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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2015, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,862 posts, read 3,783,816 times
Reputation: 4594

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I do not bring it here to promote God. Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism. I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality and its failures as a philosophical underpinning for their atheism. That is the purpose of discussion on such issues.

I think this is what rubs people up the wrong way Mystic. Think about what you just said here.

Lets break it down:

Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism.

Fine, okay so far. Most atheists have thought long and hard about what they observe, think, see, feel etc and atheism is to them the only rational conclusion.

I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality


Condescending Insult #1. In other words, your picture of reality is clearer than their picture of reality. Not so Mystic. Only in your head is your version clearer. In an atheists head their version is clearer. Your version is only clearer and more objective to you. ie in fact your version is entirely subjective.

and its failures as a philosophical underpinning for their atheism.

Condescending Insult #2. In other words, an atheists entire worldview and philosophy is a failure, according to you. Don't you think that atheists have put many long hours, weeks, years of thought into this, just as you have? And then you wonder why you have so many 'critics'.
Consider Mystic that maybe it has something to do with you and the way you express yourself. It gets people backs up.

Personally I'm on your side. I do think you brighten up the forum and it would be a much duller place without you. I'm very happy to have you contribute to the atheist forum.
However if you can't understand why so many people object to what you say so vehemently, perhaps some element of introspection is in order.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2015, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,079,084 times
Reputation: 6079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
However if you can't understand why so many people object to what you say so vehemently perhaps some element of introspection is in order.
Indeed; I have learned to ask "what's the common denominator here" and it's often me. Either I'm doing something wrong or my position is simply opaque or unpopular or whatever. It's always more tempting (and flattering) to identify the common denominators as Other People. But that gets dangerously close to running around declaring, "You're all MAD! I'm the only sane person in the WORLD!!"

But it's still tricky. If many people are upset by what I say it could be that they are reacting to being unable to counter my logic because they are participants in a popular delusion. But it could also be (and even simultaneously be) that I'm being needlessly harsh, offensive or insulting. But that is made harder to see by their constantly playing the persecution card when nothing is going on other than disagreement. Often, nothing more than friendly disagreement brings charges of persecution, blasphemy, bigotry, intolerance, hatred, or all of the above.

That's always the trick ... people feeling insulted doesn't mean I actually insulted them. Buy it's certainly enough to double check myself. I have gradually learned when people are enraged because they don't have a viable counterargument and they wrongly equate my disagreement with their personal annihilation ... and those times when perhaps I've been unfair to them or assumed too much or misjudged their motives. I've learned to tell defensiveness from genuine hurt.

Mystic has admitted before that he can be pedantic in that academic fashion that feels dismissive, supercilious and "ivory tower" to non-academics. And that he struggles with it. I appreciate that candor.

Still the fact remains that while I think somewhere he recognizes, e.g., that dark matter is simply one possible bit of (unverified) evidence for god (as he defines god), he usually states it as obvious and his conclusions as the only obvious ones. He really can't resist it. I don't really know enough about higher academia to say, but maybe this is their version of "elbows and a__holes" aggressiveness and chest-thumping and you have to do this to even be heard or provisionally taken seriously. If so, I'm glad that I'm not in that world. The price of entry is too high. And it bodes ill for my stepson's aspirations to academia. He's too honorable and too thin-skinned for it unless he grows into it. And I can't say he'd be a better person for doing so.

Then again I live just off a couple of major college campuses and I've meet career academics and research scientists who are complete judgmental egotistical jerks and others who are just lovely, kind, generous, approachable, inclusive people who don't even feel the need to tout their status or credentials or baffle you with their brilliance -- you find out entirely by accident that you've just had a pleasant and affable conversation with some high mucky-muck with an international reputation who has taught at Cornell for 30 years.[shrug]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,862 posts, read 3,783,816 times
Reputation: 4594
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Indeed; I have learned to ask "what's the common denominator here" and it's often me. Either I'm doing something wrong or my position is simply opaque or unpopular or whatever. It's always more tempting (and flattering) to identify the common denominators as Other People. But that gets dangerously close to running around declaring, "You're all MAD! I'm the only sane person in the WORLD!!"
Haha. Mordant, I often think that. I think I'm the only sane person on a regular basis.

Quote:
But it's still tricky. If many people are upset by what I say it could be that they are reacting to being unable to counter my logic because they are participants in a popular delusion. But it could also be (and even simultaneously be) that I'm being needlessly harsh, offensive or insulting. But that is made harder to see by their constantly playing the persecution card when nothing is going on other than disagreement. Often, nothing more than friendly disagreement brings charges of persecution, blasphemy, bigotry, intolerance, hatred, or all of the above.

That's always the trick ... people feeling insulted doesn't mean I actually insulted them. Buy it's certainly enough to double check myself. I have gradually learned when people are enraged because they don't have a viable counterargument and they wrongly equate my disagreement with their personal annihilation ... and those times when perhaps I've been unfair to them or assumed too much or misjudged their motives. I've learned to tell defensiveness from genuine hurt.

Mystic has admitted before that he can be pedantic in that academic fashion that feels dismissive, supercilious and "ivory tower" to non-academics. And that he struggles with it. I appreciate that candor.

Still the fact remains that while I think somewhere he recognizes, e.g., that dark matter is simply one possible bit of (unverified) evidence for god (as he defines god), he usually states it as obvious and his conclusions as the only obvious ones. He really can't resist it. I don't really know enough about higher academia to say, but maybe this is their version of "elbows and a__holes" aggressiveness and chest-thumping and you have to do this to even be heard or provisionally taken seriously. If so, I'm glad that I'm not in that world. The price of entry is too high. And it bodes ill for my stepson's aspirations to academia. He's too honorable and too thin-skinned for it unless he grows into it. And I can't say he'd be a better person for doing so.
Yes, you rarely see Mystic write phrases like "maybe this is so"... or "perhaps, we should see this", it's always (capitalized as well) "THIS is the way it IS".
I know we are all firm in our outlook, but there's not much give and take with Mystic. But yes I have often seen him admit he can't help it (apologies, Mystic for talking about you in the third person ).

Quote:
Then again I live just off a couple of major college campuses and I've meet career academics and research scientists who are complete judgmental egotistical jerks and others who are just lovely, kind, generous, approachable, inclusive people who don't even feel the need to tout their status or credentials or baffle you with their brilliance -- you find out entirely by accident that you've just had a pleasant and affable conversation with some high mucky-muck with an international reputation who has taught at Cornell for 30 years.[shrug]


I'm also lucky to have lived in places in the last few years which attract intellectual types. It's a nice environment to be in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 08:10 AM
 
39,036 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082
Indeed. Gaylenwoof who once said, disarmingly, "I have a master's degree in this crap" spent many posts trying to explain the Hard Question to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,862 posts, read 3,783,816 times
Reputation: 4594
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Indeed. Gaylenwoof who once said, disarmingly, "I have a master's degree in this crap" spent many posts trying to explain the Hard Question to me.

Classic. I might start using that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,079,084 times
Reputation: 6079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Classic. I might start using that one.
Yes, it's maybe the only scatalogical reference that the forum software won't turn into "****". I find it an amusing omission. To me it represents the vanguard of what is considered acceptable exclamation in polite company by the forum software. Which is to say, what was acceptable in about 1965 or so.

I have to give props to them though for keeping things civil through abundance of caution. I choose to believe that is the motivation -- not that the owners of this site actually never say anything "asterisk-able" when they hit their thumb with a hammer ;-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 09:29 PM
 
40,046 posts, read 26,730,521 times
Reputation: 6049
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I do not bring it here to promote God. Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism. I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality and its failures as a philosophical underpinning for their atheism. That is the purpose of discussion on such issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
I think this is what rubs people up the wrong way Mystic. Think about what you just said here.
Lets break it down:
Atheists use their knowledge of the state of reality as the basis for their atheism.
Fine, okay so far. Most atheists have thought long and hard about what they observe, think, see, feel etc and atheism is to them the only rational conclusion.

I am simply presenting a clearer and more objective picture of that reality

Condescending Insult #1. In other words, your picture of reality is clearer than their picture of reality. Not so Mystic. Only in your head is your version clearer. In an atheists head their version is clearer. Your version is only clearer and more objective to you. ie in fact your version is entirely subjective.
and its failures as a philosophical underpinning for their atheism.
Condescending Insult #2. In other words, an atheists entire worldview and philosophy is a failure, according to you. Don't you think that atheists have put many long hours, weeks, years of thought into this, just as you have? And then you wonder why you have so many 'critics'.
Consider Mystic that maybe it has something to do with you and the way you express yourself. It gets people backs up.
Personally I'm on your side. I do think you brighten up the forum and it would be a much duller place without you. I'm very happy to have you contribute to the atheist forum.
However if you can't understand why so many people object to what you say so vehemently, perhaps some element of introspection is in order.
Thank you for the rebuke, Cruithne. As I have said before . . . a habit hard to break. But the phenomenon of consciousness simply does NOT conform to the default materialist view of reality. My experiences remove it from the area of speculation (FOR ME) bit I realize not for others. You may not believe this . . . but I am NOT a fan of Deepak Chopra. His views only tangetnially agree with mine. But he is one of the few people even pretending to focus science on the phenomenon. The dismissiveness is so pervasive that a truly objective investigation is virtually impossible. Here is one of Chopra's interviews with a neuroscientist/psychiatrist who has been making efforts to find objective evidence using savants. ESP and Savants Ignore it if you wish . . . but I found it somewhat encouraging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2015, 03:35 PM
 
13,481 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365
No consciousness seems strongly related to being particle based. everything we know about anything is based on particles. even "fields". so it exactly fits the standard model so far. I change your brain ... I change you. that is Empirical evidence.
Please do not be telling untrained people that it is not particle based. You have no proof off that. And the proof shows that it is particle based.

Savants show what we can do with a brain. Basically a recording device. That's all a savant is. A biological recording/playback machine. The variation is only due to the number of possible pathways and how the brain overcomes error with sheer volume. Like a butterfly shows us what is medically possible in the future, savants show us what we can do with a brain in the future to me. All chemistry based.

ESP, would be based on fields around the head. Information stored in the surroundings and using, something akin to emf, is received buy the person. Maybe even entanglement. Like how a mother feels an unseen child's pain. With the experiments showing space is something, that information is probably transmitted through it. ITS particles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 06:30 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,696,059 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But the phenomenon of consciousness simply does NOT conform to the default materialist view of reality.
Why does it not? Your sole support for this contention above seems to be merely to point out we have not fully explained it yet. But lack of explanation at a given time does not suggest it can not or will not get one - that is every bit as rational and scientific as all the other things that once seemed like magical mysteries signifying the hand of god - but turned out to later have perfectly rational explanations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,079,084 times
Reputation: 6079
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But the phenomenon of consciousness simply does NOT conform to the default materialist view of reality. My experiences remove it from the area of speculation (FOR ME) bit I realize not for others.
Of course it doesn't conform ... or at least we shouldn't expect it to. It is simply thoughts. In my thoughts I can imagine all sorts of things that don't conform to a materialist view of reality. Why, just night before last, I dreamt that my father and eldest brother were in the room with me joking with each other ... and that doesn't conform to reality because they are both dead. And frankly it doesn't conform to reality in that my father was not as at ease in real life as he was in the dream.

Now I could, because I loved them and miss them, start spinning webs of speculation such as this was god giving me a dream to reassure me that my father and brother haven't ceased to exist and that they are happy and in each other's company. And while that might feel good to me, I would have no basis at all to think that in any way likely, compared to the notion that my mind constructed a pleasant scenario from the memories of those two that I have in between my ears. I might even cite Jungian dream theory and consider that my subconscious mind is symbolically showing me aspects of the character of these two men that I looked up to for authority and protection so that I can emulate them. But to spin a whole cosmology around it? Nah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You may not believe this . . . but I am NOT a fan of Deepak Chopra. His views only tangetnially agree with mine.
I have no reason to think you you admire Chopra and if you say you don't, I DO believe you. But ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But he is one of the few people even pretending to focus science on the phenomenon.
... out of desperation he's the only company you can find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The dismissiveness is so pervasive that a truly objective investigation is virtually impossible.
Maybe there is good reason to BE dismissive. It's a little like an article I read last night about how scientists have a virtually complete woolly mammoth genome now and that a generation or two hence we could perhaps bring them back -- and in fact, by the end of this decade there's an active project that expects to splice mammoth genes into asian elephants to produce a variety that can range further north. The rationalization is that if they can get a herd of those going they will restore the grasslands in those areas and reduce global warming.

The obvious critique of such a project is that it is an expensive use of resources that could more productively be spent elsewhere, for quicker results. You can almost know for a fact that the environmental angle is cover for "let's do this because it's cool and exciting, and because we can".

But at least it's a real possibility and only a question of priorities. What you are talking about isn't even falsifiable. How would you construct a reproducible, controlled experiment like that? And why would you when there is a laundry list of other ways to spend research $$ that are more likely to produce useful, unambiguous results? Particularly when a clever multiyear study of NDEs came up empty-handed already?
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