phenomena are choosing to reject the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence) and to accept the existence of some (without evidence for or against their existence).



See above. Explain what "supernatural" means.



Why do you say our conciousnesses are supernatural?



You introduced the word "supernatural" not me. Either you think consciousness is supernatural or not. But if not then don't make exceptions because a particular consciousness is deemed to be infinite in scope. At least not without supplementary reasons.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure they are. They apparently don't require evidence. Therefore they are untestable. Therefore they are useful only as mental exercise. I could be wrong of course. If so enlighten me.



Your complete non-comprehension fits in well with the vast majority of people on this board. If you feel so contemptuous regarding metaphysical hypotheses then why are you so sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality?




I don't accept the existence of something unless there is a reason to. Do you?



Indeed, absolutely.


Are there any reasons to accept the existence of God?

Are there any reasons to accept atheism?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Has anyone ever suggested such a thing? Or are you simply attacking a strawman? Even if it were the case that people were so stupid as to express such a feeling, how does this give any evidence against an appropriately defined God?

Present an appropriately defined God, and we can discuss it. But, no, I'm not attacking a strawman. These are actual arguments presented to me. And, yes, I get a little irritated with it.

That doesn't alter the fact that it may lack purpose.

You're obviously not married, or a parent.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Present an appropriately defined God, and we can discuss it.


{sighs}

Just let's say an all pervasive awareness, encompassing and permeating all things.




But, no, I'm not attacking a strawman. These are actual arguments presented to me. And, yes, I get a little irritated with it.



I suspect they actually mean there is no purpose to life. Absolutely true should your interpretation of the world be true.


You're obviously not married, or a parent.

Yeah, I'm a lonely sad bastard who lives by himself. This however has sod all to do with this simple observation of mine (and of many other people).

But anyway, yes your life has meaning. You love your wife and your children. If you tell me this, then I have absolutely no reason to doubt you. And that's a wonderful thing. You're a lucky guy.

And in which case you have to ask yourself why my observation that if the westernized metaphysic associated with atheism is true, this somehow makes these feelings less real. Obviously it doesn't. So your life definitely has meaning; indeed by definition. This I do not quarrel with. But still, if westernized atheism is true, your life and the Universe has no purpose. But don't worry about it. I wouldn't dream of using that fact as a supposed "argument" for "God".

[hypnotoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh for God's sake. Please comprehensively explain your terminology and give reasons :rolleyes:

You really must give a precise definition of what a "supernatural" thing is. In particular explain why a putative material world and consciousness are not "supernatural". Explain in detail why you think God's consciousness is "supernatural".

After doing that explain what would constitute evidence for the existence of these allegedly "supernatural" things. Or is your metaphysic (materialism or whatever) unfalsifiable?

See above. Explain what "supernatural" means.



Here is a definition, though I am sure you would not find it complete. If there is a different word you would prefer to use, by all means let me know. I think the purpose of words is to facilitate communication. If the word supernatural is not doing that then let's use another.

SUPERNATURAL
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
- supernatural noun
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ly /-'na-ch&r-&-lE, -'nach-r&-, -'na-ch&r-lE/ adverb
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ness noun

Well, by this definition I suppose the point can be made that it is unreasonable to expect the supernatural to produce any observable phenomenon. Once again, let me say that I do not claim to prove that the supernatural does not exist. It is, by this definition, impossible to prove or disprove its existence. What irritates me to no end, however, is the billions of people on this planet who claim (with words and/or deeds) that such existence has been proven, or if not proven at least that there is some reason to believe it. I don't claim to be able to disprove God's existence, just the versions imagined by Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Do you think it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a God? How is the concept of God different from the concept of angels? Of Leprechauns? Etc.

Do you think that God exerts any influence on the natural world today? Why?/Why not?
If it is impossible to know then how is God's existence functionally different than God's nonexistence?
Say there are undetectable unaffectable beings inside your head that control your every move. I can't prove there aren't. I can't prove there are. Does it matter if there are? Will it change anything? Do they exist? I suspect by your definition of existence they do exist, since I have mentioned them. Are they real? I don't know. It makes no difference in the decisions I make whether they exist or not, or, in fact, whether I believe in them or not. Functionally speaking, it is the same thing. Call it what you will. If you want to say they exist, I see no problem with that. If a person is going to make life decisions because they believe the beings want them to do something then that person is a fool.




Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You introduced the word "supernatural" not me. Either you think consciousness is supernatural or not. But if not then don't make exceptions because a particular consciousness is deemed to be infinite in scope. At least not without supplementary reasons.

Your complete non-comprehension fits in well with the vast majority of people on this board. If you feel so contemptuous regarding metaphysical hypotheses then why are you so sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality?

Are there any reasons to accept atheism?

I think that conciousness is a natural phenomenon that science can not yet explain completely. (Yes there are parts that can be explained already). If you are going to call a phenomenon that science hasn't explained yet supernatural then I am sure you realize that had you been living a few hundred years ago you would be making all sorts of ridiculous claims about what is supernatural. But it seems like you don't agree that the word supernatural is appropriate anyway.

I am not sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality. But what is the difference between believing in a god for no reason and believing in anything else for no reason? Unless you have a reason to believe in God?





Indeed, absolutely.
[B]
How do you decide what to believe in?
Let me get this straight. You are saying that you believe in things for no reason? Can you tell me why? Oh, wait, that would be giving a reason. Never mind. I am going to treat this response as a joke unless you explain it further.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This I do not quarrel with. But still, if westernized atheism is true, your life and the Universe has no purpose. But don't worry about it. I wouldn't dream of using that fact as a supposed "argument" for "God".

And you are not one of the people who trots out this irritating argument either. And no I am not just attacking a strawman either, I have heard heard people use it as an argument in exactly those words (even if you are right and they really mean "purpose", it would have no bearing on whether God exists or not). If you have never heard it trotted out as an argument for God's existance I can only say that it shows that you have far fewer fundies over there than we do over here.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Psydox

I choose to believe in something you say is false but yet can't prove is false
I couldn't make sense out of most of your post, but I can respond to this. First, I can prove it is false - just as soon as you define it. God is only unprovable as long as He remains undefined. Second, I don't have to prove it is false. You have to prove it is true. This is called the burden of proof, something that you are obviously unaware of. Do you believe in elves, pixies, trolls, or unicorns? Do you believe in an imaginary monster I will make up tommorrow? You cannot prove that this monster I haven't invented yet doesn't exist... but you don't believe in it, do you? And you'd think I was nuts if I told you that since you can't disprove it, I'm entitled by the rules of reason to believe. Correct?

Yahzi, take yourself out of your isolation box and consider that all the bad actions come not from an individual belief but instead from a thing called Hate.
See, this is just false. Not all bad things come from hate. Some come from just sheer ignorance. Back when doctors used to put leeches on your privates to cure you, they didn't hate you. They actually thought they were helping.

Why don't you take yourself out of your ideological box, and try to see the world as it is instead of as you want it to be.

Who is the one that used words like : naive, ignorant, retarded, mind-numbingly self-centered, just because I will not agree with you and choose instead to maintain my individual belief.
Um, that would be me. I can't believe you forgot already, but I'm happy to clear up the confusion. ;)

The reason I applied those words is because you choose to maintain your individual belief, regardless of the evidence.

Finally let me ask you this.....is it the belief that does bad or is it the person ?
It is the person, obviously. Beliefs don't do anything. But you know that, right? So let me ask you this: is it the person that does the bad, or is it the Hate? See how stupid your question is?

Hate enables and causes evil. So does ignorance. So does willful denial of the facts.

I think you are a total *&^* hole .....but hey that's just my belief. Dosen't mean I'm going to go to Wal-Mart now and blow everyone away because I think this of you.
But you see, that is a true belief. I am an *********. I'm not proud of it, but I'll you this: it beats being a self-indulgent creep any day of the week.

If there weren't so many creeps actively perpetuating ignorance (and therefor evil) for their own selfish emotional reasons, I wouldn't be such an *********. But as long as the Pope can ignore science and condem millions to death, well, frankly, anybody who has a functioning conscience is going to be a bit of an ********* about it.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
The best thing to do in such situations is present the exact same argument back to them, but replace "God" with another deity that they do not believe in.
Hey! I got an original quote very much like that:

"All that is necessary to defeat a theologian is to repeat his arguments back to him, but replacing the word God with any other word." - Yahzi

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[b]Originally posted by Psydox


I couldn't make sense out of most of your post, but I can respond to this. First, I can prove it is false - just as soon as you define it. God is only unprovable as long as He remains undefined. Second, I don't have to prove it is false. You have to prove it is true. This is called the burden of proof, something that you are obviously unaware of. Do you believe in elves, pixies, trolls, or unicorns? Do you believe in an imaginary monster I will make up tommorrow? You cannot prove that this monster I haven't invented yet doesn't exist... but you don't believe in it, do you? And you'd think I was nuts if I told you that since you can't disprove it, I'm entitled by the rules of reason to believe. Correct?



Yahzi, you really are a clueless tithead {sighs}

Get a clue that when people talk about God they might not be referring to a thing in the world.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I think the worst one is either "you can't disprove it" or "you can't see love either!".

Actually....One could argue that the hormone increase, the adrenaline, the claming hormone that's released (Forget the name) and many other chemical changes that happen when someone is smitten, put onto a graph sheet could be, technically, seeing love.

Tell them to disprove you being God. They can't, because you simply decide to not do anything God-like for the moment.

[hypnotoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Get a clue that when people talk about God they might not be referring to a thing in the world.

Amen to that. But then I am sure you meant it differently.

How dare you insult unicorns by elevating your god to a higher plane of existence. Unicorns are at a higher plane than your god and you can't prove otherwise.
p.s. Especially the pink ones.:wink:

[uruk]

Interesting Ian wrote:
Yahzi, you really are a clueless tithead {sighs}

Resorting to insults again I see. {sighs} Shameful :(

Why does everyone on this board keep talking about evidence all the time. Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?

True there are some differences between them. By definition
(and not one that I made up) a hypothesis is a tentative explination that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation.

Some views of metaphysics question the validity of reality and matter. Therefore a metaphysical hypothesis can only be based on assumptions rather than facts. Facts presupposes the validity of reality or having a "real","demonstrable" existance. Facts have no meaning for them.

They can only "test" or verify their hypothesis by logical arguments or reasoning. The problem here is that the hypothisis
is based on uproveable assumptions. As a result it's easy for them
come up with any kind of wily-nily belief just so long as it follows some internal logic.

Science, on the other hand, makes only one major assumption, that this percieved "reality" of our senses is "real" and chooses only to accept the "logical arguments" within this frame of reference.

The difference is that this "reality" has an "internal logic" that does not conform to our human preconceptions or notions and can be verified or tested with the same conclusions being arrived at by separate "perceiving minds". One of those conclusions is that the mind derives from matter. But that argument is based on verifiable and testable "evidence" within the internal logic of the scientific view .


The form of metaphysics that I believe that Ian subscribes to does not require the independent verification of a perceiving mind just acceptance of the internal logic. They are able to ignore the internal logic or "evidence" of science's reality by arguing that there is a separation of the mind from that reality and that the "evidence" is created by the mind rather than being separate and inherent to that reality. But this idea presupposes
a super or "ultimate" reality. The one in which the mind exists.
There is no way to prove the existance of that presupposed ultimate reality since we cannot percieve it directly with our mind.
That's why they can't grasp or understand "proof" and "evidence"
because from their perspective it has no meaning, it's not "real".

In other words, they just substitue one reality for another.
The reality of the "mind" is more "real" than the "physical" reality.
But again this is based on assumptions.

So pick your assumption: Matter is derived from mind which exists in an ultimate reality. (but then if you buy that then the mind is
made up of whatever the ultimate reality is made up of) Or, the mind is derived from matter and does not require an extreaneous
reality in which to exist.

The latter is the one I subscribe to. One reason is that it is perceptible to my senses and can be verified by the separate observation of another mind and that we can agree on that observation (more or less). I do not subscribe to the former because I have no reason to accept the existance of an ultimate
reality that I cannot percieve. I cannot verify the existance of an ultimate reality because there is no perception of it for me to compare with another mind's perception. otherwise how would i know that the assumption has merit?

So when I ask for "evidence" of your belief. I am asking how can I verify your assumptions so that other minds would independently come to the same conclusions.

[Hal 2001]

Originally posted by Kullervo
"If god does not exist, then life is meaningless.
But life has meaning
Therefore god exists"

Unfortunately you can't counter "but life is meaningless, therefore god doesn't exist" because that's not a valid inference. But you can confound the person making the argument by accepting the meaninglessness of life, or asking them to prove that life has meaning - equally as difficult as demonstrating the existence of god, I guess.

Yeah, it's annoying.

Or you could ask Cthulhu to devour them.


Hmmm the magic of circular reasoning;) :

God exists because life has meaning
Life has meaning because god Exists

Try to beat it:D , I feel good and happy now.


mss Hal

[Bearguin]

The one that got me was the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument.

My wife and I attended an Alpha course (we got halfway through before we stopped going as the discussion leader was a twit).

First night, this was the argument presented. After that, things went downhill pretty quickly.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?
No. Remove the matter, remove the mind.

Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?
Scientific hypotheses are based upon (usually) multiple observations and are rigorously tested.
Metaphysical hypotheses are based upon emotion and are rigorously denied testing of any sort.

A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism? Repeatable proof of god(s).


Psydox
So are you now going to take away my inherent capacity, my instinctual desire to be good because I choose to believe in something you say is false but yet can't prove is false. There is no magical moral sense implanted within people. A conscious is a learned not an innate response.

Yahzi, take yourself out of your isolation box and consider that all the bad actions come not from an individual belief but instead from a thing called Hate. Wrong.
A: Why do you beat your kids?
B: Because I love them.

There are as many reasons people do bad actions as there are people. You need to consider that an action viewed by one group is considered 'bad', but when viewed by another group is considered moral.

Ossai
[If I could type correctly, I'd be dangerous!]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ossai
[b]Interesting Ian

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I assume our consciousnesses are supernatural, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. Remove the matter, remove the mind.


Non-sequitur.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is no-one capable of getting it into their heads that metaphysical hypotheses are different from scientific ones?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Scientific hypotheses are based upon (usually) multiple observations and are rigorously tested.
Metaphysical hypotheses are based upon emotion and are rigorously denied testing of any sort.



Hey, were you born without a brain, or are you just pretending to be stupid in order to elicit a response?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeatable proof of god(s).



Ignores my question. I repeat. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hypnotoad
Oh for God's sake. Please comprehensively explain your terminology and give reasons

You really must give a precise definition of what a "supernatural" thing is. In particular explain why a putative material world and consciousness are not "supernatural". Explain in detail why you think God's consciousness is "supernatural".

After doing that explain what would constitute evidence for the existence of these allegedly "supernatural" things. Or is your metaphysic (materialism or whatever) unfalsifiable?

See above. Explain what "supernatural" means.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is a definition, though I am sure you would not find it complete. If there is a different word you would prefer to use, by all means let me know. I think the purpose of words is to facilitate communication. If the word supernatural is not doing that then let's use another.

SUPERNATURAL
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary



I am not interested in dictionary definitions. I want to know what you mean by the word.



Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
- supernatural noun
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ly /-'na-ch&r-&-lE, -'nach-r&-, -'na-ch&r-lE/ adverb
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ness noun

Well, by this definition I suppose the point can be made that it is unreasonable to expect the supernatural to produce any observable phenomenon.



Why?





Do you think it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a God?



Nothing is known for certain in this world apart from analytical truths.




How is the concept of God different from the concept of angels? Of Leprechauns? Etc.



I don't know. What are angels and Leprechauns?



Do you think that God exerts any influence on the natural world today? Why?/Why not?



All things are a manifestation of the ultimate awareness.



If it is impossible to know then how is God's existence functionally different than God's nonexistence?



If "God" exists no meaning can be attached to the scenario of a Godless Universe.



Snip the meaningless rantiong.




[quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You introduced the word "supernatural" not me. Either you think consciousness is supernatural or not. But if not then don't make exceptions because a particular consciousness is deemed to be infinite in scope. At least not without supplementary reasons.

Your complete non-comprehension fits in well with the vast majority of people on this board. If you feel so contemptuous regarding metaphysical hypotheses then why are you so sure that atheism is the correct depiction of reality?

Are there any reasons to accept atheism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that conciousness is a natural phenomenon that science can not yet explain completely.



Science cannot in principle explain consciousness. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Snip meaningless drivel.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by uruk

Resorting to insults again I see. {sighs} Shameful :(

I have Ian on ignore (has it been a year already?), so I only see his insults to me when you quote them.

:p

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Ossai
[b] There is no magical moral sense implanted within people. A conscious is a learned not an innate response.
Would you characterize language as a learned rather than innate response? And yet there are areas of the brain specifically involved in language: without those areas, you cannot learn language (as demonstrated by both brain defects and animals). Furthermore, people raised in groups without langauge will begin developing one. From this we conclude that people are not born with langauge, but is certainly more than just a learned ability.

Exactly the same is true of morality. There is a magical ability for language implanted within people, and there is an ability for morality.

[uruk]

Interesting Ian wrote:
All things are a manifestation of the ultimate awareness.

Please present an analytical truth which supports this statement.

And remember just because you say so doesn't mean it is so.

Calling someone a "tithead" does not disprove their argument or support yours.

Calling someone's belief or statement silly does not disprove their argument or support yours.

Avoiding answering questions does not disprove their arguments
or support yours.

languange is a poor way of expressing ideas and information (but it's the only method we have at the moment). It's prone to misinterpretation. So when using words, it's good idea to use some common reference so that we may (more or less) agree on the meaning of the words we choose to use. I believe there is a source called a dictionary. You should try to use it sometime. That may reduce the number of misinterpretations and help to get your ideas through our thick heads.

You can use all the analytical arguments and reasoning you want,
but in order to be tooken seriously or to prove your point, you must back up those arguments with some form of verification so that we and others can come to the same conclusions as you.

Other wise your ideas are just fantasy based on nothing at all.

[hypnotoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I am not interested in dictionary definitions. I want to know what you mean by the word.

Supernatural is an adjective used to describe things that do not exist in the natural universe yet still exist. A supernatural phenomenon is one that possesses some attribute unexplainable by science. Not unexplained, mind you, but unexplainable.
Some supernatural phenomenon are claimed by their proponents to be able to affect the natural universe without existing within it (certain Gods for example). It is these that I argue against.

Supernatural phenomenon that do not interact with the natural universe may or may not exist. I can't support a claim about them and neither can anyone else.

I want to know what you mean by the word.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian



Why?


By the first definition it is unreasonable to expect the supernatural to produce observable phenomena unless the supernatural is claimed to be partially of or relating to an existence within the natural universe. It would not have to produce observable phenomena.
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil



The second definition is so vague it could be applied to a magician's slight-of-hand. People say something is supernatural when they usually mean appears supernatural. I don't think this definition applies to the discussion.
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)



Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nothing is known for certain in this world apart from analytical truths.




Nothing is known for certain. Analytical truths are an artifact of language.




Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]

I don't know. What are angels and Leprechauns?



Angels and Leprechauns may or may not exist. There is no evidence that they exist. They are not known to have any properties. Nothing about them can ever be known.



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]

All things are a manifestation of the ultimate awareness.



That is an unsupported claim. Feel free to support it. I am listening.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]

If "God" exists no meaning can be attached to the scenario of a Godless Universe.



Can you give any ways my life would be affected were I to believe that "God" exists? Does your claim have any predictive value? Does it have any ramifications?





Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]

Science cannot in principle explain consciousness. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[B]

Are you saying that science will never explain conciousness or that science cannot explain conciousness? Science has made great strides in understanding conciousness. I believe that science will some day be able to explain how conciousness is created by the brain. I don't claim to be able to prove that though.

If science were to create artificial conciousness and were able to explain it would that be enough?
What effect would that have on your belief system? (Theoretically.)

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
No. Remove the matter, remove the mind.
Non-sequitur.
Not at all. Adversely affect the matter that the brain is composed of and the mind is likewise affected. Remove the matter and remove the mind.

Hey, were you born without a brain, or are you just pretending to be stupid in order to elicit a response? Wow, and insult from Ian. I…I feel so validated.

Ignores my question. I repeat. What conceivable state of affairs would need to pertain before you were to relinquish your atheism? Not really, just over generalizing. Well, it would really depend upon which god(s) I was supposed 'relinquish my atheism' for. Cessation of all suffering would be a very good start.


Yahzi
Furthermore, people raised in groups without langauge will begin developing one. From this we conclude that people are not born with langauge, but is certainly more than just a learned ability.
Rudimentary communication is not language (at least language where more than physical representation is produced - rock, water, pain, etc)

Exactly the same is true of morality. There is a magical ability for language implanted within people, and there is an ability for morality. No magic involved at all. People evolved from social animals. Morality (actually ethics) strengthens the social bond and enhances the survivability of the group as a whole, therefore it would be logical that the tendency would evolve and be passed on.

Ossai

[Roadtoad]

You know, I actually was enjoying this discussion, until Ian hit us with his "tithead" remark.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Science cannot in principle explain consciousness.

Two words: Cognitive neuroscience.

One more word: Connectivism.

Do those words have any significance?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Ossai
Rudimentary communication is not language (at least language where more than physical representation is produced - rock, water, pain, etc)
I agree. What's your point?

No magic involved at all. People evolved from social animals. Morality (actually ethics) strengthens the social bond and enhances the survivability of the group as a whole, therefore it would be logical that the tendency would evolve and be passed on.

Um. Magic was your adjective. What you've said here is exactly my position. Yes, we have evolved special ability (a tendency) to moral behaviour.

You do realize we are in complete agreement, right?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Wow! Someone got it!

As for the origin of the universe, my mind is still open. He isn't a member of the sex police or the genocide police, but there may be an intelligence behind our existence.

I don't think so, but I can't absolutely prove it.

Which line is the most hilarious? Please tell me so I can repeat it all over. :D
I cant believe I missed this one...

From Fundies Say the Dardest Things (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/fundies/fstdt.htm):
"I tend to look on Catholicism as a bastardization of Christianity."
- Master Blaster

[Ossai]

Yahzi
You do realize we are in complete agreement, right?
I was using the term magic in the supernatural sense. I think you were using it in the not yet known sense. Resulted in a bit of confusion.

Ossai

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, not no meaning, rather no purpose.



You assert that life has "no purpose" unless you believe in God. I'm going to ask you to try and back this statement up, since you haven't attempted to thus far.

I believe in a "god", you could say; yet this concept of "god" is fairly only a quasi-philisophical construct designed to explain the notion of "First Cause" that by no means bestows "meaning" or "purpose" to my life or anyone else's, since this "god" logically cares (if he/she/it is even capable of "caring") neither about me nor anyone else, ultimately.

Yet, my life does have a purpose - or, rather, a multitude of purposes (purpii?). To please women is my primary one at the moment... ;) My presence is needed and wanted in various places.

I fail to see how "believing in God (in the theistic sense)" would give anybody's life "purpose".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Two words: Cognitive neuroscience.

One more word: Connectivism.

Do those words have any significance?

I repeat, science cannot in principle explain consciousness.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I repeat, science cannot in principle explain consciousness.

Why not?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
[B]

You assert that life has "no purpose" unless you believe in God.



Did I? Well it depends on what you mean by God.


I'm going to ask you to try and back this statement up, since you haven't attempted to thus far.


I was saying this is what people meant rather than there being no meaning. I would regard modern western atheism as stipulating there is no purpose to our lives and the Universe. If you disagree then fine. Let me know what the purpose of our lives are though will you?



I believe in a "god", you could say; yet this concept of "god" is fairly only a quasi-philisophical construct designed to explain the notion of "First Cause" that by no means bestows "meaning" or "purpose" to my life or anyone else's, since this "god" logically cares (if he/she/it is even capable of "caring") neither about me nor anyone else, ultimately.

Yet, my life does have a purpose - or, rather, a multitude of purposes (purpii?). To please women is my primary one at the moment... ;) My presence is needed and wanted in various places.


I don't think you understand what the word "purpose" means.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You know, I actually was enjoying this discussion, until Ian hit us with his "tithead" remark.

It's only a very mild insulting term (at least where I live). A bit like saying don't be daft or stupid etc.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ossai
[b]Interesting Ian

Non-sequitur.
Not at all. Adversely affect the matter that the brain is composed of and the mind is likewise affected. Remove the matter and remove the mind.

[/quote]

Yes, but I remind you that you originally said that consciousness is not supernatural. So are you willing to agree that God's consciousness is also not supernatural? Or is God's consciousness a special case? If so then why?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


II
I repeat, science cannot in principle explain consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why not?

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective. What is the entire field of psychology, then?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.

I'll buy that, except that it only works if you accept consciousness as apurely non-physical thing. If it is simply an effect caused by physical processes in the brain, then it is dsicernable from the third person perspective and would thus be explainable. Current science may not understand all of the physical processes behind but that doesn't mean that they never will.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
Yes, but I remind you that you originally said that consciousness is not supernatural. So are you willing to agree that God's consciousness is also not supernatural? Or is God's consciousness a special case? If so then why? I don't postulate the existence of a god, therefore your question is meaningless to me.

Ossai

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'll buy that, except that it only works if you accept consciousness as apurely non-physical thing. If it is simply an effect caused by physical processes in the brain, then it is dsicernable from the third person perspective and would thus be explainable. Current science may not understand all of the physical processes behind but that doesn't mean that they never will.

What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

But you should bear in mind that if we presuppose materialism, then in a sense, consciousness is already explained! It's simply a matter of understanding brain function.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

But you should bear in mind that if we presuppose materialism, then in a sense, consciousness is already explained! It's simply a matter of understanding brain function. Not that brain function is total understood yet. After all, there is a lot going on, but essentially, this is correct. What's so wrong about that?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.


I suppose I am. But I see no way to explain anything about anything without either presupposing materialism or presupposing it's opposite. It's a crap shoot to be sure, but since materialism does a better job of expalining most other things, as far as I am concerned, I'll put my money on materialism.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

It's a crap shoot to be sure, but since materialism does a better job of expalining most other things, as far as I am concerned, I'll put my money on materialism. But even in a craps shoot, there are better bets than others.

If we were to presuppose immaterialism, then not only to have figure out what gives rise to consciousness, but we must also consider that our perceptions of the material world (which we most certainly have, as I see, feel, and hear the keyboard underneath my hands) are, in part or in full, illusionary. This begs the questions: which perceptions may we trust and what is the source of the illusion?

Presupposing materialism makes all these questions answerable, perhaps even consciousness eventually.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But even in a craps shoot, there are better bets than others.

If we were to presuppose immaterialism, then not only to have figure out what gives rise to consciousness, but we must also consider that our perceptions of the material world (which we most certainly have, as I see, feel, and hear the keyboard underneath my hands) are, in part or in full, illusionary. This begs the questions: which perceptions may we trust and what is the source of the illusion?

Presupposing materialism makes all these questions answerable, perhaps even consciousness eventually.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, but you put it so much better.

[Roadtoad]

One element that seems to fuel this argument is the lack of a definition of God.

Considering that we're attempting to define something which may or may not exist, would this be considered a fool's errand? I would suspect it is.

Comments?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I suppose I am. But I see no way to explain anything about anything without either presupposing materialism or presupposing it's opposite. It's a crap shoot to be sure, but since materialism does a better job of expalining most other things, as far as I am concerned, I'll put my money on materialism.

But you're giving out the wrong message. If you say you can explain consciousness, then people will think that you are indeed claiming you can explain consciousness. But what you're really claiming is that you can explain how the brain works. In order to explain consciousness you would need to explain what is it about physical stuff that it should entail conscious awareness. Explaining how the brain works does not achieve this. Not unless you literally equate behaviour with consciousness.

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But even in a craps shoot, there are better bets than others.

If we were to presuppose immaterialism, then not only to have figure out what gives rise to consciousness, but we must also consider that our perceptions of the material world (which we most certainly have, as I see, feel, and hear the keyboard underneath my hands) are, in part or in full, illusionary. This begs the questions: which perceptions may we trust and what is the source of the illusion?

Presupposing materialism makes all these questions answerable, perhaps even consciousness eventually.

I first of all misread your post and thought it had started "If we were to presuppose materialism". I was astonished at the amount of understanding you were displaying. Then I read your last sentence and realised you were talking about immaterialism :(

Immaterialists hold that our very sensory perceptions constitute reality. Illusions are simply those perceptions which do not exhibit the usual regularities and correlations with other sensory experiences.

Materialism on the other hand holds that what we directly experience, the very smell of say coffee, is illusionary. The smell itself does not actually constitute part of the furniture of reality. It is the various molecules which give rise to the smell which are deemed to be real. In this sense materialism holds that everything we ever experience is illusionary. This is in stark contrast to immaterialism.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I first of all misread your post and thought it had started "If we were to presuppose materialism". I was astonished at the amount of understanding you were displaying. Then I read your last sentence and realised you were talking about immaterialism One wonders how many writings on philosophy you must have misread in your life to come to the conclusions you do. :(
Materialism on the other hand holds that what we directly experience, the very smell of say coffee, is illusionary. The smell itself does not actually constitute part of the furniture of reality. It is the various molecules which give rise to the smell which are deemed to be real. In this sense materialism holds that everything we ever experience is illusionary. This is in stark contrast to immaterialism. Absolutely 100% untrue. (That is, the opposite of true)

When I see, hear, and feel the keyboard underneath my hands as I type, materialism says that there is actually a physical, material keyboard there. Further, materialism gives us a mechanism to answer the questions: What is the keyboard?
Why does it function the way it does?
What are the elements of its composition?
Where did it come from?
Why is it on my desk and for what purpose?
Which, I believe answers your question/comment:BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?Materialism can explain vast amounts about the what we are perceive, including how we perceive.

According to immaterialism, the object I think I'm typing on isn't actually there, independent of myself as it certainly seems to be. No, the experiences I'm perceiving (sight, hearing, touch) are only there because I'm perceiving them, not because they have an existance of their own. No, it is a trick of the senses with no corrisponding independent reality behind it.

Ian, you bluster a great deal about how stupid materialism is and how wonderful immaterialism is, but when pressed, you present a world of universal consciousness and other new age tripe that isn't experiencable. Everything presented in materialism is experiencable. If it isn't, it is either hypothetical and yet to be shown or false.

Really, what exactly can you explain with immaterialism that can not be explained with materialism?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But you're giving out the wrong message. If you say you can explain consciousness, then people will think that you are indeed claiming you can explain consciousness. But what you're really claiming is that you can explain how the brain works. In order to explain consciousness you would need to explain what is it about physical stuff that it should entail conscious awareness. Explaining how the brain works does not achieve this. Not unless you literally equate behaviour with consciousness.

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?

I don't know enough about the science behind how the brain works to be able to say much about your comments one way or the other.

I will say this about what materialism explains, though. The best example I can think of is this; if I go to start my car in the morning and someone has come in the middle of the night and stolen the battery without my knowledge, my car will not start. Materialism expalins this very simply; the car, the battery, and myself all exist independantly of each other. Without the battery, the car can't start regardless of my own thoughts or desires.

The only alternative is that the car is all in my mind. If so, why doesn't the car start if I don't know that the battery ahs been taken? Why do I even need the battery or the car for that matter?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I don't know enough about the science behind how the brain works to be able to say much about your comments one way or the other. Neither do I. However, I do know enough to know that it isn't out of the question that science may one day be able to explain consciousness.

Whereas, I will admit to not knowing enough about immaterialism to know what possible kinds of useful information can, or even has already, come from it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Neither do I. However, I do know enough to know that it isn't out of the question that science may one day be able to explain consciousness.


I quite agree with you. The only reason I didn't say that in the post was that had Ian used the same argument from the opposite side (i.e. "Science may one day prove that consciousness is independant of the brain", or something similar) It would have sounded a lot like saying "well, you can't prove me wrong", which isn't really an argument at all and (back to the original topic of this thread) is annoying as all hell. I figured it would sound pretty much the same way to somoene arguing his point so I avoided it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I figured it would sound pretty much the same way to somoene arguing his point so I avoided it. Okay, that's valid. The reason I did make the point was because Ian has explicitely said that science and/or materialism can not explain consciousness. Which, to my mind, only goes to show either his narrow and focused understanding or his lack of understanding.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, that's valid. The reason I did make the point was because Ian has explicitely said that science and/or materialism can not explain consciousness. Which, to my mind, only goes to show either his narrow and focused understanding or his lack of understanding.

Fair enough. It is a very common thing for people to think "Well since science can't explain Phenomenon X then [Insert Pet Theory Here] must be true". A lot of people don't seem to realize that sometimes "We don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
When I see, hear, and feel the keyboard underneath my hands as I type, materialism says that there is actually a physical, material keyboard there. Further, materialism gives us a mechanism to answer the questions:

What is the keyboard?

Why does it function the way it does?

What are the elements of its composition?

Where did it come from?

Why is it on my desk and for what purpose?

Which, I believe answers your question/comment:



Materialism doesn't answer any of those questions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialism can explain vast amounts about the what we are perceive, including how we perceive.



I think not.



According to immaterialism, the object I think I'm typing on isn't actually there, independent of myself as it certainly seems to be.



How can there seem to be a mind-independent reality since by definition such a reality must forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive?




No, the experiences I'm perceiving (sight, hearing, touch) are only there because I'm perceiving them, not because they have an existance of their own.



Huh?? :confused: I do not hold that sensory experiences have an existence of their own. I hold that such experiences are had by experiencers.



Ian, you bluster a great deal about how stupid materialism is and how wonderful immaterialism is, but when pressed, you present a world of universal consciousness and other new age tripe that isn't experiencable. Everything presented in materialism is experiencable.



On the contrary, nothing is. WE do not perceive this mysterious material world. All we are aware of are qualia. And according to the materialist, qualia are not really constitutive of the furniture of reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But you're giving out the wrong message. If you say you can explain consciousness, then people will think that you are indeed claiming you can explain consciousness. But what you're really claiming is that you can explain how the brain works. In order to explain consciousness you would need to explain what is it about physical stuff that it should entail conscious awareness. Explaining how the brain works does not achieve this. Not unless you literally equate behaviour with consciousness.

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know enough about the science behind how the brain works to be able to say much about your comments one way or the other.



You don't need to know anything about science. I'm talking about philosophy.



I will say this about what materialism explains, though. The best example I can think of is this; if I go to start my car in the morning and someone has come in the middle of the night and stolen the battery without my knowledge, my car will not start. Materialism expalins this very simply; the car, the battery, and myself all exist independantly of each other. Without the battery, the car can't start regardless of my own thoughts or desires.



The car won't start because the world operates according to physical laws of nature. I do not think the existence of such physical laws can be said to favour materialism.



The only alternative is that the car is all in my mind. If so, why doesn't the car start if I don't know that the battery ahs been taken? Why do I even need the battery or the car for that matter?




You clearly don't understand my position. I have never claimed that my position denies the external world operates according to physical laws. Simply because mind is the prime reality doesn't entail that the derived reality (ie the physical world) is entirely manipulable at will.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Neither do I. However, I do know enough to know that it isn't out of the question that science may one day be able to explain consciousness.



That's interesting. So, you know something which in principle is impossible :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What is the keyboard?

Why does it function the way it does?

What are the elements of its composition?

Where did it come from?

Why is it on my desk and for what purpose?

Materialism doesn't answer any of those questions.
??:confused:??

How can you honestly this? The keyboard is a product of materialism based science. Here are the answers to those very questions:

1. The keyboard is device that transforms mechanical input into electrical input.
2. It works by a series of switches that open an close when a key is pressed sending a pre-arranged series of electrical signals
3. It is composed primarily of plastic, copper, and paint (probably with other elements as well).
4. This specific keyboard came from Dell in California.
5. It is on my desk because I placed it there for the purpose of inputing signals into my computer.

All answered under the assumption of materialism. Do you still think materialism doesn't answer any of these questions despite the answers above?
I think not.Apparently, but perhaps you should open your mind to trying.
How can there seem to be a mind-independent reality since by definition such a reality must forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive?Why must it "forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive"? I'm perceiving it right now!
On the contrary, nothing is. WE do not perceive this mysterious material world. All we are aware of are qualia.Oh? and from the immaterialists world view, where do qualia come from and why does it decieve us into perceiving a material world? Why do I perceive that my desk is hard and brown and that my keyboard clicks and is black if my desk and keyboard are not the source of the perception?
And according to the materialist, qualia are not really constitutive of the furniture of reality. That's right. According to the materialist, qualia are a consequence of reality, not the reality itself. So what?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

That's interesting. So, you know something which in principle is impossible :rolleyes: Only if you hold a very narrow and closemined view of what is possible.

:rub:

There is so much to know, Ian. Why close your mind to so much?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You clearly don't understand my position. I have never claimed that my position denies the external world operates according to physical laws. Simply because mind is the prime reality doesn't entail that the derived reality (ie the physical world) is entirely manipulable at will. Ah, this part I didn't understand. You're not denying that physical/material world exists at all. Okay.

How, then, do you come to the conclusion that the mind is the "prime reality" and what does that mean?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, this part I didn't understand. You're not denying that physical/material world exists at all. Okay.

How, then, do you come to the conclusion that the mind is the "prime reality" and what does that mean?

I am interested in what he has to say to that question too.

Ian, if I am misunderstanding your postion could you please briefly explain what your position is? Or at the very least point me in the right direction to do some google searches. Otherwise well be talking right past each other.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch


Materialism doesn't answer any of those questions.
??:confused:??

How can you honestly this? The keyboard is a product of materialism based science. Here are the answers to those very questions:

1. The keyboard is device that transforms mechanical input into electrical input.
2. It works by a series of switches that open an close when a key is pressed sending a pre-arranged series of electrical signals
3. It is composed primarily of plastic, copper, and paint (probably with other elements as well).
4. This specific keyboard came from Dell in California.
5. It is on my desk because I placed it there for the purpose of inputing signals into my computer.

All answered under the assumption of materialism. Do you still think materialism doesn't answer any of these questions despite the answers above?
Apparently, but perhaps you should open your mind to trying.
Why must it "forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive"? I'm perceiving it right now!
Oh? and from the immaterialists world view, where do qualia come from and why does it decieve us into perceiving a material world? Why do I perceive that my desk is hard and brown and that my keyboard clicks and is black if my desk and keyboard are not the source of the perception?
That's right. According to the materialist, qualia are a consequence of reality, not the reality itself. So what? [/B]

I really don't think there is any further purpose in pursuing this conversation. You need to obtain a good grounding in metaphysics. Same goes for you Nyarlathotep. Hope this doesn't offend you both.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hope this doesn't offend you both.

Who are you and what did you do to the real Ian?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I am interested in what he has to say to that question too.

Ian, if I am misunderstanding your postion could you please briefly explain what your position is? Or at the very least point me in the right direction to do some google searches. Otherwise well be talking right past each other.

I essentially subscribe to Berkeley's position ie subjective idealism which is a type of immaterialism.

The best introduction to my position can be obtained here (http://www.maxpages.com/markphilosophy/Idealism_Page)

A slightly more in depth exploration of my position can be obtained here (http://www.meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Articles/Philosophy_of_the_mind/what_is_real.htm)

For a more in depth look at Berkeley's position (which is very similar to my own), then go to this (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/berkeley.htm) website.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't need to know anything about science. I'm talking about philosophy.

Ian, you may have missed a comment I made previously, but I'll repeat it here and hope your read it:

Consciousness and qualia are described by Congnitive Neuralscience, they cannot be described by Philosophy.

First, keep Philosophy and Science seperate, you wont get anything accomplished.

To address a few of your concerns all at once, I'll answer them right now:

"Assumption of materialism"
Materialism is not assume, Einstein was the first to put an end to the millenia old debate of the existence of atoms.

See this page (http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/index_n2/einstein_theory.html) as a timeline of Einsteins work.

I can go into vast detail describing the existence of atoms if Einstein doesnt impress you... (Note: That last statement was a bit of subtle observational humor, but I can still describe atoms in detail...)

And to sum up my stance on Materialism: Everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena.

You clearly don't understand my position. I have never claimed that my position denies the external world operates according to physical laws. Simply because mind is the prime reality doesn't entail that the derived reality (ie the physical world) is entirely manipulable at will.
I agree, the things that occur inside the mind cannot alter objective reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Ian, you may have missed a comment I made previously, but I'll repeat it here and hope your read it:

Consciousness and qualia are described by Congnitive Neuralscience, they cannot be described by Philosophy.



They cannot be described at all, full stop (or period as you yanks say).



First, keep Philosophy and Science seperate, you wont get anything accomplished.



Oh dear me.



To address a few of your concerns all at once, I'll answer them right now:

"Assumption of materialism"
Materialism is not assume, Einstein was the first to put an end to the millenia old debate of the existence of atoms.

See this page (http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/index_n2/einstein_theory.html) as a timeline of Einsteins work.

I can go into vast detail describing the existence of atoms if Einstein doesnt impress you... (Note: That last statement was a bit of subtle observational humor, but I can still describe atoms in detail...)



It might interest you to know that my Ph.D that I am studying for is concerned with how Berkeley regarded the microscopic realm. I come to the conclusion that Berkeley quite unmistakably embraced the existence of corpuscles (atoms) in his last work (siris), and even in his early work, written in his 20's, he never explicitly denied the existence of the microscopic realm.

Anyway, one can be a immaterialist (idealist) and quite consistently believe in the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc. I would say, however, that maybe the belief in something like gravitational force (as in an existent superimposed on reality as it were) perhaps has some tension with immaterialism.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They cannot be described at all, full stop (or period as you yanks say).

Welcome to the world of Science, while it may be incomplete in some respects, we (as scientists with a thirst for blood and scientific advancement) have a habit of appending to science.

Oh dear me.

It might interest you to know that my Ph.D that I am studying for is concerned with how Berkeley regarded the microscopic realm. I come to the conclusion that Berkeley quite unmistakably embraced the existence of corpuscles (atoms) in his last work (siris), and even in his early work, written in his 20's, he never explicitly denied the existence of the microscopic realm.

First, congratulations on that PhD.

Second, although I am unfamiliar with Berkeley (I'll research him in depth and get to you later), I do know about corpuscles. However, I dont think you were making reference to red and white bloodcells.

Anyway, one can be a immaterialist (idealist) and quite consistently believe in the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc. I would say, however, that maybe the belief in something like gravitational force (as in an existent superimposed on reality as it were) perhaps has some tension with immaterialism.

Makes sense to me.

There is one problem, you previously stated above (in big bold text) the following:
BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?
Unless I'm calling myself the wrong word, I define myself as a materialist. I believe everything can be explained in terms of matter (all things which objectively exist are made of matter) and natural phenomena (This includes interactions between matter and energy, qualia which is described in all those neat cognitive neurosciences, and "mind" which is described in cognitive social sciences which include cognitive psychology).