U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2015, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,846 posts, read 19,943,516 times
Reputation: 23292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is because you appear to be ignoring everything and employing no thought whatsoever. The state of the ENTIRE brain is part of the entire composite (conscious and unconscious and autonomic) to BE summarized . . . because it ALL effects the complete state of Self we experience. Ergo . . . nothing within the brain can summarize it all . . . without altering the brain state to BE summarized. Your iterative nonsense can NOT apply.

Huh??
I must be missing the point completely, which, when you get into scientific jargon , is totally possible but from this statement here.....
The brain is 'summarizing' on an ongoing basis as new material is being fed into it.
Of course that alters it but also on a continuing basis.
Summarized, past tense, would be once the brain stops functioning and receiving no new information which is a useless state since retrieval is then impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2015, 07:04 AM
 
39,229 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5099
I believe Mordant - or someone - pointed out that a mental loop can explain self awareness. if that is what Mystic is getting at. I it really hard to see what he is getting at. It looks like a rhetorical attempt to get something inexplicable out of the workings of the mind that forces us to conclude that 'Something More' is the only answer but, if it even makes that much sense, all it is in an unexplained question, not evidence of anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 07:10 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes. I need an expert in this area, or at least to browse wiki for a while, but emergence covers a lot of effects that i am sure we know of. There is no hint of wetness' in the molecules that make up water, but put them together and the effect is - wetness. In the same way I envisage the evolutionary theory of the development of life (and consciousness) back through the postulated hypothesis that it emerged in a basic form from a combination of biochemicals and reason back through the way that biochemicals combine, matter combines and all particles interact. The same properties of physical matter produce 'emergent' effects that one would not expect - as you say - from looking at the particles or chemicals themselves.

This is why there is no reason - other that gaps for God of the 'you cannot prove how the universe started/how life began/where consciousness came from'. We can't, but we can explain, hypothetically, extrapolating backwards from what we can prove.

The other side with their arguments that it is all inexplicable without Something More' are wrong. It is explainable, though not down to the nano -particle. But the unexplained (claimed) events of the distant past and the unknown effects down at nano -level of the way matter, lifer and consciousness work are false arguments (specifically argumentum ignorantiam) of the gap for god kind.

There is no good reason to credit the 'Something more' arguments, let alone to present them as reliable, believable, facts.
that last line? really girl? with what you don't know you say that? really?

With the amount of information we have there is no god (yes intended) reason to assume that the hierarchy of structure stops. there is absolutely no reason to assume that emergence will "stop". especially with the knowledge that we only know less than 10% of the universe. toss in conservation laws, quantum computing, and Brian green's notion that space is "something" and the hunch that there is "something more" is far more valid than "no-nothing".

no "gap toss" there girl. that's based on what is known, not what is not known.

Remember arg, you have to understand, I really don't care. I am only interested in what is. I only care if conclusions are reasonable or they are not reasonable based on what we know. I understand the tactic of "don't give it any validity by even addressing it." but like I said. I don't care. I also agree with you that the Christian god does not exist. I agree that religion can be very dangerous, like fire. Srac kill 10000's of people a year and maim 1.5 times more. But religion aint nuclear.

"Christian" literalist have the traits of god wrong. There is no 6-days, no rising from the dead, no "getting even" from this thing. Those views are from "earth bound 105's" The traits they give this thing are based on a human need. Some valid some not so much. Can you give me a reason for a human not to do something human? Not to use the things around it to help itself? How do you settle down a pack of chimps? well, sometimes, you do what ever works.

In the end we have to be honest with ourselves when we are assessing what is "reliable". We have to try and get ourselves out of the way. I only try and use the scientific method as intended. That is to find out what is going on around us. To find conclusions that fit most conditions and conditional changes as best we can. "homeostasis" fits better than "no-nothing". For now, It's that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 07:35 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Huh??
I must be missing the point completely, which, when you get into scientific jargon , is totally possible but from this statement here.....
The brain is 'summarizing' on an ongoing basis as new material is being fed into it.
Of course that alters it but also on a continuing basis.
Summarized, past tense, would be once the brain stops functioning and receiving no new information which is a useless state since retrieval is then impossible.
that's why a flash freeze right before death would be important. we don't want ice crystals puncturing anything. whats' interesting, because I have too much time to think, is when the head is copped off the pressure drops, no transmit-ion of chemicals possible ....dead. Is it possible for some residual eye focusing? well, chickens have been known to take a few extra laps I guess. But they aint going anywhare.

So when people "freeze their" heads drained of fluids they will not retrieve the exact brain state when read in the future. I would think that Some of the molecules "state" is defined by position in the head.

but back to topic.

you are right old and the brain is so complex that one area of the brain can effect another area of the brain giving the person the illusion that it came from "outside". The brain processes everything. It summarizes everything. That's everything, correct or not, it summarizes everything, including things that originated in itself.

but, it is also so complex that some of us can "question" that "summarization sheet". But not all of us.

Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-20-2015 at 07:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 08:09 AM
 
39,229 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
that last line? really girl? with what you don't know you say that? really?

With the amount of information we have there is no god (yes intended) reason to assume that the hierarchy of structure stops. there is absolutely no reason to assume that emergence will "stop". especially with the knowledge that we only know less than 10% of the universe. toss in conservation laws, quantum computing, and Brian green's notion that space is "something" and the hunch that there is "something more" is far more valid than "no-nothing".

no "gap toss" there girl. that's based on what is known, not what is not known.

Remember arg, you have to understand, I really don't care. I am only interested in what is. I only care if conclusions are reasonable or they are not reasonable based on what we know. I understand the tactic of "don't give it any validity by even addressing it." but like I said. I don't care. I also agree with you that the Christian god does not exist. I agree that religion can be very dangerous, like fire. Srac kill 10000's of people a year and maim 1.5 times more. But religion aint nuclear.

"Christian" literalist have the traits of god wrong. There is no 6-days, no rising from the dead, no "getting even" from this thing. Those views are from "earth bound 105's" The traits they give this thing are based on a human need. Some valid some not so much. Can you give me a reason for a human not to do something human? Not to use the things around it to help itself? How do you settle down a pack of chimps? well, sometimes, you do what ever works.

In the end we have to be honest with ourselves when we are assessing what is "reliable". We have to try and get ourselves out of the way. I only try and use the scientific method as intended. That is to find out what is going on around us. To find conclusions that fit most conditions and conditional changes as best we can. "homeostasis" fits better than "no-nothing". For now, It's that simple.
Sorry, you are wrong. on every point (including me being a girl ) 'something more' is of course a valid supposition, but what that something more, absent any really reliable evidence about it, remains unknown. While that is the area of woo physics (to which mysticism has nothing of value to contribute other than repeated anecdotes of their feelings) and to a certain extent philosophy, it is pointless for us to speculate. If you don't care (and neither do I, only about the baseless faith claims made using the Unknowns as a pretext for claiming they are true (often with the feelings' presented as proof that they are true, based on divine revelation - there's a circular argument, if you like ), then you will go with leaving these speculations about the 'something more' (which is actually not the same as 'Something More Aka "God") on the pending tray and simply confine yourself to refuting the illogical faith claims that Unknowns prove Faith claims as fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 08:38 PM
 
43 posts, read 39,835 times
Reputation: 15
Default The New Message for Atheist - Dénouement

First - Read BELIEVE before continuing….

This is an easy debate to win because there is no resistance. It is an easy to accept concept for everyone. It makes an indisputable point. No one believes in magic. Now when someone talks to you about anything that involves the supernatural or miracles you simply tell them, “I don’t believe in magic” and refer them to BELIEVE. Now you can call yourself a Realist.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Realism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of magic. In a narrower sense, realism is specifically the position that there is no magic. Most inclusively, realism is the absence of belief that any magic exist. Credit to: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Atheists have been debating for decades. Now you are using an idea that’s already won.


.EL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 04:28 AM
 
39,229 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5099
That post suits atheism down to the ground, if only it was as simple as that. Unfortunately while realism may reject the supernatural claims at large and atheism reject them specifically in regard to the god -claims, using the label "Realism" does not disprove the existence of anything existing outside what we know - on the grounds of scientifically validated evidence - to be Real.

While you are right that the rational case for atheism is sound, the door is always open for some evidence for Something More also being Real. There are various ways of trying to make a case. Trying to reverse -engineer it from the Bible is futile. The Bible under examination looks about as unconvincing as the Iliad - as regards the god -claims, not the wars or cities. Those are real enough but, as the atheist apologists say, the existence of New York does not prove the reality of Spiderman.

So the best case is to prove that a god of some sort exists and the case for creation is one good argument, though it is losing ground and ID/complexity has collapsed and First cause is losing ground, too.

Consciousness - in fact it is becoming an evangelical (or at least apologetics) Package incorporating NDE's /OB's - is probably the best case at the moment as indeed the case for angel voices, the feeling of a 'presence/guardian' and miracle healings was until recently. We are being pressured to accept this current claim on face value on the argument "there can't possibly be any other explanation than a divine entity," or a soul, implying some sort of divine entity.

But we don't know that, and the consciousness argument is just the latest in a load of inexplicables from the photographic images of 'auras' in my young day to the Voices that were considered (citing Joan of Arc as Inexplicable without God's doing) 'evidence of angels' (and thus God) and a compelling case, but now are not. We really do have to say 'not proven/we don't know'. (1)

And of course the believers desperate to push through an a priori acceptance of a god's existence protest about closed minded and stubborn unbelief, when in fact they are in the wrong for trying to force through the one explanation they desperately want to have accepted as true. Because, once a god is accepted as Real then everything changes.

The Bible is not a book that cannot be accepted as believable because of all the dubious stuff in it, but would be considered believable in spite of the dubious stuff in it. The burden of proof would indeed change to those who want to disprove God, the Bible and the claims of religion.

That is why, though on the face of it, getting a god of some kind accepted through the Cosmic origins argument or the Consciousness/NDE argument, does not seem to get them very far, in fact it hands them the debate in a box.

(1) It is interesting that this 'don't accept what you don't have proof of' line of rationality has it own challenge with the 'They didn't believe the Wright Brothers' gambit. This appears in various forms, but the trick is to take something we now all accept as true and argue that at one time 'Skeptics/doubters/scientists' didn't accept it. The idea being to make skeptics/doubters/scientists look silly,closed -minded, denialist and wrong. It is a false argument, since one only has to say the cold fusion was also doubted until proven. So was Bigfoot, UFOs and indeed feathered dinosaurs, at first.

Some of those have been conformed by later evidence, some have collapsed. The point is that it is right to doubt what has not been validated and you cannot accept all and every claim os the grounds that some have turned out to be true in the past. And of course the religious don't want ALL claims accepted - just the ones they want us to believe. On examination this argument turns out to be worthless, as do all these very clever apologetics packages.

I might also add that the remark Ken Hamm made 'It's not the data that is the argument, but the interpretation', is a pertinent one. I find it is not so much the data or evidence that is debated but the way of thinking. The theist one is wrong and flawed, as in the misuse of gap for god arguments, reversal of the burden of proof, false insistence on a priori god as a 'given' using a variety of rhetorical tricks, and of course denouncing the exposure of these false arguments and rhetorical tricks as 'dickering about semantics'.

I won't labour the point but really apologetics requires not only being aware of the facts (as religious apologists routinely present false ones - or mispresented) but being aware of the tricks and sleights religious rhetoricians use to make, as Aristophanes put it: "The worse cause appear the better".(2)

(2) (Nephelai) Strepsiades, having thought up a plan to get out of debt, wakes Pheidippides gently and pleads with him to do something for him. The youth first agrees to do as he's asked then changes his mind when he learns that his father wants to enroll him in The Thinkery, a school for wastrels and bums that no self-respecting, athletic young man dares to be associated with. Strepsiades explains that students of The Thinkery learn how to turn inferior arguments into winning arguments and this is the only way he can beat their aggrieved creditors in court.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-22-2015 at 05:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 09:17 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
err, so you say. you and I accuse each other of same thing. It all comes down to a very few statements that shows the difference. Forum settings permit people to just keep posting where as in person we stop while looking and graphs and what not. Like gray's thread's, shot down 100's of times. She just keeps posting.

from outside the toy box it looks just like a run of the mill bouncy ball.

Where you and I differ it that "we are right and they are wrong" stance. We also differ on equity in speculations off of data. Your conclusions are based on what you don't know. You just don't know it.

for example: a parable if you will.
looking at a mirage. Theists point to it again and again and claim "it must be there LOOK!". Your claim is "no nothing" is "here", come on over and look for yourself.

To me, both are not true totally false or true. Both stances fill an emotional needs. "something" caused that mirage. It just different than they (thiests) think it is. And "no nothing" is not true either. "something" is there. On many levels.

we also differ in that you do care. Far more than I do about "no god". I use the data to make a prediction. I don't care where it leads. You skew all data hidden behind the words "no reliable interpretation". it's just funny to me how strong a person can hold onto a stance without all the information. You stance looks the same as their stance to me.

My cohorts are people like Neil the real deal a Carl the snarl. what philosophy to you follow? oh a dead. Aristotle. He wore robs and like little boys didn't he?. Not my type. Newton? he was a sick pup that can do math. yeah? so what. If Galileo wasn't such an a-hole they would have listened to him. But I do understand his frustration about "Yes, I know, I am the only one so far ... but LOOOOK FOR YOUR SELVES STUPID!!!!!" None of them are my "role models". but they certainly have useful bits of information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 09:57 AM
 
39,229 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5099
Yes I do care. I care not only that me beliefs are based on sound evidence but that the human worldview is also based on sound evidence and not in faith in one out of a whole raft of mythological inventions.

You talk of right or wrong. You then go onto analogies. I prefer to talk in terms of evidence and what there is not adequate evidence far - is not worthy of belief.

I find it hard to understand why anyone has an objection to that or why so many seem to find us loudmouthed or arrogant for saying what it so obviously true.

perhaps because our numbers are small, because for some reason religion has brainwashed the world into thinking that you can't say anything to upset them. never mid chalenge their view that they have a right to tell the world how it ought to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 01:13 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
yep, that's what I have been saying. you are more emotional then I am. Past the no "that type of god" your stance is basically false. Religion does not brainwash anybody. Bad or low IQ parents and bad people bully others. If Religion does then it brainwashes for good and bad. Your war is an "illusion". It's not against this imaginary beast religion thing. It is as imaginary as the fairies at the bottom of the well. Your war is against bad people. I am with ya on that part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top