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.
Can I ask why the atheists get to come over to spirituality forums and mock the faith and inteligence of believers in God and God's sovereign power ,how ever using a bible verse as a reference to a point youre making on an atheist thread is cause for a moderator edit? Are the atheists actually the "protected underdogs" from the big bad "love your enemy " bullies ?
Can I ask why the atheists get to come over to spirituality forums and mock the faith and inteligence of believers in a sovereign power ,how ever using a bible verse as a reference to a point youre making on an atheist thread is cause for a moderator edit? Are the atheists actually the "protected underdogs" from the big bad "love your enemy " bullies ?
You can ask indeed. For the same reason that Christians get to come to the forum and have a go at atheists in a way that wouldn't be allowed on A/A: because we can and because you can't. If you can't take the Flak, stick on Christianity.
And the 'love your enemy with denunciations, smearing and hellthreat' crowd used to be the bullies, but these days tend more to complain that we are the ones kicking the true believers off the forum sidewalk. In fact it looks to me like that's just what you're doing right now.
Can I ask why the atheists get to come over to spirituality forums ...
9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
... and mock the faith and inteligence of believers in God and God's sovereign power , ...
If we do, then it is because the arguments presented are stupid and worth mocking. Now if you have an intelligent argument, instead of the usual fallacies, ignorance of science and often pure invention, I am sure we will treat it with the respect it deserves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
... how ever using a bible verse as a reference to a point youre making on an atheist thread is cause for a moderator edit?
As I have yet to see that happen here, I can not answer this. Perhaps an example would help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstelm
Are the atheists actually the "protected underdogs" from the big bad "love your enemy " bullies ?
Well, the US DID have to make a law to prevent atheists being discriminated against because of their lack of religion. And some of the 'love your enemies crowd' do think we are dangerous, along with freedom, equality, and those pesky Jews.
It appears to me that there are people here asking honest questions and truthfully seeking an answer. There are those that have faith that there is God and there are those that have faith that there is no God. How is either party on a higher or lower ground?
We already did Mary's colour -perception. New information outside the room, but not new qualia.
We basically agree here. Mary doesn't "discover new qualia" - she was already studying the objective aspects of qualia while she was in the room. What she "discovers" is the qualitative feel of the qualia for her self. She experiences that aspect of red qualia for the first time, so this is new information for her.
Quote:
...Zombie ... Len mate, I don't see how that is a logical possibility as well as not being a practical possibility.
Logical possibility is a matter of "contradictions" in the definitions of terms, and can be roughly thought of in terms of inconceivability. A married bachelor and a square circle are logical impossibilities because of the definitions of the terms. A bachelor is defined as "not married" so a "married bachelor" is a direct contradiction. There is no logical contradiction between the terms of physics (e.g., mass, charge, location, etc.) and the term 'zombie' which references the lack of subjective qualitative experience. Since there is no logical contradiction, I can coherently conceive of a zombie in a practical way that I cannot coherently conceive of a round square.
Quote:
But let's say in terms of philosophical mind -games it Is a Logical possibility. What does it tell us a bout subjectivity or experience or qualia?
It tells us that qualia cannot be fully explained in the purely objective/quantitative terms available to current physics. Mary can know everything about the objective physical facts of the brains of people who are experience red, but this information, in itself, won't give her a full understanding of the first-person reality of what it is like to experience red for herself.
Quote:
But that I can't experience your qualia somehow meaning that physicalism/monism/ materialism can never, ever explain it doesn't seem to folow to me.
I don't know why your linking physicalism/monism/materialism together. It is ONLY materialism that has the a Hard Problem (which is actually not just a "hard" problem, but a logically impossible-to-solve problem for materialism). Physicalism is a broader term that can be interpreted to allow qualitative information, and monism just mean "one stuff" - which is not a problem at all if the "one stuff" is "Mind" or - as I'm proposing - fundamentally proto-qualitative.
Quote:
...but you DO think that materialism can explain qualia, in which case the physicalists don't need philosophy to tell them what a monster of a problem of explanation this is.
Materialism may be able to explain the objective/quantitative aspects of qualia, but it cannot, even in principle, fully explain the subjective/qualitative aspects (insofar as materialism limits itself to objectively-verifiable data) The missing part of the explanation will always be the "what its like to subjectively experience" qualia.
There is an extremely important conceptual difference between artifacts (i.e., things that are made for a purpose) and the stuff out of which artifacts are made. Thinkers create artifacts, but this does not in the least bit imply that thinker makes the stuff out of which artifacts are made. This is super-basic logic.
These two statements:
(1) Artifacts are made by thinkers.
(2) Artifacts are made of physical stuff.
Do not imply the conclusion:
(3) The physical stuff out of which artifacts are made was made by a thinker.
Getting to that conclusion requires a major premise that you have not supplied.
physical stuff is physical stuff.
and the process for physical anything being created is the same process:
it always starts with a thought (+feeling, desire, yearning + focused intention, attention)
and a thinker generates the thought
a house does not build itself.
there is an idea, builders, materials, blueprint.
same thing for a planet. or a galaxy. or a universe.
building a house for a family to call home
is the same process as building a planet for a species to call home.
There is an extremely important conceptual difference between artifacts (i.e., things that are made for a purpose) and the stuff out of which artifacts are made. Thinkers create artifacts, but this does not in the least bit imply that thinker makes the stuff out of which artifacts are made. This is super-basic logic.
These two statements:
(1) Artifacts are made by thinkers.
(2) Artifacts are made of physical stuff.
Do not imply the conclusion:
(3) The physical stuff out of which artifacts are made was made by a thinker.
Getting to that conclusion requires a major premise that you have not supplied.
everything has a purpose.
that includes "things which are made" and "the materials they are made out of"
the premise is supplied.
everything that is physical is the result of a thought that came before it.
and every thought is generated by a thinker, or a group of thinkers.
For hundreds of millions of years long before humans, creatures lived on this planet without a purpose or questions about existence. Then modern humans came along and invented questions, and invented the answers. We came up with the idea of purpose, and expected nature to fit our ideas around it's natural process.
The only purpose we can ascribe to nature is passing on of genes so that a species can continue to exist.
For hundreds of millions of years long before humans, creatures lived on this planet without a purpose or questions about existence. Then modern humans came along and invented questions, and invented the answers. We came up with the idea of purpose, and expected nature to fit our ideas around it's natural process.
The only purpose we can ascribe to nature is passing on of genes so that a species can continue to exist.
if you are saying that humans are the only beings with intelligence, meaning, and purpose, you are sadly mistaken. Also that is a very egocentric view.
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.
the 'love your enemy with denunciations, smearing and hellthreat' crowd used to be the bullies, but these days tend more to complain that we are the ones kicking the true believers off the forum sidewalk. In fact it looks to me like that's just what you're doing right now.
