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 05-04-2015, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,870 posts, read 3,796,240 times
Reputation: 4610

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
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.

Thanks Mystic, I did watch it. The study of savants is an interesting topic. It would make a good thread starter, though not sure you'd entirely get away with posting it on the religion forums...it might get deleted. I for one would be interested in discussing the topic, with you. I'm wary of a lot of things Diane Powell said - such as the drawing of the periodic table without ever seeing it - just not buying that one at all, plus it's second hand information anyway, however I wouldn't dismiss all of the evidence presented here. Savants obviously do demonstrate highly unusual abilities that are worthy of study.
BTW I don't think I ever said I thought you were a fan of Chopra.
However, I've said myself I think Chopra has a lot of interesting things to say. In that respect I consider myself an open-minded atheist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2015, 10:27 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
I didn't know my dad, and his friends (82nd), didn't win ww2 all by themselves to my early teens. Like 12 ... lol. The lack in my knowledge made him seem real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 08:27 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Thanks Mystic, I did watch it. The study of savants is an interesting topic. It would make a good thread starter, though not sure you'd entirely get away with posting it on the religion forums...it might get deleted. I for one would be interested in discussing the topic, with you. I'm wary of a lot of things Diane Powell said - such as the drawing of the periodic table without ever seeing it - just not buying that one at all, plus it's second hand information anyway, however I wouldn't dismiss all of the evidence presented here. Savants obviously do demonstrate highly unusual abilities that are worthy of study.
BTW I don't think I ever said I thought you were a fan of Chopra.
However, I've said myself I think Chopra has a lot of interesting things to say. In that respect I consider myself an open-minded atheist.
I think it might be ok to thread on it. After all, the discussion on Consciousness in a robot went on in philosophical discussion for a long time, because I am sure the Mods could see the relevance to religion or not.

The same thing happened in a thread on the rationale of atheism - it quickly got onto Philosophy because the two main proponents of atheism not being logically sound were arguing from the Philosophical point of view.

So that is all relevant.

Incidentally, I see Mystic's argument about consciousness ..not conforming to the materialist default as being pretty irrelevant. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, when it is explained and understood, it will be part of the 'material'. Until then, it is 'Unknown'.

The religious Quantum -Wooists, agnostic uncosciousnists (TM) and Choprachian Taoists get annoyed that anything unknown is 'Uknown' but as soon as it is understood and explained, it becomes Science. And they so dearly want it to be something that dumbfounds science, proves the beyond -the material -natural and validates Godfaith.

But that is why the naturalist default is as rock solid as the logical basis of atheism and the theist cobblers are in a vice. So we can forgive them the occasional squeal of protest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 04:48 PM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think it might be ok to thread on it. After all, the discussion on Consciousness in a robot went on in philosophical discussion for a long time, because I am sure the Mods could see the relevance to religion or not.
The same thing happened in a thread on the rationale of atheism - it quickly got onto Philosophy because the two main proponents of atheism not being logically sound were arguing from the Philosophical point of view.
So that is all relevant.
Incidentally, I see Mystic's argument about consciousness ..not conforming to the materialist default as being pretty irrelevant. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, when it is explained and understood, it will be part of the 'material'. Until then, it is 'Unknown'.
The religious Quantum -Wooists, agnostic uncosciousnists (TM) and Choprachian Taoists get annoyed that anything unknown is 'Uknown' but as soon as it is understood and explained, it becomes Science. And they so dearly want it to be something that dumbfounds science, proves the beyond -the material -natural and validates Godfaith.
But that is why the naturalist default is as rock solid as the logical basis of atheism and the theist cobblers are in a vice. So we can forgive them the occasional squeal of protest.
AS usual, you overstate your position in a very tenuous default that has serious issues with what we DO know . . . not just what we don't. Actually the misunderstanding is on both sides of this debate. We are dealing with entirely human cognitive constructs that may or may not have any structural equivalence with our reality. As finite creatures, we are not capable of envisioning an infinite reality . . . without a beginning and an end. When we drive our mathematical models backwards we seek to find the beginning . . . and instead find mathematical non-entities (infinities or singularities). We attempt to interpret them as best we can in our finite perceptual rubric . . . and fail. We also have to employ imaginary numbers in some of our mathematical formulations (wave functions) because the entire process of going backward in time IS imaginary. There is no such thing in our reality.

We are encumbered by the very limitations our perceptions and sensory experiences place on us. We use discrete measures of things that are not discrete and are themselves measurement events that actually reflect the quantum formation time of our instantaneous awareness. We then model these discrete entities (events) using our created artificial rules and procedures in our "measured time" in the hope that we can mimic the outcomes we see in our reality. We have been very successful at the macro level in doing so . . . but we run into difficulties in the micro world. This causes us further grief in interpreting and we get silly things like indeterminacy and virtual particles and the like . . . besides coming up against limits and constants . . . like the planck length and the speed of light.

The confidence necessary to make ANY firm conclusions about origins or ends for our reality exceeds our capabilities or extant information, period. Engaging in semantic terpsichore around terms like nothing, something, vacuum, virtual, emergent, etc. is simply foolishness. Despite the arrogance of the likes of Hawkins . . . we can make no definitive conclusions either way . . . God or no God . . . using science. Any speculation on the beginning of our reality is just that speculation . . . because the very concepts of beginning and end are entirely human and based on our finite existences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 05:35 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100
As usual, you ignore the significance of what we do know and focus on what we don't know. You are wasting posting time trying to sell me fake stock that I have examined and sussed.

Just saying - carry on trying to flog it to others, and welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 06:23 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post

The confidence necessary to make ANY firm conclusions about origins or ends for our reality exceeds our capabilities or extant information, period. Engaging in semantic terpsichore around terms like nothing, something, vacuum, virtual, emergent, etc. is simply foolishness. Despite the arrogance of the likes of Hawkins . . . we can make no definitive conclusions either way . . . God or no God . . . using science. Any speculation on the beginning of our reality is just that speculation . . . because the very concepts of beginning and end are entirely human and based on our finite existences.
Maybe I am just confused. you both are kind of saying the same thing to me.

I hate the word "materialistic" because it gives phyleo's much more credit than they deserve. I mean I could be a phleo but most of the can't get my degrees. Be that as it may. Arg means that we should anchor what we believe in the standard model. It addresses all the limits you bring up here too.

you both have valid points and we all have to be honest in our past experiences effecting our present beliefs. The standard model is not complete. It's not "perfect". But it's all we gotz. So base our belief in it and be happy when we find out where it is wrong. because that brings real joy ... "wow, check out what we just found!!!" . or, If you believe in god then cry out "wow, god is "bigger and smarter" than I thought before."

many math people and physics are arrogant. believe me I know. So what, listen to what they say, not how they say it. I learnered that real hard? I can tell you how I flunked a physics class (E&M) because I stood up and said, "You can't talk to those girls like that professor". lmao, So for my arrogance I got to take it twice. First class I ever passed all the test and flunked the course. I was learner-ed real good.

Just because we don't know doesn't give us the right to make stuff up. But, some of us like speculating and discussing. so what do we do? THE STARDAND MODLE and PEEP-B. Past Experiences Effecting Present e-Beliefs. They are not bad anchoring points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2015, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,756 posts, read 5,542,681 times
Reputation: 5403
MysticPhD,

You are essentially using the same argument that the creationists use: "there's stuff we still don't know, therefore there must be some supernatural explanation." It's the classic God of the Gaps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 01:12 AM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
MysticPhD,
You are essentially using the same argument that the creationists use: "there's stuff we still don't know, therefore there must be some supernatural explanation." It's the classic God of the Gaps.
No I am not. First I do not believe there is ANYTHING supernatural, period. Everything is natural . . . some is just not yet understood. I am defending the God of the EXISTENT . . . the Source of EVERYTHING that EXISTS. You are the one proffering the God of ignorance because YOU do not know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 05:13 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100
I don't know why you post such things. You know and I know that "God" a forward -planning cosmic mind - is behind your arguments. Even if it was not, the analogy is correct for something More - something science doesn't know about and which therefore materialistic naturalism does not and cannot factor in when constructing explanatory hypotheses.

That is why atheism cannot credit the 'New Message' in whatever form it is presented, without some better evidence. And it is logically and rationally mandated that we should not.

And dragging the red herring of the 'Supernatural' across the track is purely crafty. you know very well what the Freak was arguing. Which is where we came in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 08:03 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
logically speaking: holding a belief based on what is not known or things we personally don't understand is stupid.

Using what we do know is the only logical method to hold a belief. The stance "there is something" over "there no-nothing" is more logical. On every logical level.

emotionally, we can make up any logic we want.
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