Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am afraid you still just don't get it. The issue of subjective experience IS the default killer for materialism. It is necessary that reality itself inherently be subjective in some way that enables the "emergence"
Not agreeing with you is different from not "getting it". We "get" you clearly we just do not remotely agree. This attempt to continuously pretend people who do not agree with you must have some failing or other just makes your position look worse - not better.
The issue with it lies in the last few words that I included in the quote above. The issue being that this is a declartion - an assertion. You simply declare that it must be so. But why must it? Based on what? What supports this claim? Continuous repetition of it is not support for it.
Theism that assumes there is a deity -1 point
Atheism that assumes there is no deity -1 point
Atheism that simply doesn't make an assumption on the matter = most logical
Theism that assumes there is a deity -1 point
Atheism that assumes there is no deity -1 point
Atheism that simply doesn't make an assumption on the matter = most logical
You are quite right - which is why the burden of proof is fundamental to the rationale of atheism. If 'god' is taken to be an a priori assumed given, then the burden of proof (or disproof) falls on atheism. Agnosticism is then NOT a reasonable option and the basing of the atheist non -belief position on the not -knowing agnostic position is untenable.
However, the taking of god as an a priori 'given' is logically false unless (like at least one poster here) one rejects the rules of logic or can prove it through logical constructs or evidence. The evidence (ID) is not compelling and the logical constructs are futile because they are based on the same human rules of knowledge that apply well enough in the universe we know about but have seen how they have to be re-assessed in the light of new knowledge.
We do not make an assumption either way. Most logical as you say.
But the specific and personal god of the Bible is subject to reason, logic and evidence and it fails so utterly on that basis that we can say 'No Deity' (1 point.)
To say that it has its own rules, is beyond human comprehension or makes sense in a way that doesn't make sense to us is taking it out of the realm of any meaningful logic and evidence and making it a matter of Faith again.
Faith proves nothing other than inherent human gullibility and capacity for self -deception.
Theism that assumes there is a deity -1 point
Atheism that assumes there is no deity -1 point
Atheism that simply doesn't make an assumption on the matter = most logical
While I agree with where you are GENERALLY going with the above I do not 100% agree and would add a small caveat.
If there is absolutely no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest X exists then you should certainly base your world view, make your decisions, and espouse your position as if your assumption is that X does not exist.
It is not that you are assuming X does not exist but that the current data should constrain you to act AS IF You are operating on that assumption.
God might very well exist for all I know, but since there is literally no reason whatsoever to think it does everything I do, say and think is based off the working assumption it does not.
The difference between what I am saying and what you are saying is subtle yes, but its implications may not be.
We do not make an assumption either way. Most logical as you say.
But the specific and personal god of the Bible is subject to reason, logic and evidence and it fails so utterly on that basis that we can say 'No Deity' (1 point.)
Well, I would say "No deity that (insert disproven claim here)". I wouldn't say the god meant to be told about in the Bible doesn't exist. I think any flaws in the Bible can only tell us of human error, not the existence/non-existence of any god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Faith proves nothing other than inherent human gullibility and capacity for self -deception.
But how can we say it's self-deception without saying there is no god (and I'm talking about faith in a deity of any sort, not necessarily the Christian god)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
While I agree with where you are GENERALLY going with the above I do not 100% agree and would add a small caveat.
If there is absolutely no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest X exists then you should certainly base your world view, make your decisions, and espouse your position as if your assumption is that X does not exist.
It is not that you are assuming X does not exist but that the current data should constrain you to act AS IF You are operating on that assumption.
Ah, but what's the difference between this and living as if the question never entered your mind?
Ah, but what's the difference between this and living as if the question never entered your mind?
Indeed. That would be quite close to the caveat I was adding to your post. Very close indeed. The operational effects of acting under the assumption there is no god would be pretty much equal.... though with some differences..... to acting like you had never been offered the proposition at all.
Of course the differences lie in the fact that we live in a world where most people DO think there is a god and try to implement that believe.... directly and indirectly.... in our halls of power, education and science. As such it is not wise to act like you have never heard the question/hypothesis ever. One needs to be quite aware of it and often times act on the fact there is no reason to think there is a god in the face of the actions and words of those who do.
It really is a tiny and very subtle point we are equivocating over, but I still felt it warranted mentioning.
Well, I would say "No deity that (insert disproven claim here)". I wouldn't say the god meant to be told about in the Bible doesn't exist. I think any flaws in the Bible can only tell us of human error, not the existence/non-existence of any god.
The Bible is increasingly being shown to be unhistorical, unreliable and unbelievable. This is not human error - this is human invention. Now of course it is possible to say that the God that is referred to in the Bible could still be real, but, it is logically mandatory to say that there is no good evidence for it. The Bible is worthless as evidence for such a god.
Quote:
But how can we say it's self-deception without saying there is no god (and I'm talking about faith in a deity of any sort, not necessarily the Christian god)?
The rationale is not that there is no god, but there is no good evidence FOR a god either sortagod or Biblegod. I am not in principle opposed to the idea of a sort of Pantheist god. I just find the evidence for it fails to deliver.
Theists believe that some sort of god exist. There is no logical or evidential reason for this, but I recognize that they have their reasons. That's ok. I can say that I don't find cosmic origins, cosmic order, morality, feelings beneath the body belt or mysterious unexplaineds anything like good enough to be evidence for a sortagod, but I can live with those who do.
It is the tendency of humans to rather want to believe in ideas and claims that actually do not stand up. Take crystal skulls for instance - totally discredited, but Believers turn somersaultsz with an adroitency (this term is for sale) that make Christian apologists look positively clumsy by comparison in efforts to allow themselves to keep believing in what really has no credibility.
Now, the god of the Bible is a different matter. I have touched on that above. I can also say that I am confident that I am on the right lines with the N.T. If is a Christian fabrication.
I appreciate the thought you have put into this qualia issue, Arequipa . . . but I am afraid you still just don't get it. The issue of subjective experience IS the default killer for materialism. It is necessary that reality itself inherently be subjective in some way that enables the "emergence" (Gaylen's favorite euphemism) of our particular experience of it . . . or reductionist materialism cannot be true. BUT if reality itself IS fundamentally subjective . . . that renders an indifferent dead material reality impossible. Catch 22.
People who went to a very good Catholic School learnt this concept and idea at about 16 yrs old. I remember.. and you guys and the BS with the quaila is an insult to the subject matter, and people trying to get a handle on the age old idea.
Let me say I have had it with the likes of this BS as though it is recent, along with philosophy, universities and the trumped up crap in different ways of saying things.
I have also had it with people and saying they don't understand what I'm saying. That will be next for this evening . As a matter of fact I called my father about a year ago when all this BS with quaila was going on to see what he thought, he remembered and I remember he explained this idea in about a half an hour to myself and my brother at about 16. I am disgusted with this BS. How is the feeling of what this is like. This whole discussion is in BIG trouble with me.
edit...forget it, I will get to this later in a day or two.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-17-2013 at 07:15 PM..
I appreciate the thought you have put into this qualia issue, Arequipa . . . but I am afraid you still just don't get it. The issue of subjective experience IS the default killer for materialism. It is necessary that reality itself inherently be subjective in some way that enables the "emergence" (Gaylen's favorite euphemism) of our particular experience of it . . . or reductionist materialism cannot be true. BUT if reality itself IS fundamentally subjective . . . that renders an indifferent dead material reality impossible. Catch 22.
I suppose I have to make a reply to this. Even though I have dealt with it before. I suppose I have got to comment on this claim that subjectivity demands Dualism.
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli "
That will do.
Subjective is talking about how we see things from outside. Through the mental pixels of qualia or the mental digital recording of Qualia or the taste sensing..whatever...of qualia. If Dualism is just the idea that we are in a way remote from reality (and reality exists in itself, because it is both repeatable, predictable and unexpected, for all that it is made of nothing) then that is pretty obvious but does not unseat the materialist default and doesn't in fact sound to me what we were actually talking about.
It is correct to say that matter is an illusion. It is an illusion - to us. Our perception -organs transmit to us a visual aural or tactile representation of the world outside - and within us of course, just as the radar operator sees a radar picture of what is out there.It is not what he would see and requires interpretation just as we need to interprete what we see and hear. and we often mispercieve it too, which is why science has to correct our misperceptions.
That is obvious nothing to do with 'Something more' beyond what is going on in our minds that requires us to overturn materialism.
To somehow link the physical processes of matter that has resulted in our sense mechanisms as they have in animals and even plants, of course with something we can call 'God' is invalid. We can talk about human spiritual experience true, but none of this suggests to me anything that legitimately replaces the natural, material operations of nature with anything we can call 'God'.
To do that requires semantic juggling with all the terms and getting some sort of case for a spirit being that communicates with us, has a Plan for us and somehow justifies a sorta religion.
Reality is NOT fundamentally subjective - not in any way that make sense to me. The issue of emergence does not seem to demand it. What 'emergence' in a radar screen requires that reality be as impalpable as the radar image? If I don't 'get it' it is because there doesn't seem to me to be anything there to be got.
I understand that the puzzle of how the mental pixels work is a tough one, but that kills nothing other than the idea that God is outside feeding this stuff into our brains.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-18-2013 at 10:21 AM..
Reason: I always forget where I was.
I'm jumping in here for the first time...hey, new blood is always good, eh?
I don't see why anyone would believe in God if they had never experienced Him.
Why?
Because someone said there was one?
I will never and have never tried to change the mindset of an atheist.
They are fine the way they are...I mean, unless they are not fine, that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
