Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis [Archive]

HypnoPsi

24th April 2007, 08:52 AM

I don't know what happened to the other thread.

Video here. (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/04/richard_dawkins_9.html)

It would be interesting to know more about the source/quality/sample sizes of the studies used for the statistics given in the preamble to the interview.

The Census for England and Wales (by far the largest sampling of the British population) certainly does not correlate with the idea that 44% of Brits do not believe in God. (Even if every man, woman and child in Scotland and Northern Ireland were atheist you still wouldn't get 44%.)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1086&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=326

As for Richard's argument, he makes the classic atheist mistake of confusing levels; the question is not about belief in objective reality (and the way objective reality works) versus a subjective belief in God/s, the question is about how that objective reality got there in the first place.

I can forgive Richard for that initial confusion because of the way that Bill O'Reilly opens the interview with a very unclear statement about objective reality. Bill says:

"I think it takes more faith to be like you, an atheist, than like me, a believer. And it's because of nature. You know, I just don't think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in the tides go out, the sun go up the sun go down. I don't think it could have happened."

Richard responds (in the frame of thinking you don't need God/s to know the mechanics of the objective world), by saying:

"We have a very full understand why the tides go in and the tides go out; about why the continents drift about; of why life is there. Science is evermore piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding."

And this is where things get interesting....

O'Reilly attempts to clarify his question by saying:

"But it had to get there. I understand the, you know, the eh... physiology of it.. if you will..."

(Richard very clearly nods at this point - though perhaps just politely as one does in an interview.)

O'Reilly continues:

"But it had to come from somewhere. And that is the leap of fath that you guys make. That it just happened."

(Television interviews are always a little bit stressful and the point O'Reilly is really making either goes completely over Richard's head or he dodges it.)

Richard responds by saying:

"Well, a leap of faith... you don't actually need a leap of faith. You're the one who needs a leap of faith, because you are actually... the onus is on you to say why you believe in something."

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard. Considering the amount of time and energy he puts into atheism it is, quite frankly, inexcusable for him not to understand that materialism is a faith based metaphysic.

Whether or not someone believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated or has always existed in one form or another it's still just a belief.

_
HypnoPsi

Phil

24th April 2007, 09:04 AM

Hum... actually, to have seen him in person, I would say that Dawkins IS a great speaker, eloquent and articulated. The problem is that he's an intellectual, used to good faith and fair play. He has no experience with trash radio. . . . .

Exactly right. Given the time to speak, Dawkins could have easily answered each point Bill made, but that's not how that show works. It's all loud-mouths and sound bites.

Marquis de Carabas

24th April 2007, 09:12 AM

As for Richard's argument, he makes the classic atheist mistake of confusing levels; the question is not about belief in objective reality (and the way objective reality works) versus a subjective belief in God/s, the question is about how that objective reality got there in the first place.

...snip...

Whether or not someone believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated or has always existed in one form or another it's still just a belief.

_
HypnoPsi
The Universe is here. Atheists and theists overwhelmingly agree to that premise. This leaves two options. The Universe has always been here or the Universe started at some point in the past. Since neither state of affairs has been shown to require a god, postulating one is the needless multiplying of entities. Refusal to believe in a postulated entity because of lack of evidence is hardly on the same footing as the initial postulation.

Phil

24th April 2007, 09:20 AM

TheAntiLuddite

24th April 2007, 09:23 AM

Bill O'Reily's views are representative of a large number of Americans. Couple his dogmatic opinions with his overbearing and brusque manner and you have an explanation as to why a significant portion of the rest of the world dislikes what they perceive to be America. I viewed this with a sort of awe. Here is a man (O'Reily)--watched, listened to and followed by literally millions of Amercians--who in this short clip proceeds to arrogantly bray every childish reason for the existence of religious belief. I almost laughed when he told Dawkins that he (Dawkins) couldn't prove that a deity doesn't exist. I know Dawkins wants publicity for his book but he really couldn't have expected to have that opportunity on O'Reily's program. Guests are simply foils for O'Reily and serve only as a background for what are essentially monologues to his largely conservative audience. I thought Dawkins held his own, but the venue was beneath him. The whole interview was like watching a parent tiredly suffer the jabbering of an obnoxious and belligerent child. The host knew in advance that he would be debating a highly educated and intelligent guest and he therefore couldn't allow him the chance to expound on anything. Honestly, after seeing Geraldo and O'Reily lovingly spar a week or so ago, I would have thought Dawkins would have cancelled his appearance.

Marquis de Carabas

24th April 2007, 09:23 AM

My postulate has been bothering me a lot lately. Sign I'm getting old I guess.

I refuse to believe in your postulate.

No, wait. That stance may lead you to attempt to provide evidence. Forget I said it.

Phil

24th April 2007, 09:27 AM

joobz

24th April 2007, 09:30 AM

I refuse to believe in your postulate.

No, wait. That stance may lead you to attempt to provide evidence. Forget I said it.
FREE POSTULATE EXAMS!!!!

---that's unsexy...

EGarrett

24th April 2007, 09:39 AM

Bill O'Reily's views are representative of a large number of Americans. Couple his dogmatic opinions with his overbearing and brusque manner and you have an explanation as to why a significant portion of the rest of the world dislikes what they perceive to be America.Not really. Every country has irritating people in it. The reason they dislike America is because it is prominent and successful, and tearing down and insulting anything or anyone that is viewed as successful is the natural behavior of the Bad Liberal. (see my thread on Good Liberalism vs. Bad Liberalism)

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard. Considering the amount of time and energy he puts into atheism it is, quite frankly, inexcusable for him not to understand that materialism is a faith based metaphysic.

Whether or not someone believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated or has always existed in one form or another it's still just a belief.There is a HUGE difference between saying "The Universe just appeared" and "We don't know how the Universe may have appeared. Not yet."

The first one is what religious people WANT scientists to be saying, because it's foolish. The second is what scientists actually say, because it's the opposite of foolish. It's truthful, and helpful, because admitting we don't know something is the first step to learning about it.

Religion can't take that step, because they say "We DO already know how the univese got here, it was magic, and you BETTER NOT ask for any proof, because it is a matter of faith." That is nothing but poison. Poison to the mind, and poison to the learning process that has been responsible for every scrap of knowledge and technology that humanity has ever created.

HypnoPsi

24th April 2007, 09:49 AM

The Universe is here. Atheists and theists overwhelmingly agree to that premise. This leaves two options. The Universe has always been here or the Universe started at some point in the past. Since neither state of affairs has been shown to require a god, postulating one is the needless multiplying of entities. Refusal to believe in a postulated entity because of lack of evidence is hardly on the same footing as the initial postulation.

Believing that the Universe is either an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches or an endless stream of multiverses and baby universes is also a needless multiplying of entities.

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

_
HypnoPsi

Marquis de Carabas

24th April 2007, 10:01 AM

Believing that the Universe is either an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches or an endless stream of multiverses and baby universes is also a needless multiplying of entities.
Of course, materialistic atheism requires belief in neither, so this is what is technically known as completely beside the point.

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

_
HypnoPsi
No. It's about saying we'll believe in your God when you prove it.

Beerina

24th April 2007, 10:06 AM

Dawkins isn't a great debater in person or a great public speaker for that matter.

It's true. In that video in his "God Delusion" TV miniseries, he confronts that preacher who was later exposed as paying for gay prostitutes. The preacher responds, loudly, how arrogant he and his position are, and Dawkins looks like a deer caught in headlights. He really needs to prep some arguments and comebacks to likely attack paths.

It's not scientifically sound, but if you want to fight literally on the front lines of rhetoric like that, you can't go in with a mind fine-tuned to a slow, rational response typed out days or weeks later.

ImaginalDisc

24th April 2007, 10:10 AM

Wait, I'm having trouble processing something that happened.

At one point, O'Reilly criticises science because it doesn't have all the answers, whereas, he asserts, his religion does. Dawkins then says that the amount of knowledge added to science each century is "stupendous" and that even though we have to humble about what we don't know - At this point O'Reilly interpupts him, waves a finger in the air and says, "Humility is a Christian virtue."

Did O'Reilly actually suggest that he is humble?

:id:

EGarrett

24th April 2007, 10:49 AM

Bill's other point..."I'm throwing in with Jesus because he answers the question and you don't," is equally faulty.

All Bill O'Reilly is saying in that statement is that he'd rather make up an answer then learn about something. Obviously, that's patently idiotic.

Moochie

24th April 2007, 10:54 AM

I got the distinct impression that O'Reilly was well out of his comfort zone. I strongly doubt he could have a sustained discussion, let alone debate, with the likes of Dawkins.

For the most part, it was vintage O'Reilly. Pure BS.

M.

joobz

24th April 2007, 11:44 AM

Upchurch

24th April 2007, 12:13 PM

I didn't see the interview as a "win" for O'Reilly. His arguments were rather transparent and Dawkins highlighted that.

yet, even if Dawkins was given a "fair" forum to provide his ideas in detail without interruption, it wouldn't have had any additional effect on O'Reilley's audience.
That's why it's a "win" for O'Reilly. He fought the big bad athiest and "made a fool out of him". I haven't looked for fundie reactions to the interview, but I willing to bet that's exactly what they think.

eta: did some searching and wasn't able to find much on it at all from theistic sites.

Foster Zygote

24th April 2007, 12:19 PM

O'Reilly made a comment in the past that convinced me that he is an intellectual houseplant. He was complaining that some North Carolina university was teaching a course on the Quran. This was, of course, not a religious class but rather a class about religion. He then made some asinine comment something like "If you had told me I had to read Mein Kampf in the late '30s I'd have refused". OK, comparing Mein Kampf to the Quran is the act of a real d**k but that didn't really surprise me. Let's leave the Quran bit behind for now. What did strike me as the words of an unimaginative, closed minded twit was the comment about not reading Mein Kampf during the lead up to WWII. I can think of two very bright people who made damned sure they read Mein Kampf during the wind up for the Second World War: Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt! If your mortal enemy provides you with an intimate insight into his psyche you would have to be an idiot not to read it.

Foster Zygote

24th April 2007, 12:24 PM

That's why it's a "win" for O'Reilly. He fought the big bad athiest and "made a fool out of him". I haven't looked for fundie reactions to the interview, but I willing to bet that's exactly what they think.

Sadly true. I saw a debate once in which the biologist utterly destroyed the creationist from any academic point of view, but the largely creationist audience still felt the creationist had won. They just loved it when the creationist made the "point" that "A chimp and a human have 98% identical DNA. Well a water melon is 98% water so it missed being a cloud by just 2%".

IllegalArgument

24th April 2007, 12:25 PM

That's why it's a "win" for O'Reilly. He fought the big bad athiest and "made a fool out of him". I haven't looked for fundie reactions to the interview, but I willing to bet that's exactly what they think.

Exactly. Not to be confused with reality, I wouldn't be suprised if most fundies think they are the underdog. The liberal media and atheist-communist conspiracy is out to get them.

If you think you are the underdog, a draw is a victory, just standing up to the big bad athiest is a victory.

joobz

24th April 2007, 12:41 PM

That's why it's a "win" for O'Reilly. He fought the big bad athiest and "made a fool out of him". I haven't looked for fundie reactions to the interview, but I willing to bet that's exactly what they think.

eta: did some searching and wasn't able to find much on it at all from theistic sites.

That's not quite right though. If we use this reasoning, then we should never debate ever. Because to the zealous crowd, anything said is a "win" for thier side.

But that isn't why we debate. We debate for those who are truly undecided or openminded. If an open minded rational person was to see the debate, they'd recognize the silliness that O'Reilley was spouting.

That's why I say it wasn't a "win". You will never ever see a "win" if you let the religous state what that is.

Upchurch

24th April 2007, 12:48 PM

That's not quite right though. If we use this reasoning, then we should never debate ever. Because to the zealous crowd, anything said is a "win" for thier side.

But that isn't why we debate. We debate for those who are truly undecided or openminded. If an open minded rational person was to see the debate, they'd recognize the silliness that O'Reilley was spouting.
Yes, but O'Reilly's audience is not generally open minded. He tells them what they want to hear.

That's why I say it wasn't a "win". You will never ever see a "win" if you let the religous state what that is.
The forum was not an impartial or fair one. By going on that show, O'Reilly was assured a perceived victory.

Foster Zygote

24th April 2007, 12:52 PM

That's not quite right though. If we use this reasoning, then we should never debate ever. Because to the zealous crowd, anything said is a "win" for thier side.

But that isn't why we debate. We debate for those who are truly undecided or openminded. If an open minded rational person was to see the debate, they'd recognize the silliness that O'Reilley was spouting.

That's why I say it wasn't a "win". You will never ever see a "win" if you let the religous state what that is.

Good point. I've kept at debating some seriously immovable minds on this forum partly out of stubbornness, but also partly out of the knowledge that there are many unregistered guests on this forum at any given time. If even one or two people have that sort of Epiphany like Douglas Adams described in the interview posted by RandFan recently, that sort of "wait a minute, this is complete nonsense" moment, then it was well worth the effort.

Dunstan

24th April 2007, 01:11 PM

That's why it's a "win" for O'Reilly. He fought the big bad athiest and "made a fool out of him". I haven't looked for fundie reactions to the interview, but I willing to bet that's exactly what they think.

eta: did some searching and wasn't able to find much on it at all from theistic sites.

I'm not so sure that fundies would be dancing in the streets over that interview. O'Reilly is a Catholic, not a fundy, and some of the things he said would make a fundy's head explode, e.g. "I don't know if Jesus was God"? That's pretty much blasphemy to them, isn't it? And O'Reilly spent a lot of time making arguments that were more about why religion is good ("a moderating influence") than "Jesus is Lord and you will burn in hell!"

Brown

24th April 2007, 01:49 PM

All I know is that those stats on atheism that O'Reilly spouts at the begining made me feel like I live in a cultural backwater. I also thing that pretty much every point he brings up is answered quite well in the book that he calls "facinating" but apparently has not read.I concur that Billy's comments are a pretty strong indication that he has not read the book, other than reading the title.

I have found this to be quite common. Many commentators spout things beginning with words like "Dawkins argues," apparently without realization that Dawkins argues no such thing in his book. (See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68683) for an example.)

I prefer to think that these commentators are simply lazy, and feel they cannot be bothered to actually read the work that they set out to publicly criticize. It seems to me that it is more likely that they are lazy than that they actually have read the book and they are being deliberately dishonest about Dawkins's arguments.

pgwenthold

24th April 2007, 02:01 PM

HypnoPsi

24th April 2007, 02:51 PM

Hum... actually, to have seen him in person, I would say that Dawkins IS a great speaker, eloquent and articulated.

Dawkins is no better or worse a speaker than many other half-decent Academics - particularly when they're facing a receptive audience. The problem is that academics never quite fit into the sharp-shooting interview format so loved by journalists. TV is nowhere near as cerebral as a debating society and never will be, unfortunately.

The problem is that he's an intellectual, used to good faith and fair play. He has no experience with trash radio.

Dawkins has precious little inclination in that direction!

In his opening statement of his TV special "The Root of All Evil" he appears positively angry and, in his presenting of the 2005 Richard Dawkins Award to Penn & Teller he complimented the duo on their willingness to give offence.

In the same speech he also related a story about meeting a Christian and, realising he didn't have to introduce himself in a polite way by smiling and just shaking the fellows hand, instead shocked the other guy by forgoing any formal hellos and just called him an irrational bigot right to his face.

Is that really the type of society we want? Where materialists and non-materialists shouldn't shake hands when they meet and chat about how their kids are growing up, etc.,?

Should we just divorce society completely, perhaps having some live in the north and some in the south separated by a huge wall across which they can shout insults at each other just because one group happens to believe the Universe has a conscious creator and the other believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated?

There are two thoughts that come to mind here: that you become what you hate and those whom the gods would destroy, they first make angry.

_
HypnoPsi

Foster Zygote

24th April 2007, 03:01 PM

In another thread somewhere (in the PCE forum, I think), there is a discussion about "who is the left's equivalent of BOR?" Some mention Jon Stewart.

While there are many reasons to disagree, Brown's comment is a big one for me. I have found that whenever I see Stewart talk to someone about a book, he acts like he has at least read the book, often bringing up some point that is discussed within. OReilly can be transparent in that he has NOT read the book he is discussing, and totally argues the strawman version of it.

I've actually heard Stewart say things like "I haven't had a chance to read the book" or "I only had time to read the first few chapters". He then asks the author questions that let him/her talk about the book and what it's about. Not that he never reads books by his guests as there are other books that' he's clearly read. But I find that sort of honesty refreshing.

joobz

24th April 2007, 03:47 PM

Yes, but O'Reilly's audience is not generally open minded. He tells them what they want to hear.

The forum was not an impartial or fair one. By going on that show, O'Reilly was assured a perceived victory.
True, but at least he got to make his statements.
to Paraphrase. "But you must make the leap of faith to choose. There are millions of gods, why the one you choose?"

This point will settle on any curious mind. We can at least hope a few kids were in the room while their parents had the TV on...:)

Anyway, it was much better then a radio show I heard with Laura Ingram interviewing the Blasphemy challenge guy. It was a 1-2min blurb I heard on the air(I think it was an edited down version) and the entire time, the guy never got to talk. She just attacked him. Directly attacked HIM, not even addressing his ideas.

EGarrett

24th April 2007, 04:19 PM

Anyway, it was much better then a radio show I heard with Laura Ingram interviewing the Blasphemy challenge guy. It was a 1-2min blurb I heard on the air(I think it was an edited down version) and the entire time, the guy never got to talk. She just attacked him. Directly attacked HIM, not even addressing his ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89GcKtbS4xk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BPQ3uvn1n4&NR=1

=)

It's very irritating though.

EGarrett

24th April 2007, 04:24 PM

HypnoPsi

24th April 2007, 04:36 PM

Dawkins IS a great speaker, eloquent and articulated. The problem is that he's an intellectual, used to good faith and fair play. He has no experience with trash radio.

In addition to my other response to this claim, I'd also note that Dawkins described Nadia Eweida (the BA employee who refused to take off her cross): by saying "she had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen.".

How do materialistic atheists get such a bad press, I wonder?

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

24th April 2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Believing that the Universe is either an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches or an endless stream of multiverses and baby universes is also a needless multiplying of entities.Of course, materialistic atheism requires belief in neither, so this is what is technically known as completely beside the point.

The only other alternative is that the Universe has been around forever.

You'll note I specifically said materialistic atheism to contrast the metaphysic from, say, Buddhist atheism or from agnosticism.

Materialistic atheism isn't agnosticism - it's the active belief that physics is all that's required to explain the objective Universe.

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

_
HypnoPsiNo. It's about saying we'll believe in your God when you prove it.

And it's about saying that I'll believe in your self-generating magic powder underlying reality when you prove it exists.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

24th April 2007, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard. Considering the amount of time and energy he puts into atheism it is, quite frankly, inexcusable for him not to understand that materialism is a faith based metaphysic.

Whether or not someone believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated or has always existed in one form or another it's still just a belief.There is a HUGE difference between saying "The Universe just appeared" and "We don't know how the Universe may have appeared. Not yet."

That is agnositicsm - not materialistic atheism. I have no disagreement with agnostics since they're just throwing their hands up in the air saying "Dunno! And maybe we never will!".

Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact.

The first one is what religious people WANT scientists to be saying, because it's foolish. The second is what scientists actually say, because it's the opposite of foolish. It's truthful, and helpful, because admitting we don't know something is the first step to learning about it.

You're very close, but not quite right. Only the layman to the subject get's to say "I don't know either way" or "I don't know enough about the subject".

The scientific study of a subject is always, always, supposed to culminate in thesis defence. That means to advance the arguement you believe in. (This simply involves comparing and contrasting two (or more) ideas, defining the one you're critical of (and explaining why) and defining the one you believe in (and explaining why).)

The bottom line - if someone is unwilling to advance the argument, from either side then they either haven't read enough about the subject to form a scientific opinion or they're a coward.

Only laymen get to sit still. To do science you must be advancing the argument somehow - even by thought experiments or via pure theory; ergo thesis defence. Science is about progress and the advancement of knowledge and you just can't do that by sitting still. You have to say "Let's look in this direction, it looks good!".

Religion can't take that step, because they say "We DO already know how the univese got here, it was magic, and you BETTER NOT ask for any proof, because it is a matter of faith." That is nothing but poison. Poison to the mind, and poison to the learning process that has been responsible for every scrap of knowledge and technology that humanity has ever created.

Actually, I think you'll find the religious believe that God/s did it *somehow*, but don't know how... And all you're saying here is that, unlike materialists and parapsychologists, the religious aren't interested in investigating either physics or consciousness. So what? I disagree with them as well, but they have the right to not want to investigate.

_
HypnoPsi

skeptifem

24th April 2007, 05:10 PM

Dawkins isn't a great debater in person or a great public speaker for that matter. His book was great, however he's not quite as quick on his feet as he could be. If he were quicker and more eloquent and articulate he would of hammered O'Reilly. However he didn't do terrible. He did a respectable Job in the interview.

huh? I think he pretty much always does a great job of public speaking.

anyway, orielly clearly was trying to blab the time away in an effort to keep dawkins from talking. i was dissapointed. howard stern gets a three part series interview and dawkins gets 4 minutes and some change. :mad:

wahrheit

24th April 2007, 05:42 PM

I'd like to second the posts saying that Dawkins in fact is a great speaker and debater.

My impression was that he did very, very well, considering he was speaking to a jerk like O'Reilly in a short 3 minute something segment.

O'Reilly never could continue such a conversation with Dawkins for more than 5 minutes. And he knows this perfectly well. Dawkins, on the other hand, would not fall apart after 5 minutes of O'Reilly's blather (i.e. lame old "arguments" against atheism which we've all heard a million times before).

Ichneumonwasp

24th April 2007, 05:54 PM

joobz

24th April 2007, 07:07 PM

Ichneumonwasp

24th April 2007, 07:17 PM

Yeah, me too. I wish he could come back, even as curmudgeonly as he was at times I enjoyed his perspective.

Solus

24th April 2007, 07:50 PM

Typical O'Reilly, I loved how he made light of the Apollo comment added in there. I used to like O'Reilly when I was much younger, it looks like Dawkins wasn't prepared to properly deal with billy. Still considering the circumstances Dawkins didn't do too badly.

skeptifem

24th April 2007, 08:10 PM

Sadly true. I saw a debate once in which the biologist utterly destroyed the creationist from any academic point of view, but the largely creationist audience still felt the creationist had won. They just loved it when the creationist made the "point" that "A chimp and a human have 98% identical DNA. Well a water melon is 98% water so it missed being a cloud by just 2%".

i saw something on a christian network once, they said that two men were going to 'debate god'. they got a biologist, obviously its going to be about evolution, right? wrong. they grilled him about every other aspect of biblical history as though it was fair. a complete sham.

joobz

24th April 2007, 08:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89GcKtbS4xk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BPQ3uvn1n4&NR=1

=)

It's very irritating though.
the show I heard was really edited. they only had her "exposing" his dependance on his parents and then went into that silly "ARe you smarter than these people game". yup, smart people believe in god, so it must be true.

EvilSmurf

24th April 2007, 09:18 PM

qayak

24th April 2007, 09:36 PM

After watching the video several times, I get the impression that O'Reilly is scared of Dawkins. I think he had Dawkins on just so he could put it on his resume.

Dawkins did a good job of keeping his anger in check. You can see he expected a lot more from O'Reilly. Unfortunately, O'Reilly had nothing except a deep desire to protect his ratings. "Can't let the right wing wackos see me get eaten alive by Darwin's Pitbull so I'll just keep talking until the time is up!"

I never realized it was Jesus who was in charge of putting the universe into motion! :dl:

bignickel

25th April 2007, 12:40 AM

That is agnositicsm - not materialistic atheism. I have no disagreement with agnostics since they're just throwing their hands up in the air saying "Dunno! And maybe we never will!".
Incorrect. Agnosticism means we can not know. The agnostic (who can be theist, but is most commonly a non-theist) says: "no matter evidence I see, it doesn't show that there is a god". Any number of explanations, in this universe, provide a better explanation of whatever is being witnessed, experienced, etc. Even aliens. Or hallucination.

Dark Jaguar

25th April 2007, 01:47 AM

Orangutan

25th April 2007, 06:36 AM

I'm throwing in with the FSM because he has answers for why Global warming is occurring where as science can't seem to make up it's mind and Jesus is silent on the matter. Less Scientists and Christians, More Pirates!
;)

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 08:24 AM

Even a materialistic atheist can say "I don't know". Committing oneself to a methaphysical position only commits oneself to the position, not to all knowledge within that position. A materialistic atheist can also assume the position of "Dunno and maybe we never will", even if that person believes that there may be a perfectly physical answer to all questions.

Fine, since you accept that materialistic atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, is the belief that a physical answer (of whatever variety) is more likely.

My point is simply that it is still a faith based metaphysic every bit as much as the belief in God.

If I were you, I would think carefully about the wisdom of replying by saying you think materialistic atheism is better because it's adherent's are somehow less convinced of their metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

joobz

25th April 2007, 08:29 AM

If I were you, I would think carefully about the wisdom of replying by saying you think materialistic atheism is better because it's adherent's are somehow less convinced of their metaphysic.

But then, are you trying to say that creating any set of imaginary structures are all equally relavent to eachother and to a materialistic view?

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 08:38 AM

HypnoPsi, I'm not sure of your point.

Active disbelief in god you say? For my own part, I merely lack any good reason at all to believe in god, so I don't. That's all it is. I "don't know for sure" in the same way as not knowing about the ol' orbitting teapot. That's no reason to label the position as some sort of belief structure.

You're not sure of my point since I've not said that materialistic atheism is the active disbelief in God. I have said that materialistic atheism is the active belief that objective reality has a purely physical cause (of whatever flavour).

You will note I'm using the term materialistic atheism as opposed to just atheism (such as the type believed in by certain Buddhist sects).

-
HypnoPsi

Ichneumonwasp

25th April 2007, 08:46 AM

Fine, since you accept that materialistic atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, is the belief that a physical answer (of whatever variety) is more likely.

My point is simply that it is still a faith based metaphysic every bit as much as the belief in God.

If I were you, I would think carefully about the wisdom of replying by saying you think materialistic atheism is better because it's adherent's are somehow less convinced of their metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

What?

First of all, nowhere did I say that I think materialistic atheism is better. I said that your objection was wrong. Anyone can claim, regardless of their underlying metaphysic, not to know the ultimate answers. A materialist atheist may believe that all answers will have a material explanation, but that is not the same as saying that they know what the mechanisms underlying origins are. Those are separate issues and needn't imply a separate category of "agnostic" unless you want to put everyone in that category -- theists don't really know how God did it, atheists don't really know how material reality came into existence.

I'm not even sure what matter is, so I have no clue what "materialism" even means.

And there is a difference between they type of faith being discussed in materialistic atheism and theism. Materialist atheists can point to falsifiable information around them to support their claims. Theists cannot falsify God. There is no falsification of God.

So, the difference looks like this -- the materialist atheist says, "I trust reality" (that is his/her "faith") and the theist may or may not say "I trust reality" (though most do) and then add "I believe there is a reality beyond what I can see or otherwise experience and I have no direct falsifiable evidence to support it." Those are not equivalent statements.

Moochie

25th April 2007, 09:12 AM

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 09:14 AM

But then, are you trying to say that creating any set of imaginary structures are all equally relavent to eachother and to a materialistic view?

No - but what's imaginary? That there is some wonderful substance/s underlying reality that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinite/eternal or that there is one supreme consciousness (or perhaps even an infinite number of equal consciousnesses behind reality)?

And are matter and consciousness really separate anyway? Certain branches of monism suggest they are ultimately the same thing.

My choice is to study and investigate consciousness and see where that leads us. Others, the religious among us, choose a whole package of beliefs. That's their choice and faith. Materialists think physics alone can probably explain objective reality and consciousness and that is their choice and faith based metaphysic.

Marvel at the mystery!

_
HypnoPsi

Moochie

25th April 2007, 09:34 AM

And in case you're wondering...here's an example of Laura Ingraham's level of thought. (though be warned, it does come from the Daily Show)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkMI5t6WVMs&mode=related&search=

There wasn't any need for the warning -- Stewart was only showing a clip from the Fox news network, on which this moron (Ingraham) appears frequently, along with the inimitable Ann Coulter.

IMO, it ought to be called the Fox Moron Network.

M.

ponderingturtle

25th April 2007, 09:42 AM

My postulate has been bothering me a lot lately. Sign I'm getting old I guess.

Sounds like you might need a postulate exam.

Moochie

25th April 2007, 09:52 AM

The only other alternative is that the Universe has been around forever.

You'll note I specifically said materialistic atheism to contrast the metaphysic from, say, Buddhist atheism or from agnosticism.

Materialistic atheism isn't agnosticism - it's the active belief that physics is all that's required to explain the objective Universe.

Where do you draw all these distinctions from, unless you have some proof of a "deity" that the rest of us aren't privy to? I use quotation marks to highlight the source of such ideas -- the human imagination. Whilst a salve to the intellectually impoverished, such imaginary friends are just that: a wish.

How can there be anything but "materialistic atheism" without evidence of anything else?

Your distinctions appear to be based on a belief in woo, and you might as well admit it.

M.

thaiboxerken

25th April 2007, 09:55 AM

Dawkins is so soft-spoken and polite, I think it works against him. Then again, there are plenty of people that keep asserting that he's a loudmouth bigot.

thaiboxerken

25th April 2007, 09:59 AM

Materialists think physics alone can probably explain objective reality and consciousness and that is their choice and faith based metaphysic.'

You are either mistaken or simply telling an outright lie. Materialists simply look for evidence. It takes no faith to look at something and wonder why or how it exists and then maybe look for the reason for it's existence. It takes faith to say "god did it."

Moochie

25th April 2007, 10:01 AM

Dawkins doesn't appear to be a very good off-the-cuff speaker. It appears he went in completely unprepared for a debate with O'Reilly, also he lacks something in the charisma department to debate O'Reilly.

I'd love to see O'Reilly try and debate the likes of Kenneth Miller or E. O. Wilson.

Hello? I saw the title of the book, "The God Delusion" prominently displayed.

That was the point of Dawkins's appearance on O'Reilly -- the only point.

Given the low collective IQ of O'Reilly's audience, that was all that was really needed. :D

M.

EGarrett

25th April 2007, 10:23 AM

That is agnositicsm - not materialistic atheism. I have no disagreement with agnostics since they're just throwing their hands up in the air saying "Dunno! And maybe we never will!".

Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact.

You're very close, but not quite right. Only the layman to the subject get's to say "I don't know either way" or "I don't know enough about the subject".

The scientific study of a subject is always, always, supposed to culminate in thesis defence. That means to advance the arguement you believe in. (This simply involves comparing and contrasting two (or more) ideas, defining the one you're critical of (and explaining why) and defining the one you believe in (and explaining why).)

The bottom line - if someone is unwilling to advance the argument, from either side then they either haven't read enough about the subject to form a scientific opinion or they're a coward.

Only laymen get to sit still. To do science you must be advancing the argument somehow - even by thought experiments or via pure theory; ergo thesis defence. Science is about progress and the advancement of knowledge and you just can't do that by sitting still. You have to say "Let's look in this direction, it looks good!".You seem to have missed the phrase "not yet" in the scientists' statement.

They're actively learning about the problem, just like science is actively trying to answer every other question we don't yet understand.

Your entire post is based on the strawman assumption that science makes no effort to investigate things like this. That couldn't be further from the truth.

EGarrett

25th April 2007, 10:27 AM

There wasn't any need for the warning -- Stewart was only showing a clip from the Fox news network, on which this moron (Ingraham) appears frequently, along with the inimitable Ann Coulter.

IMO, it ought to be called the Fox Moron Network.

M.As ridiculous as the comment is, there's no context for it. So the warning just seems fair.

ponderingturtle

25th April 2007, 10:31 AM

In addition to my other response to this claim, I'd also note that Dawkins described Nadia Eweida (the BA employee who refused to take off her cross): by saying "she had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen.".

You are being sloppy, she did not refuse to take off her cross, she refused to tuck her cross under her shirt. She was not requested to remove it, just not display it.

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 02:22 PM

I'm not even sure what matter is, so I have no clue what "materialism" even means.

Nobody really knows what matter/energy (m/e) is but you can find out what "materialism" means here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

And there is a difference between they type of faith being discussed in materialistic atheism and theism. Materialist atheists can point to falsifiable information around them to support their claims. Theists cannot falsify God. There is no falsification of God.

So, the difference looks like this -- the materialist atheist says, "I trust reality" (that is his/her "faith") and the theist may or may not say "I trust reality" (though most do) and then add "I believe there is a reality beyond what I can see or otherwise experience and I have no direct falsifiable evidence to support it." Those are not equivalent statements.

They're not equivalent statements because you are confusing levels. The issue is not about contrasting the belief in objective reality (and it's mechanics) against the subjective belief in a super-natural dimension (or the subjective experience of such), it is about comparing views of how objective reality got there in the first place.

Materialists love to argue against God of the gaps arguments - particularly evolution versus creationism (or Intelligent Design) whenever theists themselves make the mistake of assuming that the mechanics of objective reality is what the debate is about. It isn't.

Materialism is not testable for falsifiability (just as God-ism or any other non-materialistic metaphysic is not testable for falsifiability). There is no way to test the idea that objective reality self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever.

Consequently, materialistic atheism is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

P.S. Earlier this evening God herself appeared to me in a puff of green smoke! (And she's a bit of a looker if you like 70's fashion.) Anyway, I digress. She said that nobody was to ever say "falsifiable" again when they really mean "testable for falsifiability".

(She left in a taxi.)

It's true. :)

joobz

25th April 2007, 02:36 PM

Materialism is not testable for falsifiability (just as God-ism or any other non-materialistic metaphysic is not testable for falsifiability). There is no way to test the idea that objective reality self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever.
but there is a rather striking difference. the materialistic position is amendable to new observable information. You are holding to the position that we won't ever know or can't know if the universe is "self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe", which I disagree with. We can at least search for that answer in the objective reality. As such, in the materialist view, such questions are left open until such time as we learn more.

this is distinctly difference from making a story up and saying that reality must fit the story and not the other way around.

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Materialists think physics alone can probably explain objective reality and consciousness and that is their choice and faith based metaphysic.You are either mistaken or simply telling an outright lie. Materialists simply look for evidence. It takes no faith to look at something and wonder why or how it exists and then maybe look for the reason for it's existence. It takes faith to say "god did it."

I am neither mistaken or lying - and neither is materialism synonymous with science however much or many materialists might think it is.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism:

"In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance.

The problem here, of course, is that matter cannot be created or destroyed - only conversion is possible (and even that might be nothing more than the way we measure/observe matter/energy).

Again, the issue is not about comparing objective reality against subjective belief in a super-natural dimension to life. The issue is about asking how objective reality got there in the first place?

Yes, it takes faith to say "God did it" - but it also takes faith to say that the universe self generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe.

It's an untestable belief either way.

Doing real science is hard - thesis defence is a very challenging and difficult task that requires a lot of strength of character - you will be criticised. But that very fact is what makes doing science more noble than just being a layman.

Materialists cannot seriously expect to get away with constantly saying "There's no evidence for God" without ever being called upon to defend a counter explanation for the origin of objective reality!

Thesis defence is the complete opposite of arguing the antithesis. I could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence that, say, the universe spontaneously self-generated; just as the materialistic atheist could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence God/s did it.

And materialistic atheists do that, appearing completely bewildered that people still believe in God, acting as if people should then automatically become materialistic atheists and think physic must ultimately explain the mystery of existence. They think it's all easy and logical when it isn't.

No proof of God doesn't mean you should become a materialistic atheist any more than no proof of spontaneous self-generation means you should become a theist....

Either option is a faith-based metaphysic - and only the layman gets away with not having to advance the argument for either possibility.
_
HypnoPsi

Ichneumonwasp

25th April 2007, 03:40 PM

They're not equivalent statements because you are confusing levels. The issue is not about contrasting the belief in objective reality (and it's mechanics) against the subjective belief in a super-natural dimension (or the subjective experience of such), it is about comparing views of how objective reality got there in the first place.

No, no confusion of levels. I did not claim that materialist atheism does not rest on an underlying belief. What I claimed is that there are two beliefs going on with most views of theism. It depends a bit on what we mean by theism, so it might help to define it better.

If by theism we mean, merely, that there is a divine reality that may be coequal with what we otherwise experience as reality -- an Eastern idea -- and part and parcel of the weirdness of Reality, then we start with an assumption -- we can trust reality. And we have defined that reality to include the idea of divinity.

A materialist atheist makes the original assumption that s/he can trust reality and there is nothing else behind it.

A traditional western theist, the traditional way of using the word here, makes the original assumption that s/he can trust reality and that there is a world behind this world, another reality that cannot be accessed so easily. It may be that we recieve messages from that world. It may be that I forgot my Thorazine today.

They are not equal assumptions from the outset, so I don't think it is fair to say that they are all based on the same level of faith. Most of the people around here who identify themselves as materialist atheists assume the view that they can trust reality and they will not accept any other baggage that cannot be examined through evidence.

From the viewpoint that everyone must start somewhere, so we must all start with assumptions -- well, I agreed to that from the beginning. But the assumptions are not equal.

Materialism is not testable for falsifiability (just as God-ism or any other non-materialistic metaphysic is not testable for falsifiability).

Not as an absolute, but most materialist atheists don't buy into most absolutes. They are primarily pragmatists. I don't think you'll find many folks who fully buy into the "we know that all there is is material reality" schtick.

There is no way to test the idea that objective reality self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever.

I don't recall ever saying that there was a way to test it. In fact, I said that most materialist atheists would say "I don't know".

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 05:19 PM

You seem to have missed the phrase "not yet" in the scientists' statement.

They're actively learning about the problem, just like science is actively trying to answer every other question we don't yet understand.

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that very idea of "not yet" and actively investigationg physics is "faith" that the answer lies there....

Do you think that religion isn't also dynamic? Yes, they have their holy books, traditions, rituals and wot-not but religion is supposed to be about growing spiritually and subsequently attaining Enlightenment or some kind of mystical union.

To the Buddhist, for example, this is the Eightfold Noble Path

Wisdom
1. Right view
2. Right intention

Ethical conduct
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood

Mental discipline
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

Again, the "faith" that the ultimate answer to the origin (and purpose?) of objective reality lies in illumination.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 05:40 PM

but there is a rather striking difference. the materialistic position is amendable to new observable information.

And the religious seek illumination from the divine...

Religion is also a search - and the very activity of searching entails not having the answers now.

You are holding to the position that we won't ever know or can't know if the universe is "self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe", which I disagree with.

I say that materialists don't know - and are searching based upon the faith that the answer lies in physics.

this is distinctly difference from making a story up and saying that reality must fit the story and not the other way around.

Materialists also have a narrative that they stick to and resist changing. Even now there is a thread in the Religion and Philosophy section of the forum titled "why god is impossible". Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is.

And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

25th April 2007, 05:56 PM

No, no confusion of levels.

<snip>

A materialist atheist makes the original assumption that s/he can trust reality and there is nothing else behind it.

<snip>

They are not equal assumptions from the outset, so I don't think it is fair to say that they are all based on the same level of faith. Most of the people around here who identify themselves as materialist atheists assume the view that they can trust reality and they will not accept any other baggage that cannot be examined through evidence.

If you're not confusing levels then you're deliberately constructing a straw man argument so as to argue that it is wrong for anyone to say that belief in objective reality has the same 'level of faith' as belief in a super-natural realm.

That has never been my point. I have only been arguing that any belief about the origin of objective reality (either physics or God) is a faith-based metaphysic.

I don't recall ever saying that there was a way to test it. In fact, I said that most materialist atheists would say "I don't know".

Hmm... yes, it is wise - expected even - for any scientist defending a thesis to add "...but ultimately, I don't know". But the very impulse to research and experiment on the physics of the origin of objective reality is still based upon the faith that the answer lies there (and doesn't require God/s).

_
HypnoPsi

Ichneumonwasp

25th April 2007, 06:07 PM

If you're not confusing levels then you're deliberately constructing a straw man argument so as to argue that it is wrong for anyone to say that belief in objective reality has the same 'level of faith' as belief in a super-natural realm.

That has never been my point. I have only been arguing that any belief about the origin of objective reality (either physics or God) is a faith-based metaphysic.

OK, my mistake. It is a very, very common approach for some theists to argue that everyone makes the exact same leap of faith in approaching the world as a whole not just the issue of origins.

If you are merely arguing the issue of origins, then, yes, of course, the leap is the same. We all must begin somewhere. There is no way to tell from the outset if the universe is a monad, is dualistic, etc. We must make assumptions from the very beginning, I think we all agree upon that. I think the problem that you will likely run into here is that many folks dislike the idea of the original assumption being called a faith. I don't have any issues with it, but many others do.

joobz

25th April 2007, 06:52 PM

And the religious seek illumination from the divine...

Religion is also a search - and the very activity of searching entails not having the answers now.
If that was true, than the searchers would admit to not knowing and would be open to changing views when confronted with contrary evidence. this behavior is almost NEVER exhibited by someone of faith. So, I do not buy the notion that Religion is a search for truth. It is an end to itself. It seeks no further validation and resents any attempts at presenting truth that contridicts its tenets.

I say that materialists don't know - and are searching based upon the faith that the answer lies in physics.
If you consider reproducibility, an ability to predict events and responses, and to design and improve our environment based upon this knowledge as "not knowing", then you are correct. If other religions had equal success in this field, I'd give them a try as well.

However, I've yet to see a plane fly on prayer alone.

Materialists also have a narrative that they stick to and resist changing. Even now there is a thread in the Religion and Philosophy section of the forum titled "why god is impossible". Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is.

And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.
I've been down this road. check the "atheism is a faith" thread. Granted, I approached the debate rather naively. I'm interested to see how you take it farther. As it stands, you'll need to show me how a "faith" has proven itself multiple times over is equal to other faiths that have had rather poor success in accurately predicting/describing the world arround us.

I look forward to reading more of your posts.

pgwenthold

25th April 2007, 07:17 PM

And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.

Of course, we know that "physics" exists (it's a good field of study) and has already provided a good practical description of the workings of the universe, including providing predictive models, whereas you can't even show that this "supreme being" exists in the first place.

Yah, so similar they are...

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 12:05 AM

I am neither mistaken or lying -

Yes, you are.

and neither is materialism synonymous with science however much or many materialists might think it is.

Perhaps, but you seem to label anyone who asks for evidence as materialists.

Yes it takes faith to say "God did it" - but it also takes faith to say that the universe self generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe.

But who says these things? The big bang theory is based on observed facts, but it doesn't say the universe was around forever or that it's a baby universe. There might be some hypothesis that say this, but you seem to be unable to understand the difference between a faith-statement and a hypothesis.

Materialists cannot seriously expect to get away with constantly saying "There's no evidence for God" without ever being called upon to defend a counter explanation for the origin of objective reality!

When a person says there is no evidence for a god, they're talking about none that we know of. If you have some scientific evidence for your god, feel free to prove us all wrong.

Until there is evidence of a god, it's just a faith-based statement to say that there is one.

bignickel

26th April 2007, 01:03 AM

I am neither mistaken or lying - and neither is materialism synonymous with science however much or many materialists might think it is.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism:

"In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance.
Argument by Wikipedia.

HypnoPsi

26th April 2007, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
And the religious seek illumination from the divine...

Religion is also a search - and the very activity of searching entails not having the answers now.If that was true, than the searchers would admit to not knowing and would be open to changing views when confronted with contrary evidence.

I genuinely cannot believe that the majority of the religious worldwide or even in the West do not view their religion as a search and struggle against "temptation", etc.,.

Granted, the most passionately dogmatic are likely to be found in great numbers on the internet - which may be what many are more familiar with since it's their very passion that drives them to places like Usenet (the wild-west of debates).

I'm not saying there aren't large numbers of fundamentalists in society, but that is largely explainable by group cohesion due to the emergence of atheism and the whole evolution debate.

this behavior is almost NEVER exhibited by someone of faith.

I see materialists the same way when confronted with published positive results for psi.

So, I do not buy the notion that Religion is a search for truth. It is an end to itself. It seeks no further validation and resents any attempts at presenting truth that contridicts its tenets.

Religion is not a thing itself - it's people; and the spectrum varies from the culturaly religious (but non-practising) to the heavily dogmatic fundamentalists. Anyone who thinks that illumination comes from beliefs alone is silly.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I say that materialists don't know - and are searching based upon the faith that the answer lies in physics.If you consider reproducibility, an ability to predict events and responses, and to design and improve our environment based upon this knowledge as "not knowing", then you are correct. If other religions had equal success in this field, I'd give them a try as well.

Any attempt to test the subjective by objective standards is set up to fail from the beginning. How can anyone measure illumination?

However, I've yet to see a plane fly on prayer alone.

Nothing in lab-based psi research has ever suggested anything other than a small effect so setting a big standard is rasing the hurdle unnecessarily.

Real prayer research by properly trained medical doctors, psychologists and statisticians is in its infancy and doesn't even have a fraction of the funding that neuroscientists recieve for building neural-networks - yet there's not a single shred of evidence that consciousness really is just information processing or electormagnetism. We should thoroughly test the alternative.

Yes, the results of these studies have been contradictory and nothing that's very convincing has been published yet, but that could change as the field develops. (And remember that there is a very large group of very wealthy - and very pissed off - Christians out there right how who are willing to invest heavily in this research.)

All ideas will be tested, no doubt. While one researcher might ask everyone to visualise the positive outcome desired others might insist they just "pray to Jesus" for the outcome.

It will be interesting to see the situation in 20 years. Surveying it now tells us very little.

Check the "atheism is a faith" thread. Granted, I approached the debate rather naively. I'm interested to see how you take it farther. As it stands, you'll need to show me how a "faith" has proven itself multiple times over is equal to other faiths that have had rather poor success in accurately predicting/describing the world arround us.

I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Thank you, and likewise.

I don't think that spirituality is even about accurately predicting/describing the world around us so setting that standard seems wrong. (Many of the religious might disagree, but I have little in common with them and won't argue their case.)

If you insist upon objective measurements, then psychometric tests of, say, practicing Buddhists versus atheists would almost certainly demonstrate the beneficial effects of meditation - but never that Enlightenment exists, or that, if it does exist, it's just neurochemistry. The same goes with NDE's - excepting that in that case their might be experimental protocols that could demonstrate the OOBE aspect of that phenomena.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

26th April 2007, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.Of course, we know that "physics" exists (it's a good field of study) and has already provided a good practical description of the workings of the universe, including providing predictive models, whereas you can't even show that this "supreme being" exists in the first place.

Yah, so similar they are...

That "physics" exists is not the same as proof that some wondrous magical substance exists that is spontaneously self-generating or infinate/eternal. We have good reason for believing that m/e can only ever be converted but not destroyed (and even that conversion may be down to the way we observe/measure m/e).

Materialism is a faith-based metaphysic.

"Religion" exists also, yet that, as you note, is not proof that a Supreme Being exists.

The issue centres around consciousness and the possibility of a Supreme Being/Consciousness or some kind of group-field consciousness.

Now, ultimately, no matter how unintuitive it might sound, the only real way to prove consciousness really exists is through psi experiments. Otherwise, you have no real way of knowing that the rest of us aren't p-zombies and you are the only one with this funky awareness thing (that might just be what it feels like to be an information processor or to have an electromagnetic field around your neo-cortex anyway).

Consciousness as indistinct from matter opens up many possibilities. Even something as simple as mate-selection instantly blows a purely materialistic view of animal evolution out of the water.

The really instersting thing, however, is the conscious stimulation of motion (and motion, of course, requires kinetic energy; measured in kilojules). If I am a machine, and consciousness is nothing more than IP and/or EM then my muscles and brain both use oxygen and glucose, etc., in a stimulus response manner as I raise my arm. But if consciousness is a phenomenon disctinct from M/E then the initial stimulating energy - no matter how small an amount - is coming from God alone knows where (pun intended).

It didn't exist in the universe before, but now it's here - meaning it has somehow been created. And that's why I pick consciousness over matter in terms of the origin of objective reality. M/E cannot be created or destroyed through physical means - but the rules change when consciousness is viewed as a distinct phenomenon.

_
HypnoPsi

fuelair

26th April 2007, 08:28 AM

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 08:53 AM

Bill O'Reilly would say that he's a humble Christian, and then tell you that is the reason he's better than you.

Phil

26th April 2007, 08:57 AM

. . . . I've been down this road. check the "atheism is a faith" thread. Granted, I approached the debate rather naively. I'm interested to see how you take it farther. As it stands, you'll need to show me how a "faith" has proven itself multiple times over is equal to other faiths that have had rather poor success in accurately predicting/describing the world arround us. . . .

This is part of the problem, or the reason for the disagreement, if you will. Too often on these boards it seems someone --- perhaps still a little miffed that they actually majored in philosophy --- attempts to tweek the language just a tad and assign the word "faith" equally to a religious worldview and a materialistic worldview. I can't even begin to guess at the motivation, unless it is to engage in the type of circular discussion to which they are accustom. As evidenced in this thread, such a ploy is ultimately going to take us nowhere.

Now, I'm not accusing HypnoPsi of doing this purposely, but the farther this thread, which by the way is way off the rails right now, progresses, the more I think he/she might be. I suspect that philosophy folks know better, but are somehow conditioned to do this by the nature of what they've studied for so long. But as I used to tell Lifegazer, most of us here are not going to be as impressed by "doublespeak" as the undergraduate coeds down at the coffee shop.

My suggestion, joobz, is that you see if the post of yours I quoted above is addressed properly. If so, continue with the discussion. If not, perhaps we should return this discussion to Dawkins and BOR.

Moochie

26th April 2007, 09:28 AM

Bill O'Reilly would say that he's a humble Christian, and then tell you that is the reason he's better than you.

Some light relief regarding the Fox Moron Network can be found here:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

M.

HypnoPsi

26th April 2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:
Yes it takes faith to say "God did it" - but it also takes faith to say that the universe self generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe.But who says these things?

Again, the scientific inquiry of a subject - such as the origin of the objective universe - culminates in thesis defence not sitting on the fence. :)

Yes, it is right to always add "but, ultimately, I don't know" but that does not negate the duty of advancing the (counter) argument that you believe is most likely.

Materialistic atheists are basically playing a game here trying to jocky over the burden of proof. When asked which thesis they believe in most strongly about the origin of objective reality, some unproven wondrous physical stuff or God, they're trying to answer "I don't know, but I don't believe in/it's God"!

That would not pass any unbiased and fair thesis defence - because it is not a scientific position and the would-be scientist is not willing to advance the opposite argument.

Science is not just about being skeptical. It is about comparing and contrasting two (or more ideas) and pointing out why you support one every bit as much as it is about pointing out why you are critical of the other(s). You can't do it in half-measures.

Nobody can learn from a layman because they're standing still. Doing things scientifically means you have to to say what you are researching and why you believe it's the right path to follow and to open your argument to criticism from your peers.

Thesis defence is a test of character. Science means the search for truth and adding to human understanding. Pointing out how impossible the God idea seems to you does absolutely nothing to add to our understanding of how physics alone explains the existence of objective reality.

Do you understand?

The big bang theory is based on observed facts, but it doesn't say the universe was around forever or that it's a baby universe. There might be some hypothesis that say this, but you seem to be unable to understand the difference between a faith-statement and a hypothesis.

I realise exactly what you're trying to say - I just don't accept the idea that there is such a big difference in meaning even if the language being used by each side is different. The very words "faith" and "belief" imply not absolutely knowing what is true every bit as much as the words "I theorise" or "my hypothesis" implys not absolutely knowing what is true.

Your argument seems to be an attempt to say that scientists only ever "tentatively believe" in the theories they advance. Anyone who's spent some time around scientists researching some project or other knows this is not the case.

How many materialists would let a non-materialist get away with just saying they don't believe physics is enough to explain the existence of the objective universe without pointing out this automatically means they are only left with some supernatural cause - and their church-going behaviour suggests this is what they believe?

To think the same does not apply to materialists and their passion for physics is, clearly, quite wrong.

Until there is evidence of a god, it's just a faith-based statement to say that there is one.

Yes, and the religious are very open that their "belief" in God is "faith-based" - I'm not aware of any who claim that God is objectively demonstrable.

_
HypnoPsi

joobz

26th April 2007, 10:20 AM

My suggestion, joobz, is that you see if the post of yours I quoted above is addressed properly. If so, continue with the discussion. If not, perhaps we should return this discussion to Dawkins and BOR.
Fair enough, I do not mean to derail the discussion. Perhaps Hypnopsi would enjoy to start a thread on this topic.

So...back to the discussion.....Bill O'Reilley is a doodyhead.

Phil

26th April 2007, 11:01 AM

Fair enough, I do not mean to derail the discussion. Perhaps Hypnopsi would enjoy to start a thread on this topic.

So...back to the discussion.....Bill O'Reilley is a doodyhead.

I wasn't singling you out, joobz. We've all been engrossed in the side conversations. But in an official capacity as a moderator, I thought I'd just try to nudge it back on topic.

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 11:12 AM

Again, the scientific inquiry of a subject - such as the origin of the objective universe - culminates in thesis defence not sitting on the fence.

Wrong. It involves going where the evidence points us to, not defending thesis. In fact, scientists often try to disprove or falsify their own thesis in order to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny. They also submit their papers to peer-review for the same reason. Science is about gaining knowledge, not dictating it.

Materialistic atheists are basically playing a game here trying to jocky over the burden of proof. When asked which thesis they believe in most strongly about the origin of objective reality, some unproven wondrous physical stuff or God, they're trying to answer "I don't know, but I don't believe in/it's God"!

Exactly, and that's not a bad thing or illogical thing. They might say "I don't know, but I don't believe pixies farted the universe into existence" as well. There is nothing illogical about admitting ignorance while at the same time acknowledging that their is no evidence to support god-belief.

Thesis defence is a test of character. Science means the search for truth and adding to human understanding. Pointing out how impossible the God idea seems to you does absolutely nothing to add to our understanding of how physics alone explains the existence of objective reality.

Sure it does. It explains that we need to look at evidence in order to reach conclusions and not draw off of absurd notions of pixies, fairies and gods. It explains that mythology isn't a source of scientific knowledge. It explains quite a bit.

I realise exactly what you're trying to say - I just don't accept the idea that there is such a big difference in meaning even if the language being used by each side is different. The very words "faith" and "belief" imply not absolutely knowing what is true every bit as much as the words "I theorise" or "my hypothesis" implys not absolutely knowing what is true.

Actually, the religious often equivocate faith and belief to knowledge. I've often had religious people say that all the evidence they need to KNOW their god exists is FAITH. I think this is a common view among the religious.

Your argument seems to be an attempt to say that scientists only ever "tentatively believe" in the theories they advance. Anyone who's spent some time around scientists researching some project or other knows this is not the case.

I've spent time around scientists. I know this is the case. Also, scientists are perfectly willing to be proven wrong if there is evidence to support it.

How many materialists would let a non-materialist get away with just saying they don't believe physics is enough to explain the existence of the objective universe without pointing out this automatically means they are only left with some supernatural cause - and their church-going behaviour suggests this is what they believe?

WTF are you talking about? I'm sure there are materialists that would let a non-materialists give evidence of non-materialism, of the supernatural, if there were any. There isn't. I don't know that materialists say that physics is enough to explain existence.

To think the same does not apply to materialists and their passion for physics is, clearly, quite wrong.

The "passion" for physics by materialists is like the passion for language by people who speak. It's not something to be passionate over, it's a tool that is used and has proven effective time and again. It requires no belief that it'll work, it just does.

Yes, and the religious are very open that their "belief" in God is "faith-based" - I'm not aware of any who claim that God is objectively demonstrable.

Clearly, you haven't asked the question to enough believers. They've tried to use philosophical "proof" that their god exists plenty of times. Then there are those wackos who say their god's face is on Mars... etc.

Foster Zygote

26th April 2007, 11:41 AM

But as I used to tell Lifegazer...
Oy! If only Lifegazer had studied philosophy in any legitimate capacity.:rolleyes:

If not, perhaps we should return this discussion to Dawkins and BOR.
Yes, I concur. B.O'Re is a doodyhead.

BTW (just to further nudge the thread back on track), one person who did succeed in dancing rings around O'Reilly was Stephen Colbert.

hgc

26th April 2007, 12:08 PM

If you insist upon objective measurements, then psychometric tests of, say, practicing Buddhists versus atheists would almost certainly demonstrate the beneficial effects of meditation - but never that Enlightenment exists, or that, if it does exist, it's just neurochemistry. The same goes with NDE's - excepting that in that case their might be experimental protocols that could demonstrate the OOBE aspect of that phenomena.

Hi HypnoPsi,

I like objective measurements. I don't trust other kinds of measurements as much to be revelatory of reality. So then, what are these psychometric tests to which you allude? What would they measure? Why are you so certain they'll show an effect? If meditation did show some salutory effect, why would it even be evidence of any spirituality? From what I know, meditation is a physical activity. I can see how it might be a good thing, and I have my own anecdotal experience to lend to that opinion. But that doesn't mean anything about spirituality.

But more to the point: show the effect! That would be terrific. What would it prove? That sitting quietly and breathing in a certain way will move some needles on some instrument? What else?

As for the comment on funding: those with the money for science tend to put it where it may bear fruit. Deepak Chopra is richer than Croesus. Perhaps he'd chip in for a study.

HypnoPsi

26th April 2007, 01:46 PM

This is part of the problem, or the reason for the disagreement, if you will. Too often on these boards it seems someone --- perhaps still a little miffed that they actually majored in philosophy --- attempts to tweek the language just a tad and assign the word "faith" equally to a religious worldview and a materialistic worldview.

<snip>

Now, I'm not accusing HypnoPsi of doing this purposely, but the farther this thread, which by the way is way off the rails right now, progresses, the more I think he/she might be.

As I have stated over and over again in this thread - I am not talking about the mechanics of the world as it exists. I am talking about the origin of the objective universe.

Whether you believe that is down to God or that some wondrous magical substance exists that has the ability to either self-generate or be eternal in nature, either view is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

ImaginalDisc

26th April 2007, 01:51 PM

As I have stated over and over again in this thread - I am not talking about the mechanics of the world as it exists. I am talking about the origin of the objective universe.

Whether you believe that is down to God or that some wondrous magical substance exists that has the ability to either self-generate or be eternal in nature, either view is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

Whatever the explanation for the universe is, we should expect it to be parsimonious. God is not parsimonious.

Phil

26th April 2007, 01:52 PM

mijopaalmc

26th April 2007, 02:49 PM

Why is it so important to you that "materialistic atheists" realize that that their metaphysic is as faith based as "non-materialistic (idealistic?) theists", HypnoPsi?

From what I have read of other people writing about Dawkins, it does seems that theists of all stripes feel alienated by his strident attacks on religion and/or spirituality as "delusional". To be fair I have yet to read anything that was actually written by Dawkins, so it may be that the responses I have read may have willfully misinterpreted his arguments in order to set up straw men. However, given that he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion" and is affectionately called "Darwin's pit bull", I think some examination of his approach to "persuading" people is warranted. In my opinion, condescension and vitriol are never a good way to convince people that they should agree with you.

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 03:06 PM

From what I have read of other people writing about Dawkins, it does seems that theists of all stripes feel alienated by his strident attacks on religion and/or spirituality as "delusional". To be fair I have yet to read anything that was actually written by Dawkins, so it may be that the responses I have read may have willfully misinterpreted his arguments in order to set up straw men. However, given that he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion" and is affectionately called "Darwin's pit bull", I think some examination of his approach to "persuading" people is warranted. In my opinion, condescension and vitriol are never a good way to convince people that they should agree with you.

The bolded is the problem.

Dawkins once had a video conference (an audience in front of a screen where Dawkins would discuss with the audience), and they were all able to give criticism as to his documentary, "The Root of all Evil". Every rational point that was brought up was dealt with eloquence by Dawkins. The one that Dawkins got along the least with (and was the type to lambaste him based on what you just described) was a conservative Right Wing fundamentalist.

The fundamentalist was also shot down by almost everyone else in the audience.

I've actually read The God Delusion. He makes a lot of good points, and I don't get why people are so hung up on the title. From his perspective it is a delusion; perhaps he should have called it The God Tale? The God Story? The God Fiction? All of them would piss off fundamentalists. The book was a book entirely about advocating atheism and mainly questioning the idea of the Abrahamic God's existance.

The problem isn't that people are making "straw men" (though they are), the problem is that people are taking snippets of his overall statement, trying to make it into one-liner statements, and then commenting based on that... while ignoring the overall argument, and context. Though I guess the two are the same, in the end.

I find it intriguing that I see a lot of commentary on The God Delusion, but all of the other books by Dawkins may as well be non-existant. If you want to read a good one, read "The Blind Watchmaker". Very good stuff, even if it was made in the '80s.

mijopaalmc

26th April 2007, 05:09 PM

Maybe I am being unfair to Dawkins, but I think that if he were truly interested in having a meanigful debate about atheism and relgion or the supernatural, he would have done better to to pick a different title than The God Delusion. I myself am not especially offended by the title or any of the material that I have read in various synopses, but I think that Dawkins' approach (at least in title) does not lend itself to fostering any sort of debate. It reminds me a lot more of political commentators such as Ann Coulter and Al Franken accusing their opponents of treason, slander, lying, godlessness rather than addressing the issues. Now, I realize that he may have some cogent arguments inside the book, but I nonetheless question his motive in picking sucha provocative title.

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 05:24 PM

Is there any way to have a meaningful debate with believers about the existence of their god?

qayak

26th April 2007, 05:52 PM

Is there any way to have a meaningful debate with believers about the existence of their god?

Only if you find meaning in pissing them off! :D

Actually, I had a great discussion with a former girlfriend's brother-in-law who is a Mennonite minister. When my girlfriend's mother jumped in and told me I was going straight to hell, he told her that was unfair to say in a discussion. When my girlfriend's ex-husband jumped in and told my opponent he was crazy, I told him to stay out of it if he had nothing to add. We talked for about 2 hours at a family get together while people drank wine and listened. It was a strange dynamic because the grandparents were staunch believers, the people my age were split pretty even and then the younger ones were pretty much non-believers.

At the end of the discussion he shook my hand and said, "I think you are right. I don't think there is a god."

His in-laws almost had heart attacks. His wife and daughter just shrugged and said, "He has been thinking about this for awhile." they had both been glued to the conversation the whole time. Of course he reassured his niece that he would still be performing her wedding at the end of the month.

I didn't convince him of anything he hadn't already decided but he said it allowed him to have a discussion that he couldn't have with anyone he knew.

Other than that, I haven't had much in the way of meaningful discussions with believers. I tend to be pretty thorough when shooting down their arguments and most think I am arrogant because of it. I try to tell them I am arrogant because I am an ass, not because I am an atheist! :D

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 05:54 PM

Maybe I am being unfair to Dawkins, but I think that if he were truly interested in having a meanigful debate about atheism and relgion or the supernatural, he would have done better to to pick a different title than The God Delusion.

You are welcome to your opinion.

For me, I translate him as meaning "delusion" as less of an insult; he isn't suggesting that people are "insane", but that people are willingly taking on a delusion, a story, a tale, a fiction. It's not supposed to be an insult, but instead to make a case of why people would accept something that is fictional, and then explain why it is fictional.

I myself am not especially offended by the title or any of the material that I have read in various synopses, but I think that Dawkins' approach (at least in title) does not lend itself to fostering any sort of debate.

What's the phrase? "Don't judge a book by it's cover"? I'd think that hundreds of pages worth of material is worth more than three words.

It reminds me a lot more of political commentators such as Ann Coulter...

Again, someone compares Dawkins to Ann Coulter. This is incredibly insulting to Dawkins, or it demonstrates that you're incredibly ignorant of either, or both.

Dawkins has never claimed that we should bomb cities and forcefully convert other people to a belief. Coulter has. Dawkins has never claimed that someone should be put to death, assassinated (poisoned), but Coulter has. Dawkins has never called someone a faggot. Coulter has. The comparison is ludicrous, insulting, and ignorant.

...accusing their opponents of treason, slander, lying, godlessness rather than addressing the issues.

??? What issues should Dawkins be addressing? Also, who has Dawkins accused of as being treasonous? Or lying? When has he said that someone believed in God in order to try to make their political viewpoint look bad? This is a stupid comparison.

He's gone over evolution so many times. Read River out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene... that's what Dawkins, as an evolutionary biologist, would focus on. But he's already focused on it. He's written about it so many times.

Not to mention that his main focus isn't politics at all. He doesn't advocate liberalism or conservatism; Ann Coulter is an ultra Right Wing Conservative, and her campaign is to attack those with a liberal bent. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist that has gone over, so many times, his studies in evolutionary biology, demonstrating evolutionary theory, both macro and micro. BUT, he's also an atheist, and he focuses on making arguments for atheism. I don't quite see what is wrong with that.

Now, I realize that he may have some cogent arguments inside the book, but I nonetheless question his motive in picking sucha provocative title.

Well, that's fine. I'll be here actually reading his arguments, watching his interviews and intelligent discussions, and NOT comparing him to Ann Coulter, instead of criticizing three words.

mijopaalmc

26th April 2007, 05:58 PM

How is referring to your opponents as delusional any different than describing them as slanderous, treasonous, godless, or dishonest?

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 05:59 PM

Pretty much the experience I've had with a "believer" but that person was already on the fence. All we can hope to do is plant seeds of doubt and let them grow. But it's still fun being an ass.

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 06:02 PM

How is referring to your opponents as delusional any different than describing them as slanderous, treasonous, godless, or dishonest?

Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the word "delusional" and answer the question yourself.

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 06:06 PM

How is referring to your opponents as delusional any different than describing them as slanderous, treasonous, godless, or dishonest?

Maybe I should let Dawkins justify it himself...

The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: 'relusion'. Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as 'a false belief or impression'. Surprisingly, the illustrative quotation the dictionary gives is from Phillip E. Johnson: 'Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself.' Can that be the same Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America today? Indeed it is, and the quotation is, as we might guess, taken out of context. I hope the fact that I have stated as much will be noted, since the same courtesy has not been extended to me in numerous creationist quotations of my works, deliberately and misleadingly taken out of context. Whatever Johnson's own meaning, his sentence as it stands is one that I would be happy to endorse. The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.'

You may not like it, but that's what he did. Personally, I'd rather focus on the issues. Isn't that what you criticize others for not doing?

Also, you really consider saying, "These people believe in something fictional" is the same as saying, "These people are dishonest"? One connotes something more villainous than another.

And slanderous? TREASONOUS? Jeez, wake up, boy.

qayak

26th April 2007, 06:07 PM

Now, I realize that he may have some cogent arguments inside the book, but I nonetheless question his motive in picking such a provocative title.

Perhaps you should get over yourself and pick up the book and read it. Then you can make a real judgement on it. Along the way you will learn why he used the word delusion in the title, in fact, it is really quite humourous, a quote taken out of context in The Penguin English Dictionary.

Try it, you might like it.

thaiboxerken

26th April 2007, 06:09 PM

I don't think the title of his book would really matter in the eyes of a believer, any challenge to their belief that their god exists is an insult in their eyes.

mijopaalmc

26th April 2007, 07:19 PM

All the other words have objective definitons which allow us to determine whether or not they are correctly applied. I am not saying the Coulter or Franken are applying them appropriately. I am just saying that Dawkins uses "delusion" in much the same way that Coulter and Franken use the various previously metioned word. If the comparison offeneds you, I am sorry, but I don't understand why it is appropriate for Dawkins to be deliberately provocative and inappropriate for Coulter and Franken (who no doubt took as much to cite their sources as Dawkins did, even if they did misinterpret them) to do the same.

I also took the time to reacquaint myself with the definitons of "delude" and "delusion":

delude, v.
1. trans. To play with (any one) to his injury or frustration, under pretence of acting seriously; to mock, esp. in hopes, expectations, or purposes; to cheat or disappoint the hopes of. Obs.

b. To disappoint or deprive of by fraud or deceit; to defraud of.

2. To deride, mock, laugh at. Obs. rare.

3. To befool the mind or judgement of, so as to cause what is false to be accepted as true; to bring by deceit into a false opinion or belief; to cheat, deceive, beguile; to impose upon with false impressions or notions.

b. with extension (on, to, into).

4. To frustrate the aim or purpose of; to elude, evade. Obs.

5. To beguile (time). Obs.

delusion, n.

The action of deluding; the condition of being deluded.

1. The action of befooling, mocking, or cheating a person in his expectations; the fact of being so cheated or mocked. Obs.

2. The action of befooling with false impressions or beliefs; the fact or condition of being cheated and led to believe what is false.

3. a. Anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.

b. delusions of grandeur: a false belief concerning one's personality or status, which is thought to be more important than it is. Also fig.

4. Elusion, evasion. (Cf. DELUDE v. 4.) Obs.

It is clear from these defintions that "delusion" does not carry the connotation of being a story or tale (mainly because mot all stroies or tales are false), which others have argued earlier on in this thread. Furthermore, "delusion" carries a heavy connotation of the deluded individual being insane or otherwise mentally defective. While I have no problem with anyone referring to belief in god as false, I think that glossing "delusion" as "story", "tale", or "fiction" robs the word of its denotation as "a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things" and its connotation as a "mental derangement", which why I think that Dawkins picked it in the first place. However, designating one's opponents as mentally deranged or defective (or somethimes even, though not in Dawkins case, morally corrupt) is exactly what Coulter and Franken do in their political commentaries. All I was trying to point out is that if it is considered an ad hominem attack when liberals and conservatives do it to each other and (as I have gathered from reading the various JREF forums) when theists do it to atheists, it should be considered just as insulting and invalid when atheists do it to theists.

I guess a more fruitful question would be: How do you see Dawkins' works promoting a positive opinion of atheists if he uses provactive language in a way that seems to imply that his only aim is to provoke?

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 07:49 PM

qayak

26th April 2007, 08:06 PM

I guess a more fruitful question would be: How do you see Dawkins' works promoting a positive opinion of atheists if he uses provactive language in a way that seems to imply that his only aim is to provoke?

I see that you have no intention of actually becoming aquainted with what Dawkins actually says but prefer to make judgements based on your belief of what he said. Just to make this perfectly clear, here is what he wrote in The God Delusion:

"The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: 'relusion.'Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines delusion as 'a false belief or impression'. Surprisingly, the illustrative quotation the dictionary gives is from Phillip E. Johnson: 'Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself.' Can that be the same Phillip E. Johnson who leads leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America today? Indeed it is, and the quotation is, as we might guess, taken out of context. I hope the fact that I have stated as much will be noted, since the same courtesy has not been extended to me in numerous creationist quotations of my works, deliberately and misleadingly taken out of context. Whatever Johnson's own meaning, his sentence as it stands is one I would be happy to endorse. The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair, when he said: 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

As you can see, Johnson himself uses the word delusion. I guess he was just trying to be provocative as well.

I don't doubt that Dawkins puts a certain amount of controversy into his books just to get a reaction. Controversy is what sells and what gets people to sit up and take notice. You can say that Dawkins' book would have been better if he was nice to believers but let's face it, the book is a bestseller. How many of the books that are nice to believers can make that claim? Sagan's books were not nice to believers and they were bestsellers. Same with Feynman's books.

ETA: Sorry Lonewolf, just a repeat of what you already posted.

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 08:11 PM

ETA: Sorry Lonewolf, just a repeat of what you already posted.

S'alright, probably better if it's repeated... since it seems he didn't get it the first time.

The Great Hairy One

27th April 2007, 12:00 AM

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

Rubbish.

There are several points wrong with your argument.

1) Atheists do not postulate a "magical substance behind the whole shebang". Rather they take the approach of "lets see what science discovers". Believing in magic is antithetical to atheistic philosophy.

2) "Materialistic" atheism? What is "materialistic" atheism? What other types of atheism are there?

3) Postulating that a god-concept of some sort is responsible for the creation of the universe simply moves the question back a notch. What is responsible for the creation of this god-concept? Where did it come from? If you then argue that "it always existed" you're deliberately avoiding the question, rather than offering a satisfactory answer.

Cheers,
TGHO

Lonewulf

27th April 2007, 07:45 AM

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

First of all, you are wrong. Infinite or eternal? The theory behind the big bang is that, quite frankly, before the big bang, "time" as we know it did not exist, as time and space are intertwined. Please look up the theory of general relativity. Also, space itself is not infinite at all. Space has a finite capacity, and while it's expanding ("stretching" is a better term for it), it is still finite according to the present-day model.

Second of all, the bolded is an inherent contradiction.

Naturalism, from Dictionary.com, defines the definition as:

4. Philosophy.
a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

Magic is, at it's base, supernatural. So you basically said that people that don't believe in the supernatural believe in the supernatural.

This is an inherent contradiction.

HypnoPsi

27th April 2007, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Again, the scientific inquiry of a subject - such as the origin of the objective universe - culminates in thesis defence not sitting on the fence.Wrong. It involves going where the evidence points us to, not defending thesis. In fact, scientists often try to disprove or falsify their own thesis in order to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny. They also submit their papers to peer-review for the same reason. Science is about gaining knowledge, not dictating it.

You seem to be, in part, confusing thesis with hypothesis anlong with several other things - and nobody is talking about dictating knowledge. (And thesis defence certainly does not involve skipping peer review.) If you want a perfectly acceptable definition of a thesis read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis

I'm not talking about scientists trying to falsify their own hypothesis - even researchers in parapsychology do this. (Though almost everyone in any field of study usually sets out to prove what they believe.)

The point is that if someone cannot stand up on their own two feet and say they believe either that some special Conscousness or special Matter ( though ultimately, they don't know) is behind reality, then they either don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion yet or they need to get a set of b*lls.

I believe that there is some kind of Supreme Being/Consciousness behind it all, but ultimately, I don't know. If it did, it wouldn't be belief.

If nobody really takes the whole materialistic view seriously enough to say they believe in it, then why should you expect anyone to?

Quote: Materialistic atheists are basically playing a game here trying to jocky over the burden of proof. When asked which thesis they believe in most strongly about the origin of objective reality, some unproven wondrous physical stuff or God, they're trying to answer "I don't know, but I don't believe in/it's God"!Exactly, and that's not a bad thing or illogical thing. They might say "I don't know, but I don't believe pixies farted the universe into existence" as well. There is nothing illogical about admitting ignorance while at the same time acknowledging that their is no vidence to support god-belief.

We have these two things - consciousness and matter. If a third option ever comes along things will change dramatically, but thousands of years of science and philosophy haven't let to anything else yet.

As for admitting ignornace - yes, that is a noble attribute as well. But it's played differently by the layman and the scientist. You can still admit ignorance while still advancing the argument you believe is the most likely; be it Consciousness or Matter. And you shouldn't use the term materialism/materialist unless you are willing to shoulder the "beliefs" of that tradition (http://www.answers.com/topic/materialism)

Quote:Thesis defence is a test of character. Science means the search for truth and adding to human understanding. Pointing out how impossible the God idea seems to you does absolutely nothing to add to our understanding of how physics alone explains the existence of objective reality.Sure it does. It explains that we need to look at evidence in order to reach conclusions and not draw off of absurd notions of pixies, fairies and gods. It explains that mythology isn't a source of scientific knowledge. It explains quite a bit.

This no more adds to knowledge about the origin of the objective universe than someone pointing out how impossible the materialistic faith seems to them.

We need to test the evidence for a materialistic origin of objective reality every bit as much as we need to test the evidence for a conscious origin of objective reality.

You're fighting yourself in a stalemate here, trying to gain an advantage for the materialistic position by proxy - ergo, by hoping that if people consider God illogical/impossible they're only left with a materialistic origins theory. But, of course, the exact same thing is true in reverse - if people consider spontaneous self-generation or whatever to be illogical/impossible they're only left with a conscious origins theory (be that a Super-Consciousness or whatever).

Either way, it's a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Actually, the religious often equivocate faith and belief to knowledge. I've often had religious people say that all the evidence they need to KNOW their god exists is FAITH. I think this is a common view among the religious.

That's just the language they use. I know some hard-boiled materialists who honestly believe that because they consider God so utterly impossible and illogical that means they know the universe must be purely physical in origin (a baby universe or whatever). They really believe the it can't be God so it must be physics idea. It's still an argument from ignorance from either side and a faith based metaphysic from either side.

Quote: How many materialists would let a non-materialist get away with just saying they don't believe physics is enough to explain the existence of the objective universe without pointing out this automatically means they are only left with some supernatural cause - and their church-going behaviour suggests this is what they believe?WTF are you talking about? I'm sure there are materialists that would let a non-materialists give evidence of non-materialism, of the supernatural, if there were any. There isn't. I don't know that materialists say that physics is enough to explain existence.

I am not TF talking about anything you remotely suggest in your response to my paragraph above. Are you sure you read it correctly? And, again, if someone doesn't accept what really materialism means then they shouldn't be using the term materialist to describe themselves. For a very through, scholarly and clear description of materialism you should read the definition and article from this website:

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html

As the authors note, materialism is an ontological (metaphysical) view as well as an epistemological view - materialism is not limited to beliefs about the workings of the objective universe.

I will grant you that many responding in this thread genuinely seem to be quite innocently unaware of this rather than deliberately misusing the term, but that doesn't change the fact that materialism still entails untestable metaphysical beliefs.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

27th April 2007, 09:03 AM

Whatever the explanation for the universe is, we should expect it to be parsimonious. God is not parsimonious.

That depends how you define "God". Materialistic ideas about baby universes/multiverses are equally unparsimonious.

Consciousness and some kind of material substance are both presumed to exist. We are quite far from knowing how reality came about either way.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

27th April 2007, 09:04 AM

So then, what are these psychometric tests to which you allude? What would they measure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics

Psychometrics definately measure *something* related to personality, temperament, stress and IQ. What exactly is a debatable question related, perhaps, to our incomplete understanding of what personality, temperament, stress and intelligence actually are in the first place.

They don't prove a spiritual dimension exists.

Here's something interesting on mediation here:

http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI3048260/

Meditation is a very good thing, and it doesn't matter if you're a materialist or non-materialist for benefits to accrue.

_
HypnoPsi

thaiboxerken

27th April 2007, 09:10 AM

HypnoPsi

27th April 2007, 09:10 AM

Why is it so important to you that "materialistic atheists" realize that that their metaphysic is as faith based as "non-materialistic (idealistic?) theists", HypnoPsi?

I think it is important that the debate be discussed on fair terms.

However, given that he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion" and is affectionately called "Darwin's pit bull", I think some examination of his approach to "persuading" people is warranted. In my opinion, condescension and vitriol are never a good way to convince people that they should agree with you.

Clearly you have the answer to the above question yourself. Recognising that one's own position is faith-based and untestable should inevitablly result in less personal attacks upon people who happen to hold another equally faith-based and untestable idea.

_
HypnoPsi

Moochie

27th April 2007, 10:09 AM

The problem is, Hypno, that those you call "material atheists" here are mostly just atheists. I am just an atheist. I can believe in the supernatural and "psi" stuff if there was reliable evidence of it. There isn't. Do you think you can take down your "material atheist" strawmen down now?

Methinks the lad is either a youngster, in the midst of acquiring knowledge, or an oldster busily, desperately rejecting it.

M.

thaiboxerken

27th April 2007, 10:34 AM

Hypno seems to be rather hammy with his posts and sometimes interestingly ianic. He obviously suffers from strawman addiction.

EGarrett

27th April 2007, 11:15 AM

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that very idea of "not yet" and actively investigationg physics is "faith" that the answer lies there....That's not faith. It's assumption based on previous experience. Our previous experience dictates that the scientific method is the best way to answer our questions. It's worked millions upon millions of times. Thus, assuming it will work again is not faith, because there is lots of evidence and experience backing it up.

Do you think that religion isn't also dynamic? Yes, they have their holy books, traditions, rituals and wot-not but religion is supposed to be about growing spiritually and subsequently attaining Enlightenment or some kind of mystical union.That's your own definition. Religions are based in holy books, and as far as I know, the Bible, Koran etc. aren't supposed to change.

To the Buddhist, for example, this is the Eightfold Noble Path

Wisdom
1. Right view
2. Right intention

Ethical conduct
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood

Mental discipline
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

Again, the "faith" that the ultimate answer to the origin (and purpose?) of objective reality lies in illumination.

_
HypnoPsiIt would mess up the conversation if I were to answer any point that is based on a wrong assumption. The "faith" assumption you make is wrong, so that must be straightened out before we continue.

Moochie

27th April 2007, 05:40 PM

That's not faith. It's assumption based on previous experience. Our previous experience dictates that the scientific method is the best way to answer our questions. It's worked millions upon millions of times. Thus, assuming it will work again is not faith, because there is lots of evidence and experience backing it up.

That's your own definition. Religions are based in holy books, and as far as I know, the Bible, Koran etc. aren't supposed to change.

It would mess up the conversation if I were to answer any point that is based on a wrong assumption. The "faith" assumption you make is wrong, so that must be straightened out before we continue.

It's occurred to me that some people confound faith in a deity with trust in mere mortals.

Please, if you are thinking along that trajectory, stop!

"Mere mortals" can be held to account. Deities can't.

M.

EGarrett

28th April 2007, 12:52 AM

It's occurred to me that some people confound faith in a deity with trust in mere mortals.

Please, if you are thinking along that trajectory, stop!

"Mere mortals" can be held to account. Deities can't.

M.What?

Perhaps you should address this to HypnoPsi? He brought up "faith" in those terms...

HypnoPsi

28th April 2007, 09:43 AM

Rubbish.

There are several points wrong with your argument.

I suggest you try to undestand my argument before attacking a straw man as you do in this post.

1) Atheists do not postulate a "magical substance behind the whole shebang". Rather they take the approach of "lets see what science discovers". Believing in magic is antithetical to atheistic philosophy.

2) "Materialistic" atheism? What is "materialistic" atheism? What other types of atheism are there?

Your second question needs to be answered first. One type of atheism that is not materialistic is Buddhism, particularly of the Japanese Zen variety; though other sects would be included as well.

That is part of the reason why I have always used the term "materialistic atheists" as opposed to just "atheists". The second reason is that "materialism" is also an ontology as well as an epistemology, meaning it is not just concerned with the mechanics of the objective universe.

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html

Materialism is a faith based metaphysic about the origin of the objective universe that limits itself to physicalism, rejecting God/s. My only point has been that this is no more testable than the God hypothesis and that a materialistic origin theory is every bit as faith-based as a consciousness origin theory.

Are you embarrased about this or something?

3) Postulating that a god-concept of some sort is responsible for the creation of the universe simply moves the question back a notch.

So what? The question is after all about how objective reality got there in the first place and not really about the mechanics of the universe.

What is responsible for the creation of this god-concept? Where did it come from? If you then argue that "it always existed" you're deliberately avoiding the question, rather than offering a satisfactory answer.

I don't have a satisfactory answer from either side myself!

All I know is that we accept the existence of both consciousness and matter/energy and the Universe exists. Nobody can prove anything either way.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

28th April 2007, 09:56 AM

The problem is, Hypno, that those you call "material atheists" here are mostly just atheists.

When have I called anyone a "materialistic atheist"? I let people define themselves. What I have done is point out the difference between "atheism" and "materialistic atheism" and made it clear that "materialism" is also a metaphysical ontology as well as an epistemology.

(You might also want to have a word with "The Great Hairy One" who wrote ""Materialistic" atheism? What is "materialistic" atheism? What other types of atheism are there?")

Many Buddhists - rightly - consider themselves atheists. Again, I'm only saying that "materialism" and/or "materialistic atheism" is a faith based metaphysic.

I am just an atheist.

And that's your choice. But let's place that in the context of science and someone who says: "I don't know where the Universe came from, I'm just an atheist because I don't see any evidence for God/s" If such an individual cannot even say where they would investigate they're just a layman and not really doing science. You have to add "Well, I think we should look at...." and say why.

I can believe in the supernatural and "psi" stuff if there was reliable evidence of it. There isn't. Do you think you can take down your "material atheist" strawmen down now?

And I could believe in machine consciousness if there was reliable evidence for that. There isn't. In fact, there's nothing. Absolutely squat. Not even a single experiment. Dennett's theory about thermostats having beliefs (his functionalism approach) has no way to be tested. There's no way to test any materialistic ideas about consciousness and nobody has ever published a positive result demonstrating that consciousness is indistinct from matter.

The same cannot be said about parapsychologists no matter what you might think of them.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

28th April 2007, 09:57 AM

Hypno seems to be rather hammy with his posts and sometimes interestingly ianic. He obviously suffers from strawman addiction.

Since this post contains nothing of substance whatsoever and is only intended as an insult it would appear you've given up the debate.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

28th April 2007, 10:05 AM

That's not faith.

Prove it. Say you don't have faith or believe that the answer to the origin of objective reality lies in physics?

It's assumption based on previous experience. Our previous experience dictates that the scientific method is the best way to answer our questions.

What previous experience is there for the spontaneous self-generation of an Universe or a multiverse?

Quote:
Do you think that religion isn't also dynamic? Yes, they have their holy books, traditions, rituals and wot-not but religion is supposed to be about growing spiritually and subsequently attaining Enlightenment or some kind of mystical union.That's your own definition. Religions are based in holy books, and as far as I know, the Bible, Koran etc. aren't supposed to change.

But people are.

The "faith" assumption you make is wrong, so that must be straightened out before we continue.

Which is it them? Do you "know" that physicalism/materialism explains the existence of objective reality?

_
HypnoPsi

aries

28th April 2007, 10:44 AM

Please note that most Christians (at least in Europe) DO NOT any longer live in the middle ages, and that since Thomas of Acquitaine in the 1300-hundreds rediscovered Aristotle, the sense (reason & logic) has sort of been smacked right back in the Christian religion. Somehow the whole Protestant thing in Europe helpe, too, I think...

I know that Dawkins is speaking and writing in an American context, and I really don't think, from what I've heard and read about him, that he really understand the way, religion are seen as a private thing in most of Europe.
(simply because religion in the USA is a matter or public concern and debate etc).

There also seems to be no distinction made, as far I can tell, between the fundamentalist people in all organized religion, and the more liberal people in say Judaism, Christianity or the Moslem faith. (and for some reason in his book, 'the end of faith' her treats Islam as it was some sort of ideology which all people practises Islam the same way, which they don't). It just seems an attack on all religion, because religion is 'the root of evil' as it was people with a religious agenda that flew into the WTC towers :( :cry:1 (not a recommendation...)

This simply overlooks the fact that most of the Moslem world (if we can talk of one Moslem world, but let's say this for argument's sake) has been aghast over its status in the world of today, or that the Moslem world seem 'mad' that its economic importance in the world has been declining for years. I don't think you can say that there's only explanation as to why people, muslems, or others, do they thing to do. The explanation as to why people flew into the WTC towers :( :cry1: a multi-facetted one, imo. It can't just be explained away with saying 'they did because their religion told to do it.' I'm sorry, but this is way to much of a superficial explanation, to me.

Also, I don't think that any Christian in Europe will argue with scientific facts about how the world was made (created?) or came to be. (well, maybe a small percentage would, but they are usually looked at, at least by the Danes, as some cuckoos and crackpots...). The thing is is this: Yes, science can explain a a lot, but science really can't help us decide whether or not abortion ought to be legal or not or whether or not people should get to choose their children's gender or not or whether or not people should be given the opportunity to implant a Cochlear Impleant (CI) in the ears of deaf children or not. Science can only, as I see it, presents us with the way to do this. And then it is up to us to choose, if we will make abortion il-legal or not, if we would like to give parents the ability to get their deaf children a CI-implant etc.

And that's where (organized) religion can play a role, I think, in co-operation, of course with the voice of atheists, agnosticists and other people who has opinions on the issues or subjects being discussed. I'm including atheists etc. because I happen to agree with the argument that just because someone is a Priest or a (clergy) Minister doesn't mean that he or she is a moral or ethichal person that say an atheist is. Personally, I have known atheist who are more ethichal than any Minister or Priest, I know and who seem to have grasped more of the Christian message about love (agape) towards others than some religious people of all faiths & beliefs.

And the not saying 'hallo' to a fellow human being is just rude and very not polite, imo. Dawkins needs to re-read his book 'the selfish gene' again, I think. Then he would learn (again) that the only way, according to him, that have made humanity survive, is that we, as a species, have always depended on the kindess of strangers. To see ourselves as members of the human race (or species) and not establish borders between us, whether we are christians, muslems, or atheists.

Lonewulf

28th April 2007, 11:06 AM

Yes, science can explain a a lot, but science really can't help us decide whether or not abortion ought to be legal or not or whether or not people should get to choose their children's gender or not or whether or not people should be given the opportunity to implant a Cochlear Impleant (CI) in the ears of deaf children or not.

Neither can an invisible friend that doesn't exist.

qayak

28th April 2007, 12:27 PM

The explanation as to why people flew into the WTC towers :( :cry1: a multi-facetted one, imo. It can't just be explained away with saying 'they did because their religion told to do it.' I'm sorry, but this is way to much of a superficial explanation, to me.

Then offer a better one. The fact is, people will willingly die when they believe there is some greater glory waiting for them on the other side. Tell those same people that there is nothing after death. They will simply cease to exist and no one will remember them except as the psycho that flew a plane into a building. Tell them that their families will live in shame for the rest of their lives.

Why wasn't there an outcry from the Muslim world when 9/11 happened? Why wasn't there an outcry from the Catholic world when the IRA was murdering people in the name of god? Why wasn't their an outcry from the Catholic and Protestant worlds when it came to light what atrocities they had visited upon the children of various native groups around the world? Why isn't there an outcry from jews when jews kill people of other religions? Why is it seen by so many religious people to be perfectly okay for anyhone to kill a non-believer.

Why isn't their an outcry from people when it is their religion doing the damage but a great outcry when it is their religion that is being damaged? Why does it make a difference in the minds of religious people who is being murdered? Why aren't they appalled that ANYONE is being killed?

Why is it okay for religions to continue the cycle of horror by continuing to indoctrinate children with those sick beliefs?

Why doesn't a single leader of these religions tell their followers that they will not go to heaven if they kill ANYONE in the name of god?

The thing is is this: Yes, science can explain a a lot, but science really can't help us decide whether or not abortion ought to be legal or not or whether or not people should get to choose their children's gender or not or whether or not people should be given the opportunity to implant a Cochlear Impleant (CI) in the ears of deaf children or not. Science can only, as I see it, presents us with the way to do this. And then it is up to us to choose, if we will make abortion il-legal or not, if we would like to give parents the ability to get their deaf children a CI-implant etc.

This is complete hogwash. Science can help with these decisions by educating people. Good decisions on hard issues like abortion and medical procedures for children can only be made when people are given all the information. It is not enough to say that it is wrong. It is not enough to allow one point of view to be the only accepted one. Science gives out the information and allows people to make their own decisions. Religion gives out information if it suits its position, it invents false evidence to further support its position, it lies about anything that does not support its position and it allows lay people to speak as if they are experts on the subject. To top it all off, religion insists that EVERYONE must adhere to its accepted view.

In fact, it is religion that cannot help with any of these hard decisions..

And that's where (organized) religion can play a role, I think, in co-operation, of course with the voice of atheists, agnosticists and other people who has opinions on the issues or subjects being discussed.

We tried that. Religious leaders did not like the fact that they were no longer in control.

I'm including atheists etc. because I happen to agree with the argument that just because someone is a Priest or a (clergy) Minister doesn't mean that he or she is a moral or ethichal person that say an atheist is. Personally, I have known atheist who are more ethichal than any Minister or Priest, I know and who seem to have grasped more of the Christian message about love (agape) towards others than some religious people of all faiths & beliefs.

Well, that's mighty magnanimous of you! You are going to allow atheists and agnostics into your little club!

Do you think we care what religious people think about us? We have seen what they do and we are not impressed. We do not live our lives to please some irrelevent god and we do not live it to please the follower of some irrelevent god. We live our life as best we can based on what is right.

The fact is, we are not interested in joining you. We will join any cause that is right and if it happens to be supported by religion, so be it. However, when religion, any religion, strays from what is right, we will be on the other side.

We cannot be friends with religion simply because religion doesn't want to be friends, It wants to control everything everyone does and that we can't abide.

And the not saying 'hallo' to a fellow human being is just rude and very not polite, imo. Dawkins needs to re-read his book 'the selfish gene' again, I think. Then he would learn (again) that the only way, according to him, that have made humanity survive, is that we, as a species, have always depended on the kindess of strangers. To see ourselves as members of the human race (or species) and not establish borders between us, whether we are christians, muslems, or atheists.

You are preaching to the choir. Dawkins isn't the one that needs to hear it. This is the message he has been putting out for a very long time. You should maybe take this message out to religious leaders. Get an audience with the pope, a mullah, Elisabeth II, etc. and try convert them to Dawkins' ideas.

I think it is ironic that you blame Dawkins for seeing the borders between christianity, muslims and atheists. Religion is the divider not Dawkins. Dawkins is simply the messenger.

Moochie

28th April 2007, 01:23 PM

Lonewulf

28th April 2007, 01:29 PM

Then offer a better one. The fact is, people will willingly die when they believe there is some greater glory waiting for them on the other side. Tell those same people that there is nothing after death. They will simply cease to exist and no one will remember them except as the psycho that flew a plane into a building. Tell them that their families will live in shame for the rest of their lives.

Why wasn't there an outcry from the Muslim world when 9/11 happened? Why wasn't there an outcry from the Catholic world when the IRA was murdering people in the name of god? Why wasn't their an outcry from the Catholic and Protestant worlds when it came to light what atrocities they had visited upon the children of various native groups around the world? Why isn't there an outcry from jews when jews kill people of other religions? Why is it seen by so many religious people to be perfectly okay for anyhone to kill a non-believer.

Why isn't their an outcry from people when it is their religion doing the damage but a great outcry when it is their religion that is being damaged? Why does it make a difference in the minds of religious people who is being murdered? Why aren't they appalled that ANYONE is being killed?

Why is it okay for religions to continue the cycle of horror by continuing to indoctrinate children with those sick beliefs?

Why doesn't a single leader of these religions tell their followers that they will not go to heaven if they kill ANYONE in the name of god?

http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm

For just an example.

There was Muslim outcry. It just went unheeded in the name of attacking religion (since they're all Muslim, so they must be evil, right? All ~1.5 billion of them?)

AFAIK, Dawkins does not mean to portray all Muslims as the same as the terrorists. But the message is still a strong one: A lot of the problems in the Middle East are caused by an extreme amount of religious conflict.

Moochie

28th April 2007, 01:38 PM

Lonewulf

28th April 2007, 01:41 PM

Quite literally, religion makes me want to puke. It seems such an imbecilic idea, held by imbeciles, it's a wonder humankind has progressed beyond the dark ages.

And why does it persist? Because it gives the hard-of-thinking a beguiling fantasy of some sort of afterlife. That's it. That's the trump card.

When I see the Prime Minister of our country on TV encouraging people to get on their knees and pray for rain, instead of taking the issue of climate change seriously, I feel I am living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

M.

Do you really believe that all adherers of any particular religion are truly "stupid" and "imbeciles", and that they all are willing to pray for rain instead of taking any scientific data seriously? Do you really feel yourself to be so incredibly superior to so many people?

Moochie

29th April 2007, 11:07 AM

Do you really believe that all adherers of any particular religion are truly "stupid" and "imbeciles", and that they all are willing to pray for rain instead of taking any scientific data seriously? Do you really feel yourself to be so incredibly superior to so many people?

Yes, and no.

M.

Lonewulf

29th April 2007, 11:54 AM

Yes, and no.

Hm.

I'm glad that Dawkins has more class than that, at the least. There are videos of him giving a reasoned debate, showing him respecting the opposition instead of assuming them all to be utter morons.

Moochie

29th April 2007, 12:36 PM

Hm.

I'm glad that Dawkins has more class than that, at the least. There are videos of him giving a reasoned debate, showing him respecting the opposition instead of assuming them all to be utter morons.

Richard Dawkins has respect for the person, but not the ideas. I have respect for neither.

M.

The Great Hairy One

29th April 2007, 07:18 PM

I suggest you try to undestand my argument before attacking a straw man as you do in this post.

Your argument is pure philosophical psychobabble. You're trying to state that this purely fictional construct "materialistic atheism" is a new form of religion. There is no such thing.

Materialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

This has nothing to with Atheism, which is defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

They are two completely different philosophical stances which are not linked, and have nothing to do with each other.

Cheers,
TGHO

Lonewulf

29th April 2007, 07:23 PM

Richard Dawkins has respect for the person, but not the ideas. I have respect for neither.

M.

That's "nice", I guess.

HypnoPsi

1st May 2007, 03:13 PM

You're trying to state that this purely fictional construct "materialistic atheism" is a new form of religion.

I have never said that "materialistic atheism" is a new form of religion. It isn't. I have said that it is a faith-based metaphysic - which it is.

There is no such thing.

For "materialistic atheism" (with the quotes) Google returns 2,230 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_en-GBGB215GB216&q=%22materialistic+atheism%22

For "atheistic materialism" (again, with the quotes) Google returns 16,700 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_en-GBGB215GB216&q=%22atheistic+materialism%22

_
HypnoPsi

The Great Hairy One

1st May 2007, 05:41 PM

I have never said that "materialistic atheism" is a new form of religion. It isn't.

In several of your posts above you ascribe "materialistic atheism" to atheists, an incorrect assignation. So you're now backing down from this?

I have said that it is a faith-based metaphysic - which it is.

That's an opinion you hold. From the posts in this thread, it seems as though several people disagree with you.

For "materialistic atheism" (with the quotes) Google returns 2,230 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_en-GBGB215GB216&q=%22materialistic+atheism%22

A great number of those links are to this book:
http://www.amazon.com/abolition-God-Materialistic-Christian-religion/dp/B0006DC50Y

More are to Yahoo and JREF Forum discussions. Several are links to christian apologetics sites misusing the term "atheist", as you have done in previous posts. It seems to me that you're not the only one confusing the two terms here, and that other people are also incorrectly assuming that "atheism" = "materialism", when they clearly are not equivalent.

For "atheistic materialism" (again, with the quotes) Google returns 16,700 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_en-GBGB215GB216&q=%22atheistic+materialism%22

Well, it looks as though Materialism can be of many forms, including an atheistic style. That does not necessarily imply that Atheism is required to be Materialistic. The two terms (Materialistic Atheism and Atheistic Materialism) seem to mean two completely different things.

I still posit that Materialistic Atheism is an incorrect construct, created by people trying to construct a strawman of the Atheistic viewpoint.

Cheers,
TGHO

HypnoPsi

2nd May 2007, 09:38 AM

In several of your posts above you ascribe "materialistic atheism" to atheists, an incorrect assignation. So you're now backing down from this?

In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?

That's an opinion you hold. From the posts in this thread, it seems as though several people disagree with you.

1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. The law of conservation states that matter cannot be created by physical processes (or destroyed) so they have a steep hill to climb.

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

I still posit that Materialistic Atheism is an incorrect construct, created by people trying to construct a strawman of the Atheistic viewpoint.

Posit away - but don't accuse me of it. My only points have been that materialism is a faith based metaphysic and that the scientific study of a subject should end with a thesis (that, strictly speaking, should provide us with a supply of testable hypotheses, at least some of which should resist fair attempts at being falsified).

I have no disagreements with a layman who might not even be even remotely interested in the nature of consciousness and matter.

Neither do I have any "philosophical" disagreements with the scientist who states their thesis (either that they think the Universe did somehow self-generate or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever) even though, unfortunately, it is as untestable as the God/s thesis as of yet.

Nor do I have any "philosophical" disagreements about consciousness with materialists like Dennett when he says he thinks that thermostats have beliefs about the world - even though I strongly disagree with his conclusion. (That's just part of his functionalist tradition and he is at least stating his thesis while - one imagines - not claiming it is a fact (or testable) that thermostats have beliefs.)

What I do disagree with is people thinking they're being more "scientific" without stating a thesis themselves - or just arguing the anti-thesis.

Science is only one half about being "skeptical". When you compare and contrast two (or more) ideas, you have to state which one you support (and why) as well as stating which one you disagree with (and why).

_
HypnoPsi

Phil

2nd May 2007, 10:05 AM

I have said that it is a faith-based metaphysic - which it is.

So you have said.

. . . .
1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. . . . .

So, since there is no testable evidence that matter/energy can self-generate, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

. . . .

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

. . . .

So, since some people are ignorant of the philosophy of science, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

Sorry, but to me, your explanation about how atheistic materialism or materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic is no explanation at all.

In any regard, at the base of it, you are still taking liberties with the word "faith". And I remain certain that you know the difference between religious faith and the initial assumptions of science. Yet for some reason, you keep equating the two.

Why do you continue to do that?

Moochie

2nd May 2007, 11:01 AM

In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?

1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. The law of conservation states that matter cannot be created by physical processes (or destroyed) so they have a steep hill to climb.

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

Posit away - but don't accuse me of it. My only points have been that materialism is a faith based metaphysic and that the scientific study of a subject should end with a thesis (that, strictly speaking, should provide us with a supply of testable hypotheses, at least some of which should resist fair attempts at being falsified).

I have no disagreements with a layman who might not even be even remotely interested in the nature of consciousness and matter.

Neither do I have any "philosophical" disagreements with the scientist who states their thesis (either that they think the Universe did somehow self-generate or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever) even though, unfortunately, it is as untestable as the God/s thesis as of yet.

Nor do I have any "philosophical" disagreements about consciousness with materialists like Dennett when he says he thinks that thermostats have beliefs about the world - even though I strongly disagree with his conclusion. (That's just part of his functionalist tradition and he is at least stating his thesis while - one imagines - not claiming it is a fact (or testable) that thermostats have beliefs.)

What I do disagree with is people thinking they're being more "scientific" without stating a thesis themselves - or just arguing the anti-thesis.

Science is only one half about being "skeptical". When you compare and contrast two (or more) ideas, you have to state which one you support (and why) as well as stating which one you disagree with (and why).

_
HypnoPsi

All of which adds up to ... what? I still don't know what you're trying to prove, nor who you're trying to prove it to.

I have a skeptical approach to life. Faith doesn't come into it.

M.

Moochie

2nd May 2007, 11:03 AM

That's "nice", I guess.

I wouldn't put it like that -- it might get me a good reputation. :D

M.

Ryokan

2nd May 2007, 01:31 PM

Your second question needs to be answered first. One type of atheism that is not materialistic is Buddhism, particularly of the Japanese Zen variety; though other sects would be included as well.

As a Buddhist, I call bullcrap. I'm a Theravada Buddhist, a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Foundation and of Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, and I'm what you call a 'materialistic' atheist. I'm also quite partial to Zen Buddhism, as it's a very 'back to basic' sort of Buddhism.

The Buddha claims that there is no self, no soul (the concept of no-self/anatta), and that what we percieve as the soul is a conglomeration of the five skandhas; they being: matter, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness.

Where is the immaterial in that? Where is the immaterial in Theravada/Zen Buddhism?

I am just an atheist.

You and me both, brother.

HypnoPsi

2nd May 2007, 03:27 PM

So, since there is no testable evidence that matter/energy can self-generate, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

Are you a materialist? If so, are you embarrased by materialistic atheism being simply faith-based? I don't see why - materialists at least have a thesis and can say they're approaching the issue scientifically or are attempting to do so.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.So, since some people are ignorant of the philosophy of science, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

Materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic regardless of whether or not someone is ignorant of the philosophy of science.

Sorry, but to me, your explanation about how atheistic materialism or materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic is no explanation at all.

Materialistic atheism is faith-based for the exact same reason that God is a faith based idea - because there is no evidence to support the view or any way to test it. Why you cannot understand this simple logic escapes me.

In any regard, at the base of it, you are still taking liberties with the word "faith". And I remain certain that you know the difference between religious faith and the initial assumptions of science. Yet for some reason, you keep equating the two.

Why do you continue to do that?

I do that because I genuinelly do deny your basic assumption completely. Just because two groups of people use different words or, even, and entirely different language does not mean that their minds work differentlly.

You're trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. This is not the case. I, for example, cannot see any real way to decide between western and eastern ideas of the divine and certainly don't have any idea what kind of experiences I'll have in any afterlife.

The spectrum is wide and just as their are fundamentalist Christians in society there are also those who have a total conviction in materialism.

Religion/spirituality is a search of the divine and nobody has more doubts about or less faith in their "God/s" than a committed follower of a path who has reached a difficult stage in their development.

_
HypnoPsi

Phil

2nd May 2007, 04:09 PM

One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

Are you a materialist? If so, are you embarrased by materialistic atheism being simply faith-based? I don't see why - materialists at least have a thesis and can say they're approaching the issue scientifically or are attempting to do so. . . .

I suppose if you have to have a word to describe me, "Materialist" is as good as any. “Atheist”, “Agnostic”, “Naturalist”, and “Heathen” are just as appropriate. Of course, “Outlander”, “He who walks in shadows”, and “Larry” are just as useful.

I personally like to refer to myself as a “Swashbuckler”. It’s fun to say, and it fits me well, as I often wear tights and frilly pirate shirts.

But to answer your question, no I'm not embarrassed by it at all. I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate.

. . . Materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic regardless of whether or not someone is ignorant of the philosophy of science. . . . Materialistic atheism is faith-based for the exact same reason that God is a faith based idea - because there is no evidence to support the view or any way to test it. Why you cannot understand this simple logic escapes me. . . .

Why you think anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief escapes me.

. . . I do that because I genuinelly do deny your basic assumption completely. Just because two groups of people use different words or, even, and entirely different language does not mean that their minds work differentlly. . . .

You're not using two different words, or an entirely different language. You're using one word, "faith", and applying it equally to two very different concepts. And I can't understand why you would do that, unless you have no real notion of a religious mindset versus a materialist mindset.

. . . . You're trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. . . .

Yes!! See, I knew you could grasp the idea!!

. . . This is not the case. I, for example, cannot see any real way to decide between western and eastern ideas of the divine and certainly don't have any idea what kind of experiences I'll have in any afterlife. . . . .

Your personal spiritual indecisions and intellectual struggles have no bearing on the fact that religious people blindly maintain total conviction to unsupported ideas. It also has no bearing on the fact that a materialist may make initial assumptions based on the universe around them only to change those assumptions should more information come to light. And as far as I can tell, those are the two things you are placing under the "faith" umbrella.

Is that incorrect?

thaiboxerken

2nd May 2007, 05:47 PM

One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

That's not the reason theism is considered faith-based. It's considered faith-based because it's not based on any scientific evidence at all AND has no basis in reality.

We know the physical world exists, there is no evidence of a non-physical one. Materialism isn't faith-based, it's just a position based on what we know.

The Great Hairy One

2nd May 2007, 08:55 PM

In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?

Here:

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard.

Here:
How do materialistic atheists get such a bad press, I wonder?

Here:
Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact.

The entirety of post #71 in this thread:
...

Here:
Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is.

Should I go on? In practically every post you have made in this thread you attack this strawman you constructed of "materialistic atheists". So if you want to back down from those accusations, that's fine.

1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. The law of conservation states that matter cannot be created by physical processes (or destroyed) so they have a steep hill to climb.

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

That's Materialism, not your construct "materialistic atheism". That's my fault, sorry, I should have made myself more clear in the previous post.

Posit away - but don't accuse me of it. My only points have been that materialism is a faith based metaphysic and that the scientific study of a subject should end with a thesis (that, strictly speaking, should provide us with a supply of testable hypotheses, at least some of which should resist fair attempts at being falsified).

I am accusing you of constructing a strawman of atheism, and from your other posts in the threat (linked above) we can see that I am right. In post #7 in this thread you say "This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard." where "materialistic atheist" is your own construct!

You are incorrect when you say that your only points have been to try and show Materialism is a faith based metaphysic - you have been erroneously trying to link Materialism to Atheism when the two terms are not linked, and should be discussed independently of each other.

Cheers,
TGHO

bignickel

2nd May 2007, 10:40 PM

Gosh, this thread has been fun.

What we have here is is Hypnopai engaging in what seems to be a 4 page Tu Quoque, except: what he's accusing 'atheists' of is incorrect. So, he's doomed in 2 ways right from the start: 1. incorrect accusation, and 2. Tu Quoque, which is a logical fallacy.

I particular love who he accuses those with no 'faith' of having faith. So I'd like to deal with that before jumping back off the thread, since it's doomed to a Tu Quoque fate in the end anyway.

'Confidence' and 'belief' is what people experience when they have used the power of their minds, backed by science, to build things physical and mental, in the universe. It's the reward you get for building a bridge, using the sciences of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc; you can safely drive your car across, knowing the hard work that underlies the structure.

'Faith', on the other hand, is getting the same reward that 'confidence' and 'belief' offer, while skipping all the hard work. There is no foundation: just trust that there's some kind of 'foundation' there, even without building one. It's the bridge across the river, built with no knowledge of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc... just 'trust' that everything will be fine when we start driving our car across. Basically: 'faith' is cheating: rewarding you with with a good feeling with no actual hard work to back it up (unless you want to count sophistry and mental gymnastics).

And so we have people like hypnopai trying to shoehorn 'faith' into the thoughts and beliefs of the very people who find 'faith', in essence, to be truly deplorable. Evidently, to accept what we have detected as a 'default', is to bias ourselves against the infinite amount of things that haven't appeared yet. To say "it isn't there until it get's detected/inferred/revealed" is some horrible scientific "material"-ism (yep, the same kind of horrible -ism's as sexism, racism, etc).

Is this the kind of post-modernist sophistry that they're teaching in universities these days? Hypnopai, you got ripped off dude. I'd ask your school for a refund.

EGarrett

3rd May 2007, 04:31 PM

I edited my bullet points into the Dawkins/O'Reilly video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA66lP2GkiE

HypnoPsi

3rd May 2007, 05:49 PM

I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate.

I have never said that materialism and religion are of the same vein.

I am pointing out that, from an ontological position regarding the origin of objective reality, some funky self-generating form of matter and some super consciousness have equal status.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Materialistic atheism is faith-based for the exact same reason that God is a faith based idea - because there is no evidence to support the view or any way to test it. Why you cannot understand this simple logic escapes me. . . . Why you think anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief escapes me.

I have never suggested that anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief - nor would I.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Just because two groups of people use different words or, even, and entirely different language does not mean that their minds work differentlly. . . .You're not using two different words, or an entirely different language. You're using one word, "faith", and applying it equally to two very different concepts. And I can't understand why you would do that, unless you have no real notion of a religious mindset versus a materialist mindset.

If the materialistic ontology is not faith based what is it? Has any materialist provided evidence for the self-generation (or whatever) of objective reality?

Are you a materialist?

Your personal spiritual indecisions and intellectual struggles have no bearing on the fact that religious people blindly maintain total conviction to unsupported ideas.

Yet again, you are trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. This is utterly, utterly, false. People simply don't behave that way - whoever they are or whatever they do.

You are also acting as if religion is only about the exoteric and fundamentalists - rather than the esoteric.

It also has no bearing on the fact that a materialist may make initial assumptions based on the universe around them only to change those assumptions should more information come to light. And as far as I can tell, those are the two things you are placing under the "faith" umbrella.

Is that incorrect?

That is incorrect. I am not talking about the epistemological side of materialism - I am talking about the ontological position inherent in materialism being a faith-based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 05:59 PM

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard. Considering the amount of time and energy he puts into atheism it is, quite frankly, inexcusable for him not to understand that materialism is a faith based metaphysic.

Whether or not someone believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated or has always existed in one form or another it's still just a belief.

Oh, please!

Why should it be inexcusable for him not to understand an absurdity that isn't true?

Start a thread on this topic and PM me, please. It will be my pleasure to shred.

HypnoPsi

3rd May 2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.That's not the reason theism is considered faith-based. It's considered faith-based because it's not based on any scientific evidence at all AND has no basis in reality.

We have "consciousness" and we have "matter". Religions almost always begin with someone having a mystical experience or gaining Enlightenment and then everyone else - for some reason - seems to feel the need to construct rituals and myths out of any and metaphor the original teacher used to get their message across. The followers will even go so far as to emulate their dress sense and consider their birthplace 'holy' or whatever...

The basis of religion is in (the nature of) consciousness. One notes it tends to have little to do with what comes after the original teacher is gone.

We know the physical world exists, there is no evidence of a non-physical one. Materialism isn't faith-based, it's just a position based on what we know.

Again, the issue is not really about the mechanics of the objective universe - it is about how the objective universe got there in the first place. As an ontology materialism is a faith-based metaphysic.

That said, as soon as you accept that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon from matter, the mechanics of the objective universe do have to be reconsidered. Conscious mate-selection, for example, falsifies a purely mechanistic view of evolution (and all behaviour in general).

_
HypnoPsi

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 06:07 PM

HypnoPsi, what is all this about ontology? Would you please drag yourself out of the 18th century.

As long as you cling to these philosophical phantasms as though they had any relationship to reality, you'll continue to run yourself in circles as you're doing.

If you begin with no assumptions, and move forward from observation and valid deduction, you will find no justification for moving beyond what you call "materialism" (and by using that term you falsely portray it as an impositional philosophy).

You call people who refuse to credit unsupported speculation "materialists" and attempt to lump them with all the other "ists".

The fact is, whenever so-called materialistic interpretations have collided with other interpretations of reality, so-called materialism has won every match.

Every one.

Bar none.

Period.

No other point of view has a leg to stand on.

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 06:10 PM

We have "consciousness" and we have "matter".

Wrong again. The only theory of consciousness which has been validated (and it has been validated repeatedly) is that consciousness = the activity of the brain.

You might as well say "We have 'weather' and we have 'matter'". It would make as much sense -- which is none.

HypnoPsi

3rd May 2007, 06:46 PM

I wrote:

"In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?"

You quoted me saying:

"This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard."

Er... Dawkins is a materialist, so I'm not ascribing anything to him.

"How do materialistic atheists get such a bad press, I wonder?"

Nothing in this quote ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. It's a general statement about materialistic atheists getting a bad press...

"Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact."

Again, nothing in these quotes ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. These quotes about about materialistic atheists.

You wrote "The entirety of post #71 in this thread". In that post, I wrote:

"Materialists cannot seriously expect to get away with constantly saying "There's no evidence for God" without ever being called upon to defend a counter explanation for the origin of objective reality!

Thesis defence is the complete opposite of arguing the antithesis. I could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence that, say, the universe spontaneously self-generated; just as the materialistic atheist could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence God/s did it.

And materialistic atheists do that, appearing completely bewildered that people still believe in God, acting as if people should then automatically become materialistic atheists and think physic must ultimately explain the mystery of existence. They think it's all easy and logical when it isn't."

Nowhere at all in this post do I ascribe materialistic atheism to any or all atheists. I have been doing nothing more than discussing materialistic atheism in particular in this thread.

You quoted me as saying "Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is."

Not even this quote ascribes materialism to an atheist who would deny materialsm!!

I am accusing you of constructing a strawman of atheism, and from your other posts in the threat (linked above) we can see that I am right.

I find this statement to be absolutely incredible. When I entered this thread I realised that I would have to specify materialistic atheism specifically as the view I was criticising. I realised this was only right and proper since it would be wrong for me to say "atheists" believe matter self-generated - for the very simple reason that reads as saying "all atheists".

Had I only said "atheists" I would have been heavily criticised - and rightfully so. Yet here I am being criticised for being specific!

In post #7 in this thread you say "This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard." where "materialistic atheist" is your own construct!

Look, neither "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" are a construct of mine. I am using the term/s only to specifically make clear which view I am criticising - and I utterly deny ascribing the view to any atheist who would deny materialism.

I've been using the above term to specifically exclude atheists who are not materialists - not as a catch-all for anyone who happens to be an atheist. Sheesh!

You are incorrect when you say that your only points have been to try and show Materialism is a faith based metaphysic - you have been erroneously trying to link Materialism to Atheism when the two terms are not linked, and should be discussed independently of each other.

Horsesh*t! I have quite transparently and openly been doing the exact opposite. I am totally and fully aware that not all atheists are materialists and would never try to equate the two or link them improperly. I have been providing a critique of materialistic atheism and nothing more.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

3rd May 2007, 06:58 PM

Wrong again. The only theory of consciousness which has been validated (and it has been validated repeatedly) is that consciousness = the activity of the brain.

Nobody has ever shown at any time or anywhere that consciousness = the activity of the brain. All we know is that there is a correlation. Not even the speakers at the "2005 Skeptics Society Annual Conference: Brain, Mind and Consciousness" claimed that it has ever been validated that consciousness = the activity of the brain, even though they think it's true.

Name me one single neuroscientist who claims to have validated causation as well as correlation.

Are you seriously going to try and deny that your belief that neuronal activity causes consciousness (or "is" consciousness) is not just "faith" on your part?

_
HypnoPsi

(The conference is several hours long but you can download the whole thing here: http://www.tsntv.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/)

HypnoPsi

3rd May 2007, 07:02 PM

The fact is, whenever so-called materialistic interpretations have collided with other interpretations of reality, so-called materialism has won every match.

Every one.

Bar none.

Period.

No other point of view has a leg to stand on.

Would that include Daniel Dennett's claim that thermostats have beliefs?

(Pssst! The evidence for psi is much stronger!)

_
HypnoPsi

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 08:38 PM

Nobody has ever shown at any time or anywhere that consciousness = the activity of the brain. All we know is that there is a correlation.
Wrong.

No other mechanism for consciousness has ever been demonstrated as plausible.

Care to show me one that has?

I didn't think so.

In fact, the only model supported by evidence -- and it is entirely supported by every bit of evidence in existence -- is that the mind = the activity of the brain.

That is why our conscious experience is directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions into the brain.

There is a direct correspondence, not a mere correlation.

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 08:43 PM

Are you seriously going to try and deny that your belief that neuronal activity causes consciousness (or "is" consciousness) is not just "faith" on your part?

There's nothing to "deny". That's like asking if I'm seriously going to try to "deny" that my belief that weather is a terrestrial phenomenon is a "faith". Why should I be put in the position of "denying" a counterclaim which is unsupported and ridiculous?

Change the physical structure and mechanism of the brain, and you change conscious experience in predictable ways. That's not a mere "correlation" as you falsely claim.

Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I have no "faith" in anything.

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 08:48 PM

Would that include Daniel Dennett's claim that thermostats have beliefs?

(Pssst! The evidence for psi is much stronger!)

Nope.

Listen, I've had my fill of red herring.

Show me one -- just one -- instance where a head-to-head question has been resolved in favor of anything other than what you call "materialism".

One.

That's all I'm asking.

Just one.

You can't do it.

I don't care about claims that didn't pan out. I don't care about strawmen.

In every case where we've been able to test so-called materialist theories versus non-materialist theories, what you would call materialism has won out.

The planets are not pushed around by angels.

The weather is perfectly explained by physical theories.

Speciation is explained by evolution.

And so forth and so on, case after case, without exception.

Go ahead... try to cite a case where a non-materialist explanation has won.

You can't.

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 08:52 PM

Name me one single neuroscientist who claims to have validated causation as well as correlation.

John-Dylan Haynes.

All you want is one?

Damn, you're easy.

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 08:57 PM

Some reading for you, HypnoPsi:

http://www.consciousness-brain.org/

Every single validated advance in our understanding of consiousness is grounded in the model of consciousness as an activity of the physical brain.

No exception.

Period.

There is no other contender in the ring.

None.

Lonewulf

3rd May 2007, 09:12 PM

Nobody has ever shown at any time or anywhere that consciousness = the activity of the brain. All we know is that there is a correlation. Not even the speakers at the "2005 Skeptics Society Annual Conference: Brain, Mind and Consciousness" claimed that it has ever been validated that consciousness = the activity of the brain, even though they think it's true.

Your avatar is misleading, considering how much of it you shovel.

We understand neurons.

We understand that the brain is the one thing that regulates our body, and what parts of the brain govern what part of our consciousness.

If you remove the memory parts, you lose your memory. If you remove your spinal column, you cannot give signals to your body. If you remove cognitive parts, you lose cognition. If you lose speech centers, you lose speech. These processes only come back if those parts regrow back, or there is a way to find a loophole in the physical structure of the brain.

Either way, your claim makes no sense. It's like claiming that we don't know that fire burns; we just know that there is a correlation between being near fire and it tending to burn us. But that doesn't mean anything, right? ;)

Piggy

3rd May 2007, 09:41 PM

Let me clarify something for you, HypnoPsi.

No scientist can claim to understand how the activity of the brain gives rise to conscious experience.

That is simply not known.

But your claim that causation has not been adequately demonstrated is patently false.

We don't yet understand the mechanism. But there is no competing theory out there. The challenge now is to shed light on that mechanism. And that is exactly what everyone in the field is working on.

To deny that science accepts the truth that consciousness = brain activity... it's like denying that science accepts the modern synthesis of Darwinian theory and genetic theory as the foundation of speciation. It just ain't so.

The Great Hairy One

3rd May 2007, 11:32 PM

Er... Dawkins is a materialist, so I'm not ascribing anything to him.

Your quote:

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard.

I've marked the pertinent bit. You're claiming that there exists a group of people identifiable as "materialistic atheists". I am simply pointing out that your assignation is incorrect, and that "materialistic atheist" is a false representation of atheism. There is no such thing as a "materialistic atheist". The two terms cover different aspects of philosophy.

Nothing in this quote ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. It's a general statement about materialistic atheists getting a bad press...

There is no such thing as "materialistic atheism". IT IS A STRAWMAN.

Again, nothing in these quotes ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. These quotes about about materialistic atheists.

There is no such thing as "materialistic atheism". IT IS A STRAWMAN.

Not even this quote ascribes materialism to an atheist who would deny materialsm!!

There is no such thing as "materialistic atheism". IT IS A STRAWMAN.

I find this statement to be absolutely incredible. When I entered this thread I realised that I would have to specify materialistic atheism specifically as the view I was criticising. I realised this was only right and proper since it would be wrong for me to say "atheists" believe matter self-generated - for the very simple reason that reads as saying "all atheists".

Had I only said "atheists" I would have been heavily criticised - and rightfully so. Yet here I am being criticised for being specific!

I am criticising you for using a false construct of atheism. You are attempting to ascribe an extra attribute to atheists as a group, "Materialism". This is a logical fallacy, and you are incorrect to link these two terms.

Look, neither "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" are a construct of mine. I am using the term/s only to specifically make clear which view I am criticising - and I utterly deny ascribing the view to any atheist who would deny materialism.

I've been using the above term to specifically exclude atheists who are not materialists - not as a catch-all for anyone who happens to be an atheist. Sheesh!

If it is not a term you devised, then you are using it incorrectly (and it's still a strawman). The two philosophical viewpoints should be considered in isolation. You, as far as I can gather from your other posts in this thread, are attempting to discredit the view of Materialism. This has nothing to do with Atheism, which is a completely independant philosophical viewpoint!

You're trying to link Atheism to Materialism and you are wrong to do so.

Horsesh*t! I have quite transparently and openly been doing the exact opposite. I am totally and fully aware that not all atheists are materialists and would never try to equate the two or link them improperly. I have been providing a critique of materialistic atheism and nothing more.

And I am pointing out that you have constructed the term "materialistic atheism" and it's a strawman of the atheist position! You are critiquing a strawman which you yourself created.

Look, if you want to try to discredit Materialism, go for it. I think you and Piggy are involved in that discussion right now. However, realise that even if you do discredit Materialism, you do not then automatically discredit Atheism. You would have to do so in a separate set of arguments.

Cheers,
TGHO

Piggy

4th May 2007, 04:23 AM

What's more, HypnoPsi is attempting to establish "materialism" as a faith-based "metaphysic", as though folks who do not harbor any faith in unsubstantiated speculations were somehow choosing to "believe in" the philosophy of "materialism".

This is incorrect.

One might as well argue that there's a faith-based metaphysic called Thingsfalldownism which denies, on the basis of mere belief, that things fall up.

A refusal to hold faith-based beliefs in entities and concepts not demonstrated to be real... this is not in any way a "faith" in itself.

My good pen is somewhere in this house. I was using it last night, and I haven't gone anywhere since. I thought I left it here on the desk, but it's not here.

My belief that the pen is somewhere in the house, and that I am misremembering where I placed it, or the cat batted it under the closet door, or some such... this is not any kind of faith or philosophical -ism.

And it would not be reasonable to offer the competing theory that my dead uncle Rankin's spirit could be haunting my home and hiding things, then to posit both theories as equally likely (or unlikely) beliefs based on their own types of faith.

The poltergeist scenario requires a lot of unsupported speculation. The a-poltergeistic scenario requires none.

Similarly, a failure to buy into faith-based speculations is not itself any sort of faith.

Piggy

4th May 2007, 04:37 AM

Regarding the correspondence of consciousness and brain activity.

When we see such direct correspondence, we're pretty much stuck with the classic choices:

A gives rise to B

B gives rise to A

Some other mechanism C gives rise to A and B

In this case, there is no evidence of any C, no model of what it might be. It is superfluous.

It is well established that drugs, trauma, electrical stimulation, and physical manipulation affecting the brain have a corresponding effect on conscious experience. We are beginning to map these correspondences and to more fully describe the underlying mechanisms. The "brain gives rise to consciousness" model is confirmed at every turn.

However, there is no valid "consciousness gives rise to brain" model to be had.

When we look at developmental studies, the case becomes even clearer. We can actually see changes in cognition as a child's brain develops. Clearly, it's the physical brain which is driving the process.

This model permeates all current valid research, and is verified by the progress being made by those who are working within it. There is no progress being made by anyone working within any other model.

For a good general introduction, read Pinker's "How the Mind Works" and Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

HypnoPsi

4th May 2007, 06:13 AM

In fact, the only model supported by evidence -- and it is entirely supported by every bit of evidence in existence -- is that the mind = the activity of the brain.

Consciousness is either indistinct from matter/energy (and, by extension, information processing) or it is a distinct pheonemena.

Nobody anywhere - ever - has published any evidence that consciousness is just IP or E/M. There's no evidence in existence to support the "model". There's absolutely nothing at all. (That must be why you've dropped the claim that it's been "validated repeatedly".)

On the other hand, many researchers have published positive results for the existence of psi (conscious activity distinct from matter) and continue to do so.

Even though you're acting like that's a bitter pill to swallow, at least you're stating your thesis and unlike any other ten a penny wuss you're making efforts in the direction of science. I can respect that even if I think your thesis is nonsense.

So then, what neuroscientist do you know who has ever gone on the record cliaming to have evidence that "validates" that consciousness is just activity of the brain? (You never know, you might get lucky and find one.)

That is why our conscious experience is directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions into the brain.

Our cognitive processes are directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions in the brain. But since the 'mind' is just the experience of IP in consciousness, what of it? Effecting physiology only effects the ability of consciousness to to interact in the world in the usual manner. I can mistune a radio or TV set.

There is a direct correspondence, not a mere correlation.

Are you doing astrology now?

You don't have any evidence at all that neural activity causes consciousness let alone the mountains of validating evidence your posts would suggest, do you?

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

4th May 2007, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Are you seriously going to try and deny that your belief that neuronal activity causes consciousness (or "is" consciousness) is not just "faith" on your part?There's nothing to "deny". That's like asking if I'm seriously going to try to "deny" that my belief that weather is a terrestrial phenomenon is a "faith". Why should I be put in the position of "denying" a counterclaim which is unsupported and ridiculous?

Actually, the weather is a terrestrial, lunar and stellar phenomenon and we can directly observe (pretty well nowadays) how the moon causes the tides and how weather fronts are caused by the environment and activity on the sun (although the latter one is still a bit more theoretical).

That a machine has underlying mechanics is not in dispute. You've yet to show that consciousness is a machine or the effect of a machine.

Comparing consciousness to the weather is just plain silly.

Change the physical structure and mechanism of the brain, and you change conscious experience in predictable ways. That's not a mere "correlation" as you falsely claim.

Of course it's just a correlation. Drop a radio from a ladder and you'll experience a quite predictable result as well. You're just dancing around the issue here because you know you don't have any way to establish causation - which is the only thing any sober minded consciousness researcher is going to accept as evidence.

The only thing that's evidence for causation is evidence for causation - simple.

Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I have no "faith" in anything.

Just one little piece of evidence changes the status of your beliefs from being faith based to evidence based - just one. Surely you know better than to just expect anyone to take your word for it because you believe something?

_
HypnoPsi

Piggy

4th May 2007, 06:35 AM

Consciousness is either indistinct from matter/energy (and, by extension, information processing) or it is a distinct pheonemena.

Nobody anywhere - ever - has published any evidence that consciousness is just IP or E/M. There's no evidence in existence to support the "model". There's absolutely nothing at all. (That must be why you've dropped the claim that it's been "validated repeatedly".)

On the other hand, many researchers have published positive results for the existence of psi (conscious activity distinct from matter) and continue to do so.

Ok, obviously you're too far out in fantasyland to have a rational conversation.

1. Every scrap of evidence supports the model that consciousness is (yes, is) the activity of the brain. That's why altering the brain -- thru chemicals, electrical stimulation, probes, trauma, etc. -- alters consciousness. That's why cognition develops as the brain develops in kids.

2. I haven't dropped anything.

3. There is no evidence for psi.

Your posts are so breathtakingly contrary to fact and reason that there's no point going on with this.

Piggy

4th May 2007, 06:37 AM

So then, what neuroscientist do you know who has ever gone on the record cliaming to have evidence that "validates" that consciousness is just activity of the brain? (You never know, you might get lucky and find one.)

Read Pinker and Dennett, follow their cites.

Read any of the studies from the brain-consciousness site. Every one of them is immersed completely in the model that consciousness = brain activity.

But you won't. Because if you're still saying all this, you're willfully ignorant.

Piggy

4th May 2007, 06:41 AM

I can mistune a radio or TV set.
Astounding. So what, you think our brains are receivers for some distant signal? If that were true, there would be some evidence of it. There's not. Your analogy is false.

You're inventing a totally unsupported entity and tossing it into the equation, despite the fact that the equation already adds up.

You screw with the hardware and the computer goes wonky. Same for the brain and the mind.

Mind = activity of the brain. Again, read Pinker and Dennett, follow their cites. You'll find all the verifying studies you can handle.

Piggy

4th May 2007, 06:45 AM

Comparing consciousness to the weather is just plain silly.
Not at all. Both are emergent complex phenomena arising from physical activity.

Every study out there demonstrates causation. You like the radio analogy because it allows you to propose that we're receivers of some sort. Trouble is, no one has ever detected any incoming signal, and no investigation of the brain has supported a receiver model.

It's more like a computer or CD player -- drop those and they go wonky -- because the computing and the music are results of the activity of the machine.

Same with the brain.

Now go read Pinker, Dennett, and the brain-consciousness studies. Til then, I think we can stick a fork in your BS argument.

Ichneumonwasp

4th May 2007, 06:56 AM

Our cognitive processes are directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions in the brain. But since the 'mind' is just the experience of IP in consciousness, what of it? Effecting physiology only effects the ability of consciousness to to interact in the world in the usual manner. I can mistune a radio or TV set.

If the brain is simply a receiver, then please explain how I can interfere with the signal arriving to the brain. If that model is correct there must be a way. Why have we never stumbled upon it?

If there is an immaterial mind what form does it take? Is it a unity? If not, how do you know? What can you say about something that has no material reality, no extension, and no effect on the brain when the brain is "turned off"?

You don't have any evidence at all that neural activity causes consciousness let alone the mountains of validating evidence your posts would suggest, do you?

_
HypnoPsi

Yes we do. We can watch the metabolism of the brain increase with certain tasks. Turn off that metabolism and the brain doesn't function, mind stops. Give anaesthesia and there is no mind, no experience. If there were a separate "mind" that existed independent of the brain then it would continue to have some experience wouldn't it? If not, how can it even be said to exists since it has no material reality, no extension, and no action? We have a word for "stuff" like that -- non-existent.

Dang, Piggy got there first. Nice to see you back Piggy.

thaiboxerken

4th May 2007, 09:37 AM

If the brain is just a receiver, you'd think there would be a signal to measure. Heck, we should be able to intercept thoughts with a scanning device. But no, the reality is that the brain creates consciousness through biological processes. Hypnopsi lives in his own little world where a magic thing called "consciousness" works outside of the laws of the universe. He may as well say it's a soul, because that's what he's suggesting consciousness is.

Lonewulf

4th May 2007, 09:59 AM

I'm really digging Piggy's posts. He talks good.

Moochie

4th May 2007, 11:39 AM

I edited my bullet points into the Dawkins/O'Reilly video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA66lP2GkiE

Good going, E.G.

I'm rather happy that Bill isn't throwing in with "you guys."

I'm rather amazed that Bill can spell b-a-n-e. Wonders never cease.

M.

Moochie

4th May 2007, 01:36 PM

Ok, obviously you're too far out in fantasyland to have a rational conversation.

1. Every scrap of evidence supports the model that consciousness is (yes, is) the activity of the brain. That's why altering the brain -- thru chemicals, electrical stimulation, probes, trauma, etc. -- alters consciousness. That's why cognition develops as the brain develops in kids.

2. I haven't dropped anything.

3. There is no evidence for psi.

Your posts are so breathtakingly contrary to fact and reason that there's no point going on with this.

Ah, now I get it. HypnoPsi is trying (without any success, I might add) to verbalize psi into existence. Took me a while to "get" that, such was the blizzard of baloney emanating from HypnoPsi's keyboard. What would cause someone to attempt such folly?

M.

Phil

4th May 2007, 02:41 PM

I have never said that materialism and religion are of the same vein. . . .

Nor did I accuse you of saying it. I simply said that I didn't think it was accurate to refer to materialism as faith-based in the same sense one would refer to religion as faith-based.

And unless I've been at my cups again, you have said both materialism and religion are faith-based metaphysic.

. . . . I am pointing out that, from an ontological position regarding the origin of objective reality, some funky self-generating form of matter and some super consciousness have equal status. . . .

That may very well be, but a materialist, while quite possibly holding to the notion of some funky self-generating form of matter, does not hold to it simply on faith the same way that a religious person holding to the notion of some super conscious holds to it simply on faith.

Materialists may believe the self-generating matter scenario to be true, but that tentative belief must be based on something observable in the material universe, otherwise they are not materialists.

. . . I have never suggested that anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief - nor would I. . . .

Good.

. . . . If the materialistic ontology is not faith based what is it? . . .

It is based on the observable universe. Nothing is taken on faith.

. . . Has any materialist provided evidence for the self-generation (or whatever) of objective reality? . . .

I don't know. But this point is irrelevant.

If one has claimed such evidence, there are only a few possibilities to consider:

They have possibly made a wonderful discovery that must now be heavily scrutinized.
They have possibly mistaken what they are looking at to be such evidence.
They have discovered nothing and are delusional.

Whatever the case, none of those possibilities requires faith.

. . . . Are you a materialist? . . .

If you need to assign a philosophical label to everyone, you may call me a materialist if you wish. I would not deny it. But as I pointed out previously, there are other terms that are just as useful.

. . . . Yet again, you are trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. This is utterly, utterly, false. People simply don't behave that way. . . .

No, this is utterly, utterly true. And millions of people simply do behave that way.

When it comes to the acceptance of divinity, theists must have a total conviction in their views, otherwise they are not theists. Since there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a divine being, faith is a requirement to be a theist.

Lonewulf

4th May 2007, 03:23 PM

Ah, now I get it. HypnoPsi is trying (without any success, I might add) to verbalize psi into existence. Took me a while to "get" that, such was the blizzard of baloney emanating from HypnoPsi's keyboard. What would cause someone to attempt such folly?

M.

Ask T'ai Chi :p

Mostly, it's to say to the world, "I'm right, you're wrong, ha-HAH!", from what I understand. When one person defends the underdog from The Man, it feels more heroic than going with status quo.

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Name me one single neuroscientist who claims to have validated causation as well as correlation.John-Dylan Haynes.

Haynes work concerns where specific bits of information are encoded in the brain and nothing more. Yes, it's an important neurological advance from just saying "this bit processes language" or "this bit processes visual information" but there is absolutely no validation that IP causes (or is) consciousness. None at all.

Better luck next time.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 05:52 AM

Let me clarify something for you, HypnoPsi.

No scientist can claim to understand how the activity of the brain gives rise to conscious experience.

This alone should tell you that subsequently no scientist knows for sure that neurological activity actually does give rise to conscious experience. You have a very strong belief here and are simply trying to deny that it's faith. Are you embarrased that it's just faith and can't admit it, perhaps?

But your claim that causation has not been adequately demonstrated is patently false.

We don't yet understand the mechanism. But there is no competing theory out there. The challenge now is to shed light on that mechanism. And that is exactly what everyone in the field is working on.

Er... the competing theory that consciousness is indistinct from M/E and/or IP is the theory that consciousness is distinct from M/E and/or IP - and there is plenty of published evidence for the existence of psi (regardless of whether or not you accept it).

Nobody has ever demonstrated that consciousness is indistinct from M/E and/or IP. They've never even came close. I think that AI and cognitive modelling are as much fun as the next guy - but you are have no reason to believe that this generates/is consciousness. There's no causation here at all - only your belief.

To deny that science accepts the truth that consciousness = brain activity... it's like denying that science accepts the modern synthesis of Darwinian theory and genetic theory as the foundation of speciation. It just ain't so.

Science is not a solitatry person - there are some who will share or accept your belief and some who won't. As a skeptic of this claim I'm merely asking for real evidence. In your posts your trying to dance around the issue while meekly admitting that you don't really know...

I think you can realise for yourself that's not good enough.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 06:14 AM

And I am pointing out that you have constructed the term "materialistic atheism" and it's a strawman of the atheist position! You are critiquing a strawman which you yourself created.

Look, if you want to try to discredit Materialism, go for it. I think you and Piggy are involved in that discussion right now. However, realise that even if you do discredit Materialism, you do not then automatically discredit Atheism. You would have to do so in a separate set of arguments.

For the Nth time - If I merely used the term "Atheism" many people would rightly point out that there are many atheists who still believe in a supernatural dimension to life. Since I am fully aware of this myself I am not going to make that mistake, am I?

And "materialistic atheism" is not a 'construct' of mine. Many writers use the term to specifically be clear as to what branch of atheism they are critiquing.

I have no intention of discontinuing that practice only to be inevitably told that I should be more accurately defining "materialistic athesists" instead of including all "atheists" whenever I critique the view.

It is no straw-man. I am not critiquing Buddhists or Animists (even though I do not share their beliefs). I am critiquing materialistic atheists. Deal with it.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 06:31 AM

What's more, HypnoPsi is attempting to establish "materialism" as a faith-based "metaphysic", as though folks who do not harbor any faith in unsubstantiated speculations were somehow choosing to "believe in" the philosophy of "materialism".

This is incorrect.

If that were true then you would have to accept the same principle for the opposite argument. Consider, the law of conservation states that M/E cannot be created (or destroyed) by physical processes. Consequently, from the choice betteen matter and consiousness, the only choice left is some consciousness causing objective reality.

Your claim seems to be that when people only have one choice left they're not really "choosing" to "believe in" their metaphysic. As you can see, that definately works for consciousness - but I don't see how it works for matter given the law of conservation. Do you?

If so, how?

My belief that the pen is somewhere in the house, and that I am misremembering where I placed it, or the cat batted it under the closet door, or some such... this is not any kind of faith or philosophical -ism.

<snip>

The poltergeist scenario requires a lot of unsupported speculation. The a-poltergeistic scenario requires none.

The poltergeist scenario is not parsimonious to the problem of the missing pen.

Neither is it parsimonious to posit the existence of an unobserved and unknown form of (or property of) matter/energy that can self-generate out of nothing. You have to simply deal with the choices you have - consciousness and matter - and matter is not a creative agent.

If you ask me, you'd have a much easier time if you just accepted that materialism is a faith-based metaphysic and left it at that.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 07:21 AM

Read Pinker and Dennett, follow their cites.

Pinker, similar to Haynes, is very much into mapping mental modules onto specific neural activity while Dennett, as a functionalist (or teleofunctionalist to use his own term) attempts to provide the philosophical underpinning to this strategy. But it doesn't lead anywhere except to unsubstantiated and untestable claims.

Dennett's avowal that thermostats have beliefs is completley untestable and entirely faith-based. (I don't _think_ he denys that - but who knows?)

His teleofunctionalist view of consciousness is that you need conscious systems to have both a function and end purpose (telos: end, purpose). That's fine as far as it goes but it's nothing more than faith.

Even if a thermostat does have the set of beliefs 'too hot', 'too cold' and 'just right' along with the 'desire' to maintain the temperature as 'just right' (whenever it get's 'too hot' or 'too cold') how can you ever prove/test such a suggestion?

And it's not without good reason that Dennett (and McCarthy) pick thermostats. Their 'signal' or 'no signal' activity is detrmined by inhibitory and exhitory input just like a neurons action potential firing is determined by inhibitory and exhitory neurotransmitters.

(Neurons, however, don't care about 'just right' - they'll fire an action potential as soon as they're electrochemically excited enough and won't when they're inhibited.)

The fundamental point here is that whether you're talking about thermostats or neurons (even if we agree they are both teleofunctional), there is still no reason to assume that consciousness emerges from this activity.

As a skeptic, I say it's all just subjective projection (belief) on the part of the observer. It's the exact same type of thinking that causes people to see faces on mars or correlation in the stars with events in their life.

Read any of the studies from the brain-consciousness site. Every one of them is immersed completely in the model that consciousness = brain activity.

So what? There's still no evidence that the teleofunctional property of neurons (or thermostats) in any way causes consciousness. (And their alleged teleofunctional property is debatable as well!)

But you won't. Because if you're still saying all this, you're willfully ignorant.

Actually, in taking a look through this citation list (which is all that website appears to be) I recognise a few names/papers that I'm quite sure I have read perviously. I also recognise more than a few book titles, from which I'm pretty certain I've read the odd chapter from when I was a student.

My time is much more limited these days, but how many papers and books from noetic scientists and parapsychologists can you say you have read?

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Comparing consciousness to the weather is just plain silly.Not at all. Both are emergent complex phenomena arising from physical activity.

So you believe. Prove it. (Not the weather.)

Every study out there demonstrates causation.

No study "out there" demonstrates causation. Cite one - and explain how you and the original author/researcher have reached this conclusion?

You like the radio analogy because it allows you to propose that we're receivers of some sort. Trouble is, no one has ever detected any incoming signal, and no investigation of the brain has supported a receiver model.

Not exactly - though I see the confusion the analogy causes. If I were to spectulate, I would not say that our consciousnesses are off somewhere distant sending a signal to our physiology.

It's more like a computer or CD player -- drop those and they go wonky -- because the computing and the music are results of the activity of the machine.

Same with the brain.

The brain is an information processor. I see no reason to doubt that. I see good reason to be skeptical of the claim that IP is consciousness (and/or that consciousness emerges from IP) - there's simply no evidence or any way of testing the claim.

Now go read Pinker, Dennett, and the brain-consciousness studies. Til then, I think we can stick a fork in your BS argument.

Oh, I've certainly read Pinker and Dennett. Pinker's "How the Mind Works" is just a few feet away from me along with Dawkins "The God Delusion".

I happen to consider "How the Mind Works" to be an extremely good book and an excellent introduction to the complexities of evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology for both the inquiring layman and seasoned academic. Pinker has a good knack for properly introducing and explaining very complex ideas with clear examples.

Now you go read Irreducable Mind by Kelly, et al. (Personally, I'm waiting until the price drops a little.)

Try to really think about your beliefs. Ask yourself what real solid evidence you have to support the subjective view that consiousness is neural activity. If you can't do that you're in the land of the 'true believers'.

_
HypnoPsi

Piggy

7th May 2007, 08:05 AM

There's no point trying to reason with a person who'll look at a dog and tell you it's a cat.

Good night and good luck.

-Piggy

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 08:21 AM

If the brain is just a receiver, you'd think there would be a signal to measure. Heck, we should be able to intercept thoughts with a scanning device.

I don't recall ever saying the brain is just a receiver. (Neither do I think it's just singly either a transmitter or a processor. It's all of these things and more.)

And scientists have and do study the transmission of thoughts between minds (and from minds to matter). It's called parapsychology and noetic science - and many positive results have been observed and published. Whether you believe in it or not that, at least, is still the case. The same cannot be said for materialistic research into consciousness. There's no evidence at all that consciousness is IP and/or EM. None. It's just a subjective belief.

Do you see the difference here? One group studies consciousness and then makes evidence based claims from the data while another group studes IP, EM and M/E and makes faith based claims about consciousness with no data to suggest either causation or emergence.

Materialists are entitled to their beliefs, but thinking (or actually claiming) that these untestable and unsubstantiated claims are scientific is simply wrong.

(I will, however, admit that non-materialists have no genuine understanding of what consciousness really ultimately is either.)

But no, the reality is that the brain creates consciousness through biological processes.

So you believe. Prove it.

(And you're forgetting about computers and thermostats and God knows what else (no pun intended) that 'create consciousness' as soon as you buy into neofunctionalism or any other materialistic viewpoint.)

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I have never said that materialism and religion are of the same vein.Nor did I accuse you of saying it. I simply said that I didn't think it was accurate to refer to materialism as faith-based in the same sense one would refer to religion as faith-based.

You replied to my post saying "I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate.

And are we both reading the same thread? If you want blind unsubstantiated belief in materialism just read Piggy's posts (along with a few others'); and s/he, at least, has had the good sense to withdraw recognising that materialistic arguements cannot realistically stand against non-materialistic arguments.

And unless I've been at my cups again, you have said both materialism and religion are faith-based metaphysic.

I would say that religion (the exoteric manifestation of spirituality) is very strongly faith-based - particularly when you look at fundamenalism. The competing metaphysical claims of consciousness and matter/energy however, in regards to the origin of objective reality, are more in line with the type of belief that you're talking about.

(That said, the rule of parsimony, as explained fully in my post above, does lend more weight to the argument for conscious causation. We shouldn't posit unknown/unobserved properties or types of matter/energy when we already know consciousness exists.)

Materialists may believe the self-generating matter scenario to be true, but that tentative belief must be based on something observable in the material universe, otherwise they are not materialists.

As is also explained in my post above, the law of conservation states that physical properties do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter. The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns.

_
HypnoPsi

thaiboxerken

7th May 2007, 09:32 AM

There's no point trying to reason with a person who'll look at a dog and tell you it's a cat.

Good night and good luck.

-Piggy

Yep, this is like debating evolution with a creationists. Hypnopsi simply cares little for evidence in preference for his belief that a soul exists. I'm going to stop as well. One can only have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people.

Phil

7th May 2007, 09:53 AM

You replied to my post saying "I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate. . . . .

I apologize. The sentence you quoted is unclear. I didn't mean to suggest you were saying that materialism and religion are in the same vein. I meant to suggest that you were saying they were similar in that they are both faith-based, which in fact you did say. I am often posting in a hurry and don't take the time to edit as I should.

. . . And are we both reading the same thread? If you want blind unsubstantiated belief in materialism just read Piggy's posts (along with a few others'); and s/he, at least, has had the good sense to withdraw recognising that materialistic arguements cannot realistically stand against non-materialistic arguments. . . .

I can only assume that we are reading the same thread. The probability that we are is very high. I mean, I have no way of knowing for sure, so I don't have faith that our eyes are seeing the same words, and that our brains are interpretting the same ideas, but considering some indications that material universe is giving us, like the fact that our replies seem to be related, and are posted in order, and are generated on the same browser page, it's a safe bet that we are reading the same thread. No faith required.

Oh, and coincidentally, what I've read of Piggy's posts, he/ she seems to be pointing out a similar phenomenon in that, although we aren't one hundred percent certain (i.e. we don't have faith) that consciousness is caused by brain activity, given that we can alter consciousness by stimulating or "turning off" portions of the physical brain, it's highly likely that consciouness is a function of the brain. At the very least, given what the material universe is telling us, the physical brain appears to be the best place to start looking for more concrete answers. And he/she even cited some examples of the many people who are doing that, none of whom have taken anything on faith, but instead made assumptions about what is most probable given the limited set of information available. No faith required.

Beyond that, it appears to me that Piggy has not "withdrawn recognizing materialistic arguments cannot realistically stand against non-materilistic arguments", but instead has simply grown weary of people who refuse to recognize his/her well-reasoned replies and has moved on to something else. Of course, I'm only basing that on what the material universe, namely the posts in this thread, are telling me. I wouldn't presume to take it on faith.

. . . . I would say that religion (the exoteric manifestation of spirituality) is very strongly faith-based - particularly when you look at fundamenalism. . . . .

Yes. I agree.

. . . The competing metaphysical claims of consciousness and matter/energy however, in regards to the origin of objective reality, are more in line with the type of belief that you're talking about. . . .

If you mean that the materialists approach to the origin of objective reality is not based on faith, than yes, you are correct.

. . . . (That said, the rule of parsimony, as explained fully in my post above, does lend more weight to the argument for conscious causation. . . .

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality? . . . Umm . . . Nope.

I tell you, I really don't see it that way. I may be missing something, but that statement right there appears to me to be you saying, "I said it, and I really like the way I said it. So it's true."

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality actually seems to violate the rule of parsimony. I'll think about it again really hard to be sure, but I suggest you do the same thing.

. . .As is also explained in my post above, the law of conservation states that physical properties do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter. The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns.

The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns????

I don't think anyone has posited an unknown; at least not an unknown that is completely unsubstantiated. However, you now seem to be positing a free-floating consciousness of some sort as the origin of objective reality. And where such a thing is certainly entertaining to consider, it is far and away unsubstantiated.

Tell you what, I'll think about this again really hard, too, in case I'm missing something, but I suggest you do the same thing.

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 10:17 AM

Yep, this is like debating evolution with a creationists. Hypnopsi simply cares little for evidence in preference for his belief that a soul exists. I'm going to stop as well. One can only have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people.

In otherwords you, like Piggy, also realise that materialistic beliefs, being self-contradictory, unsubstantiated and untestable, simply cannot meaningfully stand up against even light criticism.

If I didn't care for evidence why would I be asking for evidence that can substantiate materialistic views of consciousness and/or the origin of objective reality in nearly every single post?

And I have never said I believe that a soul exists. I may have a soul that continues on somehow - or it may be the case that consciousness is just like water in a cup, taking the shape of the cup temporarily and then eventually joining some wider 'whole' with no individual identity.

You're right about one thing - one can only have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people. And is it not reasonable to be skeptical of materialism given it's claims are unsubstantiated and untestable?

Is it not reasonable to apply the rule of parsimony to competing claims?

All you two are proving here is that you are stumped when someone points out the holes in materialistic theory.

_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 11:20 AM

Oh, and coincidentally, what I've read of Piggy's posts, he/ she seems to be pointing out a similar phenomenon in that, although we aren't one hundred percent certain (i.e. we don't have faith) that consciousness is caused by brain activity,..

Why do you continue to equate faith with one hundred percent certainty? The very word means belief without certainty (which can only come about through conclusive evidence).

given that we can alter consciousness by stimulating or "turning off" portions of the physical brain, it's highly likely that consciouness is a function of the brain.

You have no way of knowing whether or not consciousness is altered with drugs or whatever. That faulty physiology can impair mental functioning is one thing, but a lack of memory of certain times or whatever does not mean that consciousness itself is being altered - unless you *already* assume that consciousess is IP - a claim for which there is no evidence.

At the very least, given what the material universe is telling us, the physical brain appears to be the best place to start looking for more concrete answers.

What's is the material universe telling us? That the brain is the place to look for concrete answers to cognition? The mind is just the experience of IP in consciousness and nothing is being proven here about consciousness itself.

And he/she even cited some examples of the many people who are doing that, none of whom have taken anything on faith, but instead made assumptions about what is most probable given the limited set of information available. No faith required.

I don't have "faith" in neuropsychology either - it is a valuable and very interesting field which can offer us much undersanding of ourselves and offer much help to the impaired or sick. But it doesn't prove anything about consciousness.

Beyond that, it appears to me that Piggy has not "withdrawn recognizing materialistic arguments cannot realistically stand against non-materilistic arguments", but instead has simply grown weary of people who refuse to recognize his/her well-reasoned replies and has moved on to something else.

What "well-reasoned replies"? I've asked for clear evidence that consciousness is IP and/or E/M (or an emergent property of such) and s/he hasn't provided any.

Correlating brain activity with mental events is one thing (and a quite amusing thing at that when materialists start talking about theromostats and computers), but claiming this shows anything about the nature of consciousness itself is faulty reasoning.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
. . . The competing metaphysical claims of consciousness and matter/energy however, in regards to the origin of objective reality, are more in line with the type of belief that you're talking about. . . . If you mean that the materialists approach to the origin of objective reality is not based on faith, than yes, you are correct.

No - and materialism is not an "approach". Reductionism is an "approach". (The term you're looking for is "Methodology".) Materialism is an ontolological philosophical position that (most often) utilises the reductionist methodology. Materialism is a faith-based metaphysic.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
. . . . (That said, the rule of parsimony, as explained fully in my post above, does lend more weight to the argument for conscious causation. . . . Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality? . . . Umm . . . Nope.

I tell you, I really don't see it that way. I may be missing something, but that statement right there appears to me to be you saying, "I said it, and I really like the way I said it. So it's true."

Conscious causation for the origin of objective reality actually seems to violate the rule of parsimony. I'll think about it again really hard to be sure, but I suggest you do the same thing.

The above is total nonsense. Materialistic beliefs about the origin of objective reality require the needless multiplication of entities - namely, believing that there must be some unknown and unobserved property (or type of) matter that allows the law of conservation to be overcome.

There is absolutely no evidence that is the case.

However, from our original position we have both consciousness and matter as candidates for causation of objective reality. The rule of parsimony is to use what we already have rather than bringing in some funky self-generating magic powder into the mix.

That doesn't prove that consciousness is the force behind objective reality, it just means its the better reasoned argument because it doesn't involve bringing in hypothetical unknowns that go against a known law of physics.

The best alternative is consciousness rather than to posit unknowns????

I don't think anyone has posited an unknown; at least not an unknown that is completely unsubstantiated.

Really? Show me some evidence of matter having the ability to self-generate out of nothing then?

However, you now seem to be positing a free-floating consciousness of some sort as the origin of objective reality. And where such a thing is certainly entertaining to consider, it is far and away unsubstantiated.

When I move my arm up and down it requires energy, measured in kilojules. If I'm just a biological machine, then it's all down to stimulus/response - but there's no evidence at all that consciousness emerges from mechanical processes. When consciousness kickstarts the walking-talking, interacting and moving of arms up and down process there is no definable materal cause.

Now, okay, so one kilojule of energy (or whatever it is) popping into objective reality due to conscious agency isn't a very big deal given the amount of energy that already exists in the Universe. But creating energy isn't something that matter can do, is it? (There's that law of conservation again.)

So, you see, we have no evidence at all to suggest that consciousness emerges from IP or E/M but plenty of evidence for psi. (Even if you don't believe those reports they certainly do exist.)

What could all consciousnesses do together? What could they do if they're linked? (And what is the nature of that link? Is it "God"? Who knows?)

Now the above does violate parsimony. We don't know if consciousnesses ever work together or what the nature of their link is - psi doesn not "prove" that some consciousness or other/s caused objective reality. But given the evidence for psi the theory is much more plausible than completely abandoning the law of conservation in favour of hypothesising about a completely unheard of property or type of matter that can allow for spontaneous self-generation.

_
HypnoPsi

Phil

7th May 2007, 12:09 PM

Why do you continue to equate faith with one hundred percent certainty? The very word means belief without certainty (which can only come about through conclusive evidence). . . .

Which is exactly the reason you cannot place materialism and religiosity under the same umbrella. Faith is not the same thing as it relates to the two. This is all I've been trying to tell you all along. In the religious sense, faith means belief with certainty which comes about with no evidence whatsover.

As to the rest of your post, it seems you have some unresolved issues with other posters, and I have no interest in commenting further on those, other than to say that to me, much of it indicates either an unwillingness to view this subject while divorcing yourself from a pet philosophy, or an inability to understand the opposing viewpoints presented, or a complete departure into fantasy. I'm guessing it's the first, as you seem a fairly bright person.

As to the "faith-based" issue, however, which is where I came into the discussion, we seem to be sawing sawdust. We seem to be getting nowhere, and I have nothing to add that I feel will clarify my position further.

HypnoPsi

7th May 2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Why do you continue to equate faith with one hundred percent certainty? The very word means belief without certainty (which can only come about through conclusive evidence). . . .Which is exactly the reason you cannot place materialism and religiosity under the same umbrella.

This old chestnut again. I haven't ever placed religion and materialism under the same umbrella. I've not even really been discussing religion even though you continue to force the issue to the centre as a convenient straw man. I have been discussing the origin of objective reality (conscious or material).

Yes, religions do tend to begin with someone having a mystical experience - and their attempts to share their insights in metaphors and what have you are almost always taken a little too seriously by their followers. But what does that even have to do with the current discussion?

Or consider someone's conversion to religion. They can hardly be said to instantly adopt all practices, rites and beliefs instantly since it often takes years to make head nor tail of them. The first thing that usually happens is that they consider themselves and their place in the world - the reason for it all and conclude it can't just be for nothing. They don't see how it all just happened by itself.

As they progress in a religion, then they start to become more and more accepting of the peculiarites of a given path.

The type of people who seek to convert others doesn't thrust a whole host of strange ideas onto people. They know that doesn't work. They're more subtle than that. They start small, cultivate "trust" and a "sense of belonging" before they hit them with the really strange stuff.

Incidentally, there are parallels in this process between religion and materialism even though they are quite different. Candidates are introduced to "skepticism" first. "C'mon, surely it's sensible not to believe in faries without evidence, right? I mean you want to be a sensible person like us, don't you? All you have to do is be skeptical!"

What they don't point out is that all your left with is strange faith-based ideas about the origin of objective reality and the nature of consciousness. The best end-result example I can give you is Dennett's avowal that even thermostats have beliefs.

Try throwing that at someone first and see how they approach materialism from that point forward.

Faith is not the same thing as it relates to the two. This is all I've been trying to tell you all along. In the religious sense, faith means belief with certainty which comes about with no evidence whatsover.

And I disagree entirely. But (aside from the above comments) I'm not the one who's been focussing on religions. I've been focussed on the origin of the objective universe. To say that materialism isn't a faith based metaphysic every bit as much as the consciousness view is quite wrong.

As to the rest of your post, it seems you have some unresolved issues with other posters, and I have no interest in commenting further on those, other than to say that to me, much of it indicates either an unwillingness to view this subject while divorcing yourself from a pet philosophy, or an inability to understand the opposing viewpoints presented, or a complete departure into fantasy. I'm guessing it's the first, as you seem a fairly bright person.

I have no "unresolved issues" with other posters. I'm not out to 'convert' anybody to anything. I'm perfectly happy for thaiboxerken and piggy to keep silent. I'd like to see more materialists go away and privately focus on getting their own house in order before trying to criticise/debate others.

And I strongly disagree with the accusation that I have been unwilling to divorce myself from a pet philosophy. I have repeatedly been comparing and contrasting two competing views and pointing out which view I am critical of and why and which view I support and why. I've seen nobody else do this. Instead, they seem only willing to consider materialistic views.

If your statements were true then I would not be asking for evidence to support materialistic views, since I'd essentially be believing that nothing can compete with a non-materialistic view and so no evidence should be considered. I've not done that.

Who else can say the same?

_
HypnoPsi

The Great Hairy One

7th May 2007, 06:37 PM

For the Nth time - If I merely used the term "Atheism" many people would rightly point out that there are many atheists who still believe in a supernatural dimension to life. Since I am fully aware of this myself I am not going to make that mistake, am I?

You are arguing about materialism. This has nothing to do with atheism. As I said in my previous post, if you discredit materialism, you do not automatically also discredit atheism. You have to approach the discrediting of atheism as a separate argument, because the two beliefs are entirely separate themselves.

I've read this thread through a couple of times, and can see no arguments from you discussing atheism at all. All of your posts are arguing about materialism. As I keep reiterating, this has nothing to do with atheism.

And "materialistic atheism" is not a 'construct' of mine. Many writers use the term to specifically be clear as to what branch of atheism they are critiquing.

Many writers? Many? When you provided the Google search for "materialistic atheism" we only came up with 2,230 pages (it's up to 2,240 now because of this discussion), and the majority of those links were to a book by Hans Gerhard Koch, who is so obscure he does not even have his own page at Wikipedia!

Practically every link in that Google search is to some forum where the term is used - again as a strawman - by some christian apologist in an attempt to discredit atheism.

And there are no "branches of atheism". Either one is an atheist or one is a theist. That's all, end of discussion. If one is a materialist or non-materialist, that is a different area of philosophical belief, nothing to do with one's theistic beliefs.

I have no intention of discontinuing that practice only to be inevitably told that I should be more accurately defining "materialistic athesists" instead of including all "atheists" whenever I critique the view.

You are not even discussing atheism. All of your arguments are to do with materialism. The two are completely separate philosophical positions which need to be considered in isolation.

I feel like I'm talking to a post or brick wall. :viking1

It is no straw-man. I am not critiquing Buddhists or Animists (even though I do not share their beliefs). I am critiquing materialistic atheists. Deal with it.

"Deal with it"? No. You're being intellectually dishonest and are not debating in good faith. You are insisting on using a term which is false and a strawman. You insist on corrupting and discrediting your own arguments by not taking an honest stance.

Either drop this strawman position which you have raised, or accept the label "dishonest debater". Those are your only two choices.

Cheers,
TGHO

HypnoPsi

8th May 2007, 08:43 AM

You are arguing about materialism. This has nothing to do with atheism. As I said in my previous post, if you discredit materialism, you do not automatically also discredit atheism. You have to approach the discrediting of atheism as a separate argument, because the two beliefs are entirely separate themselves.

I've read this thread through a couple of times, and can see no arguments from you discussing atheism at all. All of your posts are arguing about materialism. As I keep reiterating, this has nothing to do with atheism.

And, as I keep reiterating, I have no criticism against plain old "atheism" since someone defining themselves as just an "atheist" could very easily be a Buddhist or whatever. Neither have I suggested - or would I suggest - that discrediting "materialism" automatically discredits "atheism"

I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" plain and simple. This is the "When you're dead, your dead" variety of "atheism" that does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
And "materialistic atheism" is not a 'construct' of mine. Many writers use the term to specifically be clear as to what branch of atheism they are critiquing.Many writers? Many? When you provided the Google search for "materialistic atheism" we only came up with 2,230 pages (it's up to 2,240 now because of this discussion), and the majority of those links were to a book by Hans Gerhard Koch, who is so obscure he does not even have his own page at Wikipedia!

When I do an advanced search on Google for pages that exclude the name Hans Gerhard Koch, the search result still returns 2,020 pages. (Amusingly, the first link is to a paper written by one Howard Thompson for The Texas Atheist newsletter which begins with the sentence "I am a materialistic atheist.")

And there are no "branches of atheism". Either one is an atheist or one is a theist. That's all, end of discussion. If one is a materialist or non-materialist, that is a different area of philosophical belief, nothing to do with one's theistic beliefs.

Complete nonsense. The very reason for the existence of adjectives in the English language is to limit, qualify, specify or distinguish a noun. It's why we have them!

"Atheistic" adj. "Materialism" n.

"Materialistic" adj. "Atheism" n.

See? It works either way as "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism".

Your real agenda here is nothing more than to try to find a way to insulate the most common - or perhaps just the most vociferous - variety of atheism in western culture from real criticism because you realise it cannot withstand well reasoned arguments.

Do you honestly think you're going to have much luck convincing people to do that?

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
It is no straw-man. I am not critiquing Buddhists or Animists (even though I do not share their beliefs). I am critiquing materialistic atheists. Deal with it."Deal with it"? No.

Then you're going to have to remain frustrated as the best you'll get out of me is the occasional "atheistic materialism" instead - which still returns 17,900 pages!

You're being intellectually dishonest and are not debating in good faith. You are insisting on using a term which is false and a strawman. You insist on corrupting and discrediting your own arguments by not taking an honest stance.

This is utter claptrap. I certainly wouldn't claim that my grammar is leagues above average but I usually find I know how, when and why to qualify a noun.

I have defined quite clearly what branch of "atheism" I am critiquing and what type I'm not critiquing. The only intellecual dishonesty here is your insistence that there are not differing types of atheism when there quite plainly are.

Either drop this strawman position which you have raised, or accept the label "dishonest debater". Those are your only two choices.

I strongly suggest you look to yourself first and perhaps get your facts straight before you get yourself in to what basically amounts to an argument over grammar.

_
HypnoPsi

The Great Hairy One

8th May 2007, 11:52 PM

And, as I keep reiterating, I have no criticism against plain old "atheism" since someone defining themselves as just an "atheist" could very easily be a Buddhist or whatever. Neither have I suggested - or would I suggest - that discrediting "materialism" automatically discredits "atheism"

I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" plain and simple. This is the "When you're dead, your dead" variety of "atheism" that does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.

It's quite obvious at this point that you are either intentionally lying, or just plain totally confused. In your second paragraph above, you attempt to state that you are trying to discredit "materialistic atheism", which, by your definition, "does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter". This has nothing to do with Atheism at all, and is entirely a discussion around Materialism.

Atheism simply states that the atheist does not believe gods exist. That's all. It has no stance on Materialism.

When I do an advanced search on Google for pages that exclude the name Hans Gerhard Koch, the search result still returns 2,020 pages. (Amusingly, the first link is to a paper written by one Howard Thompson for The Texas Atheist newsletter which begins with the sentence "I am a materialistic atheist.")

What, exactly, are your search parameters, as I can not duplicate this result. If I use "materialistic atheism -Hans -Gerhard -Koch" I get 234,000 results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=materialistic+atheism&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=Hans+Gerhard+Koch&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

with this article as the first result:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

where Ms O’Hair is talking about atheistic Materialism and Materialism in general. Note the placement of capitals in my previous sentence.

Complete nonsense. The very reason for the existence of adjectives in the English language is to limit, qualify, specify or distinguish a noun. It's why we have them!

"Atheistic" adj. "Materialism" n.

"Materialistic" adj. "Atheism" n.

See? It works either way as "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism".

Go and read Piggy's thread about language usage (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81397).

Your real agenda here is nothing more than to try to find a way to insulate the most common - or perhaps just the most vociferous - variety of atheism in western culture from real criticism because you realise it cannot withstand well reasoned arguments.

That's completely laughable. I love it when people tell me what my "real agenda" is - obviously you can read minds. You should contact JREF and collect the $1 million dollar prize. My "real agenda" is to get you to stop debating dishonestly. That's all.

Secondly, you've not offered a single argument against any form of Atheism here. You're arguing about Materialism. If you somehow manage to disprove Materialism, you have not automatically then disproven Atheism. You'd have to state a new set of arguments actually aimed at Atheism, and discuss Atheism itself, not this mythical construct of yours.

I have defined quite clearly what branch of "atheism" I am critiquing and what type I'm not critiquing. The only intellecual dishonesty here is your insistence that there are not differing types of atheism when there quite plainly are.

There are no "branches of atheism". Trying to claim that there plainly are is simply wrong. Atheism is not like christianity, broken into dozens and dozens of sects. One is either an Atheist, or one is not. And before you wave your finger in the air, a bhuddist describes themselves as a bhuddist. They don't call themselves atheists (at least, in my experience), but rather nontheists.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta

where gods are discussed as existing, just not worshiped.

I strongly suggest you look to yourself first and perhaps get your facts straight before you get yourself in to what basically amounts to an argument over grammar.

I would agree that arguing over grammar is a waste of time and effort. However, that's not what we are doing. What you are trying to do, erroneously, is to claim that disproving Materialism then disproves Atheism. This is simply not true. You can go ahead and argue about Materialism all you want. The results of those arguments have absolutely no bearing on the status of Atheism.

Your construction of the strawman "Materialistic Atheism" is dishonest and reprehensible. You are not debating in good faith and either you are confused and mistaken, or purposely lying.

Cheers,
TGHO

HypnoPsi

9th May 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" plain and simple. This is the "When you're dead, your dead" variety of "atheism" that does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.It's quite obvious at this point that you are either intentionally lying, or just plain totally confused.

Do you even understand that the adjective preceding the noun "materialistic atheism" makes atheism the subject under discussion?

Until you do I think you should avoid calling others liars or confused.

Atheism simply states that the atheist does not believe gods exist. That's all. It has no stance on Materialism.

And I have repeatedly said I am not offering a critique of pure atheism. I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" - as many other writers do.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
When I do an advanced search on Google for pages that exclude the name Hans Gerhard Koch, the search result still returns 2,020 pages. (Amusingly, the first link is to a paper written by one Howard Thompson for The Texas Atheist newsletter which begins with the sentence "I am a materialistic atheist.")What, exactly, are your search parameters, as I can not duplicate this result. If I use "materialistic atheism -Hans -Gerhard -Koch" I get 234,000 results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q...s=&safe=images

I enclosed "materialistic atheism" in quote marks for a more accurate result.

Obviously, at 17,900 pages, more people prefer the term "atheistic materialism" but there are still 2,020 pages for "materialistic atheism".

Why you have set yourself an impossible task here puzzles me. Unless you are delusional, you can't seriously even begin to hope that you will ever convice anybody to stop using the term "materialistic atheism" when they mean "materialistic atheism" rather than non-materialistic forms of atheism.

As you note yourself, "atheism" in isolation is just an absense of belief in God/s. "Materialistic atheism" - or "materialistic atheist" - specifically refers to those atheists who also adhere to materialism in addition to having no belief in God/s. It is not a claim that all athesists are also materialists.

with this article as the first result:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

where Ms O’Hair is talking about atheistic Materialism and Materialism in general. Note the placement of capitals in my previous sentence.

I note the placement of capitals - but I don't see why you think it means anything specific - and you certainly haven't explained why you think it's right to mangle capitalisation so.

As to your citatation - and I'm surprised you provided that link, O'Hair begins her address with the statement "The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known." and goes on to add "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy,..".

Now, naturalism is certainly not the exact equivalent of materialism and I disagree with the claim that materialism is an indestructible foundation to atheism, but that point is moot compared to the fact that O'Hair accepts that materialism is the foundation and basis of (her brand of) atheism.

If you can see some crucial difference between the statements "materialism is the foundation of atheism" and (shortening it to) "materialistic atheism" or any good reason at all why this contraction is wrong, unclear or gramatically incorrect then share it. Just saying it ain't so ad nauseam isn't very convincing.

In fact, it's just plain wrong.

O'Hair also goes on to say "Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.". Now other disagreements with that statement aside, it's clear O'Hair recognises the proper usage of the term "Atheistic materialism" (just as Howard Thompson, cited above, described his philosophy with the opening statement "I am a materialistic atheist.")

So, it works either way! And the only person who really seems to not get this is you. The end result is that you've constructed a flawed straw man and it's winning.

Go and read Piggy's thread about language usage (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81397).

LOL! I refer you to Piggy's myth number 3:

"3. It's possible for a word to have a "real" meaning that practically everyone who uses the word is wrong about.

That is exactly what you are arguing about the words "materialistic" and "atheism". You're insisting that these words should only be discussed in isolation and everyone who misuses these words by placing them together is wrong!

As piggy notes "There are no arcane "real" meanings [to words]." (edit mine)

Again, your own straw man - and comrade this time - turns around and kicks you in the butt.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Your real agenda here is nothing more than to try to find a way to insulate the most common - or perhaps just the most vociferous - variety of atheism in western culture from real criticism because you realise it cannot withstand well reasoned arguments.That's completely laughable. I love it when people tell me what my "real agenda" is - obviously you can read minds. You should contact JREF and collect the $1 million dollar prize. My "real agenda" is to get you to stop debating dishonestly. That's all.

Secondly, you've not offered a single argument against any form of Atheism here. You're arguing about Materialism. If you somehow manage to disprove Materialism, you have not automatically then disproven Atheism. You'd have to state a new set of arguments actually aimed at Atheism, and discuss Atheism itself, not this mythical construct of yours.

Point one, I have offered several arguments - against one form of atheism in particular "materialistic atheism". Your basically saying my posts don't exist! (And it's interesting to note that you recognise there are form of atheism when you want to.)

Point two, I have never claimed that disproving materialism automatically disproves atheism - and neither would I ever claim such a thing. There are non-materialistic atheists and, clearly, non-materialistic atheism would not be disproven by any refutation of materialism.

Point three, the construct "materialistic atheism" is hardly mythical or mine. This is plainly a lie or confusion on your part.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I have defined quite clearly what branch of "atheism" I am critiquing and what type I'm not critiquing. The only intellecual dishonesty here is your insistence that there are not differing types of atheism when there quite plainly are.There are no "branches of atheism". Trying to claim that there plainly are is simply wrong. Atheism is not like christianity, broken into dozens and dozens of sects. One is either an Atheist, or one is not.

Yet you also accept there are forms of atheism when you (falsly) accuse me of not offering "a single argument against any form of Atheism here." Those are your own words.

But, for fun, let's check Google.

"types of atheism" provides 25,300 pages.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2007-19,GGLJ:en&q=%22types+of+atheism%22

"forms of atheism" provides 664 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2007-19,GGLJ:en&q=%22forms+of+atheism%22

Looks like your wrong again. (It must really be annoying when all your own straw men gang up on you!)

And before you wave your finger in the air, a bhuddist describes themselves as a bhuddist. They don't call themselves atheists (at least, in my experience), but rather nontheists.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta

where gods are discussed as existing, just not worshiped.

There are several Buddhist sects that recognise "gods" that aren't in any way related to the notion of a supreme being - and who are unworshipped. They're kind of like 'angels as independent agents' rather than as messengers from God as found in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. The term "nontheistic" would certainly apply here.

Other sects however are more explicity atheistic. The Dali Lama has been noted as saying:

"Basically, religions may be divided into two groups. One group, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some ancient Indian traditions, I call God religions. Their fundamental faith is in a Creator. The other group of religious tradition, including Jainism, Buddhism, I usually call godless religions. They do not believe in a Creator. But, of course, God is a sense of infinite love. The religions are not so different in this understanding. But God in the sense of Creator, something absolute, that is difficult to accept."

The "gods" of Tibetan Buddhism are more like nature elementals adopted from the native Bon religion of Tibet. (To further confuse the issue there is also "Bon Buddhism".)

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I strongly suggest you look to yourself first and perhaps get your facts straight before you get yourself in to what basically amounts to an argument over grammar.What you are trying to do, erroneously, is to claim that disproving Materialism then disproves Atheism.

That is an outright, blatant, lie. I have stated many times that I am only criticising "materialistic atheism" and recognised fully that there are other forms of atheism unaffected by this criticism.

Your construction of the strawman "Materialistic Atheism" is dishonest and reprehensible. You are not debating in good faith and either you are confused and mistaken, or purposely lying.

This has got to be the most barmy think you've written so far - and that's saying something. This entire post of yours is nothing more than whining.

You simply can't stand fair criticisms being leveled at the "materialistic" form of "atheism". You want to return to the good old days where the armchair skeptic can just sit there constantly repeating "I'm don't believe without evidence" and never have to offer any evidence for any alternatives.

While everyone has the right to just be skeptical and espouse nothing, it's certianly not being scientific - which requires one to compare and contrast alternatives and state which thesis they would advance. (That's why it's called thesis defence rather than 'sitting on the fence'.)

Your whole argument makes about as much sense as someone trying to suggest that theism and religion should only ever be discussed separately.

People just aren't going to do that.

Or, how about someone just sits in their armchair denying all materialistic ideas about the origin of objective reality and consciousness and never offering up any ideas of their own?

Do you really expect people to be constantly verbose, pointing out that they don't mean Buddhists or Taoists, etc., and only ever using the single term "atheism" when "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" explains quite clearly what they mean?

Again, in both instances there is an adjective preceeding a noun - and the standard rule in English is that adjectives are used to limit and clarify nouns.

Who are you to demand "Oh no, you can't do that with atheism!".

Seriously. Answer that question. Why should the word "atheism" be maintained involate unlike other nouns?

My choice of words is both gramatically correct and philosophically accurate. You seem to be the only person I know you wants a debate to be more vague when the rule is to be as precise as possible.

Now, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because you realise that you have no defense against arguements against "materialistic atheism"?

Yup, it sure could, couldn't it?

_
HypnoPsi

The Great Hairy One

9th May 2007, 11:02 PM

Do you even understand that the adjective preceding the noun "materialistic atheism" makes atheism the subject under discussion?

Except you're not even discussing Atheism. You're discussing some weird, non-standard version of Atheism which:
does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.
This has nothing to do with Atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in god(s), as I pointed out in an earlier post.

I can see that I have made a mistake - I didn't make myself clear in that I am not arguing grammar, I am arguing application and definition. You are correct, a person can describe themselves as a "materialistic atheist". They can also describe themselves as a "communist atheist" or "mystic teapot". These are all grammatically correct terms, however, what you are attempting to do is redefine Atheism in it's entirety as a branch of Materialism, which is not correct. This is the strawman you have constructed - a "new" form of Atheism which has this non-standard definition of yours.

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear:

Your definition of "Materialistic Atheist" is incorrect (and this is the strawman you have constructed). You're attempting to base your version of "Materialistic Atheism" on this concept of consciousness being separate from the biological framework. It has nothing to do with Atheism.

And I have repeatedly said I am not offering a critique of pure atheism. I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" - as many other writers do.

1) There is no such thing as your definition of "Materialistic Atheism". It's a strawman constructed by you.

2) You have not offered any critique of Atheism in any of your previous posts. All of your arguments have been about Materialism.

3) Define "Pure Atheism" for me, please.

4) Please provide any links or cites of authours which agree with your definition of "Materialistic Atheism" - i.e. agree with you that the philosophy of Atheism covers the concepts of consciousness.

As you note yourself, "atheism" in isolation is just an absense of belief in God/s. "Materialistic atheism" - or "materialistic atheist" - specifically refers to those atheists who also adhere to materialism in addition to having no belief in God/s. It is not a claim that all athesists are also materialists.

Would you describe someone as a christian conservative? How about a Jewish atheist? Then, if you "disprove" christianity, do you disprove conservative politics as well? How about visa versa? If you disprove atheism, do you then disprove juadism as well?

For this is what you are trying to do, mate. You're trying to assign the meaning of "Materialism" to "Atheism" as well, and it does not fit.

As to your citatation - and I'm surprised you provided that link,

Why shouldn't I supply it? :confused:

O'Hair begins her address with the statement "The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known." and goes on to add "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy,..".

Now, naturalism is certainly not the exact equivalent of materialism and I disagree with the claim that materialism is an indestructible foundation to atheism, but that point is moot compared to the fact that O'Hair accepts that materialism is the foundation and basis of (her brand of) atheism.

If you can see some crucial difference between the statements "materialism is the foundation of atheism" and (shortening it to) "materialistic atheism" or any good reason at all why this contraction is wrong, unclear or gramatically incorrect then share it. Just saying it ain't so ad nauseam isn't very convincing.

In fact, it's just plain wrong.

O'Hair also goes on to say "Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.". Now other disagreements with that statement aside, it's clear O'Hair recognises the proper usage of the term "Atheistic materialism" (just as Howard Thompson, cited above, described his philosophy with the opening statement "I am a materialistic atheist.")

So, it works either way! And the only person who really seems to not get this is you. The end result is that you've constructed a flawed straw man and it's winning.

I'll agree that she's grammatically correct in her usage of the two terms. And I should have been more clear myself - I'm not attacking your grammar. I'm attacking your definition, which is the strawman I have been referring to in our discussion.

LOL! I refer you to Piggy's myth number 3:

"3. It's possible for a word to have a "real" meaning that practically everyone who uses the word is wrong about.

That is exactly what you are arguing about the words "materialistic" and "atheism". You're insisting that these words should only be discussed in isolation and everyone who misuses these words by placing them together is wrong!

As piggy notes "There are no arcane "real" meanings [to words]." (edit mine)

Again, your own straw man - and comrade this time - turns around and kicks you in the butt.

Wow. Just wow. I don't think I've ever seen someone misinterpret a point so badly. You are the party assigning the incorrect definition to "Atheist". Not me.

Point one, I have offered several arguments - against one form of atheism in particular "materialistic atheism". Your basically saying my posts don't exist! (And it's interesting to note that you recognise there are form of atheism when you want to.)

You have offered no arguments, in any of your previous posts, against Atheism.

Point two, I have never claimed that disproving materialism automatically disproves atheism - and neither would I ever claim such a thing. There are non-materialistic atheists and, clearly, non-materialistic atheism would not be disproven by any refutation of materialism.

Then why are you attempting to assign the incorrect definition to atheism?? Why are you attacking materialism and saying nothing about atheism, yet expecting us to believe you've shown atheism to be wrong??

Point three, the construct "materialistic atheism" is hardly mythical or mine. This is plainly a lie or confusion on your part.

Sorry, I did not make myself very clear. I'll reiterate - it's your definition of "Materialistic Atheism" which is incorrect. I will agree that the term is grammatically correct.

That is an outright, blatant, lie. I have stated many times that I am only criticising "materialistic atheism" and recognised fully that there are other forms of atheism unaffected by this criticism.

On the contrary, my amusingly confused friend, it is quite clearly the truth. You are the one attempting to argue against Materialism, and with your flawed understanding of Atheism (or strawman erroneously constructed), thence claim you have "disproven" Atheism. That describes your argument in a nutshell, and it's obviously incorrect.

This has got to be the most barmy think you've written so far - and that's saying something. This entire post of yours is nothing more than whining.

You simply can't stand fair criticisms being leveled at the "materialistic" form of "atheism". You want to return to the good old days where the armchair skeptic can just sit there constantly repeating "I'm don't believe without evidence" and never have to offer any evidence for any alternatives.

While everyone has the right to just be skeptical and espouse nothing, it's certianly not being scientific - which requires one to compare and contrast alternatives and state which thesis they would advance. (That's why it's called thesis defence rather than 'sitting on the fence'.)

Your whole argument makes about as much sense as someone trying to suggest that theism and religion should only ever be discussed separately.

People just aren't going to do that.

Or, how about someone just sits in their armchair denying all materialistic ideas about the origin of objective reality and consciousness and never offering up any ideas of their own?

Do you really expect people to be constantly verbose, pointing out that they don't mean Buddhists or Taoists, etc., and only ever using the single term "atheism" when "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" explains quite clearly what they mean?

Again, in both instances there is an adjective preceeding a noun - and the standard rule in English is that adjectives are used to limit and clarify nouns.

Who are you to demand "Oh no, you can't do that with atheism!".

Seriously. Answer that question. Why should the word "atheism" be maintained involate unlike other nouns?

My choice of words is both gramatically correct and philosophically accurate. You seem to be the only person I know you wants a debate to be more vague when the rule is to be as precise as possible.

Now, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because you realise that you have no defense against arguements against "materialistic atheism"?

Yup, it sure could, couldn't it?

:rolleyes:

Your debating skills are weak, young padwan.

1) You've offered no actual criticism of atheism,

2) You're still trying to attribute to me an agenda, even though you can not read minds,

3) If you wish to debate about Atheism, I'd be quite happy to do so. You'd lose. Start a new thread.

4) You are right about the grammatical construction of "materialistic atheist". You are wrong about your definition of the term, and your continued dishonest corruption of "Atheist".

It's really that simple.

Cheers,
TGHO

Mobyseven

10th May 2007, 07:33 AM

Should we just divorce society completely, perhaps having some live in the north and some in the south separated by a huge wall across which they can shout insults at each other just because one group happens to believe the Universe has a conscious creator and the other believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated?

You know what, that doesn't sound like a half bad idea. While we're at it, lets build the wall out of the shattered dreams of children.

Seriously HypnoPsi, you've been saying some weird things here, such as a "magic powder underlying reality" that show you have no clue what you are talking about.

Prove me wrong. Cite the scientific study that suggested that there is a magic powder that underlies reality, and then tell me what your issues with the study are.

HypnoPsi

10th May 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Should we just divorce society completely, perhaps having some live in the north and some in the south separated by a huge wall across which they can shout insults at each other just because one group happens to believe the Universe has a conscious creator and the other believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated?You know what, that doesn't sound like a half bad idea. While we're at it, lets build the wall out of the shattered dreams of children.

Who are you to decide what dreams have been shattered by who?

As far as I'm concerned, to be strictly scientific, people should give greater weight to positive published evidence rather than pure theory - but that's a matter of individual choice.

We have positive published evidence for psi (whether you accept it or not) and absolutely nothing at all for materialistic theories of consciousness like Dennett's idea that theromstats have beliefs...

Do people make a conscious choice in mate-selection or are all qualia in consciousness nothing more than the experience of underlying IP mechanics with 'free will' and/or 'agency' being illusionary? I think you'll find that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone should be taught (indoctrinated) one way or the other. I'm saying we should each have the opportunity to consider both materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness and each have the opportunity to decide for ourselves.

Prove me wrong. Cite the scientific study that suggested that there is a magic powder that underlies reality, and then tell me what your issues with the study are.

I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

It's as simple as that.

_
HypnoPsi

Lonewulf

10th May 2007, 12:04 PM

I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

It's as simple as that.

Yes. "Simple".

I feel that you do not understand what this means.

The Great Hairy One

10th May 2007, 10:14 PM

We have positive published evidence for psi

We do?

Cheers,
TGHO

qayak

10th May 2007, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
We have positive published evidence for psi

We do?

Yes, I put 30 of them (psi) in my car's tires before evey trip! :D

Mobyseven

11th May 2007, 03:59 AM

Who are you to decide what dreams have been shattered by who?

You aren't familiar with 'sarcasm', are you?

As far as I'm concerned, to be strictly scientific, people should give greater weight to positive published evidence rather than pure theory - but that's a matter of individual choice.

Er...what exactly do you think a scientific theory is? Theories in science ARE well supported by peer reviewed scientific studies. They aren't just cooked up from the magic powder that resides in the brains of all scientists...

We have positive published evidence for psi (whether you accept it or not)

Well, see here's the thing. You say that. But you haven't produced any references for it...which makes me think that you might be talking out of an alternate cavity.

Prove me wrong. Show me the studies.

and absolutely nothing at all for materialistic theories of consciousness like Dennett's idea that theromstats have beliefs...

Again - unless you provide some sort of reference for this, I'm not just going to up and believe you. Where has Dennett stated that "[sic]theromstats have beliefs"?

Prove me wrong. Show me the reference - in context.

Do people make a conscious choice in mate-selection or are all qualia in consciousness nothing more than the experience of underlying IP mechanics with 'free will' and/or 'agency' being illusionary? I think you'll find that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution.

References. Justification. And an explanation for why you believe, "...that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution."

These are all things that you need to provide. Just asserting something doesn't make it so.

Prove me wrong. Put up the evidence, put up the explanation.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone should be taught (indoctrinated) one way or the other. I'm saying we should each have the opportunity to consider both materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness and each have the opportunity to decide for ourselves.

...um, unless you live in a country where freedom of speech and belief is against the law, you ARE allowed to do that.

I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

First, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Second, you seem to have a very, very poor grasp of physics.

It's as simple as that.

Okay then, a simple question: Four hydrogen atoms fuse to form a helium atom. What is the mass of the helium atom relative to the four hydrogen atoms?

HypnoPsi

11th May 2007, 06:27 AM

As far as I'm concerned, to be strictly scientific, people should give greater weight to positive published evidence rather than pure theory - but that's a matter of individual choice.Er...what exactly do you think a scientific theory is? Theories in science ARE well supported by peer reviewed scientific studies. They aren't just cooked up from the magic powder that resides in the brains of all scientists...

As noted above, I'm well aware that a scientific theory should be developed from evidence based research. And, there are positive peer reviewed published results for psi - a fact that is true even if you don't believe in the results.

But what evidence is there for any materialistic theories of consciousness? Do you believe Dennett is right about thermostats having beliefs about the world? I don't see any reason to believe that IP or EM either generates or is the same thing as consciousness. Do you? I'm just asking for the evidence.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
We have positive published evidence for psi (whether you accept it or not)Well, see here's the thing. You say that. But you haven't produced any references for it...which makes me think that you might be talking out of an alternate cavity.

Prove me wrong. Show me the studies.

You are grossly uneducated if you are sincerely unaware that there have been positive peer reviewed results published for psi! But to answer your question, I'm quite happy to provide citations to someone who is able and willing to advance the opposite argument.

What I'm not prepared to do is cite evidence for psi that people can just snipe at while never arguing the alternative themselves. How about you just go ahead and attempt to justify Dennett's teleofunctionalism arguments for thermostats or whatever and I'll just rip that to shreds while never advancing the opposite argument for consciousness as a distinct phenomena?

Doing science is hard, isn't it? It means having to defend your thesis against criticism. Only the layman gets to say "I have no idea either way".

Science is about adding to human understanding. You have to compare and contrast alternative ideas and state what view you are supporting [/iand why as well as stating what view you are critical of and why.

So, by all means, feel free to criticise psi research. I am more than willing to criticise materialistic research into IP and EM (and claiming it's research into consciousness). But if you're not going to support and advance materialistic research then don't expect me to enter a one-sided debate.

Again - unless you provide some sort of reference for this, I'm not just going to up and believe you. Where has Dennett stated that "[sic]theromstats have beliefs"?

Prove me wrong. Show me the reference - in context.

That I will happily provide a citation for. Dennett states "The maximal leniency of the position I have recommended on this score is notoriously illustrated by my avowal that even lowly thermostats have beliefs."

http://pp.kpnet.fi/seirioa/cdenn/doanimal.htm

Now, while I strongly disagree with Dennett about thermostats having beliefs, I can at least respect him for having the courage to advance a materialistic argument for consciousness. (In Dennett's case it's called the teleofunctional argument.)

(Yes, yes, I know he's a philosopher and not a scientist but he's still going about the debate the right way.)

Dennett has, admirably, laid bare his view and opened himself to criticism. Someone like that - who is willing to defend the opposite idea - has the right to be listened to when he criticises views of consciousness as a distinct phenomena (psi).

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Do people make a conscious choice in mate-selection or are all qualia in consciousness nothing more than the experience of underlying IP mechanics with 'free will' and/or 'agency' being illusionary? I think you'll find that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution.References. Justification. And an explanation for why you believe, "...that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution."

Again, see above. But I think this one pretty much stands out on it's own as rather self-evident. If consciousness is a phenomena distinct from IP and/or EM then it has to be added to pressures driving all behaviour - including that very behaviour that results in making babies!

Or don't you know where they come from? :)

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.First, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Second, you seem to have a very, very poor grasp of physics.

What topic are we discussing if not materialistic views versus non-materialistic views exactly?

I don't care what you think if my understanding of physics. The law of conservation is that physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter. If you think matter can spontaneously self-generate out of nothing then provide evidence and an explanation for this nobel prize winning discovery.

Okay then, a simple question: Four hydrogen atoms fuse to form a helium atom. What is the mass of the helium atom relative to the four hydrogen atoms?

You're taking me back a few years here, but in the case of the protieum hydrogen isotope in relation to helium-4, the overall mass of four helium atoms relative to 1 hydrogen atom should be nearly the same since protons and neutrons have a very close atomic mass and electrons have a negligable mass (and you're only losing two in this reaction).

(I can't be bothered doing the calculations for the AMU's to however many decimal places would be required - about 10 if I recall correctly.)

What does this have to do with anything?

_
HypnoPsi