|
Ah, atheism chat. Never boring. To answer the OP (and keep in mind that this is my personal views): Atheism is a choice concerning how one wishes to see the sunrise, as it were. As we grow, our world is impacted by those around us. Cultural norms, societal cues and, yes, beliefs and interpretations come from an amalgamation of our experiences and our own logical processes putting it together. We grow, we accumulate and build upon those notions that we already have. And the process never really stops until we shuffle off the mortal coil. The choice comes from when those logical processes hit a roadblock and we have to find a way around it. Do we see the sunrise as a beautiful function of an unseen force, explained by a deity in years past up until now? Or do we see it as a beautiful function of our planetary rotation? From there, do we see the planetary rotation as divine will, or natural law? Can we observe the divine creation, or merely bask in it's existence? And so the questions branch and twist and turn, becoming our own personal styles of belief. But each question is a choice, a place to decide what view of the world fits inside your beliefs. To me, the sunrise is the intricate clockwork of a universe that gives not a single gently caress about us. We are alone, drifting in a dark chasm around a star, governed by natural laws and pure chance. And the fact that I'm here, at this point in time to shitpost on a smartphone with people I will never know, is the closest thing to a miracle I can describe.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
les fleurs du mall posted:Just pausing discussion here to say happy valentine's day to you all and point out that without religion we wouldn't have this festival of love! From human sacrifice to Hallmark cards. Also, I say we bring back Lupercalia. Go Rome or Go Home!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I went to church today and while there I prayed to a God I believe in, but don't think there's conclusive proof it exists. Agnostic theist. You don't know (Or don't think) the answer can be proven conclusively, but still believe in God. There's tons of micro-organization poo poo like this on r/atheism that I remember back from my dark days in that mindset. But you do you, man. No one else can do you. Nonviolent J posted:i have a whore butt Is this love for cock a choice, or do you have a deterministic whore butt?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I don't see why not putting science on a pedestal makes me a troll, but okay. That's not what you are doing. You are stating that pseudoscience doesn't harm anyone (false), that there's no reason to care about it (false) and then treating it like a temp job rather than an intensive field of study. Should we just import some preachers or pastors? You are either trolling, or being an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Metaphysics isn't magic, even if you're non-religious. Google'd Metaphysics. Definitions: Google posted:The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. No basis in reality kind of sums up Magic. And, for atheists, sums up God. One in the same, and all that. Can we please stop this self-serving crapfest, admit what side of the ideological aisle we're posting from, and get back to the topic at hand? Wait, we can't, because we've already cleared the topic pages ago. rudatron posted:Your dumb little gotcha has already been disarmed, somewhat at length. To remind you: all beliefs are choices, are choices are subject to moral judgement, but there are still right and wrong choices, and if you want to be right, you need to make the right choice. Don't give up your day job, because you're a terrible trapper of the most dangerous game. So stop being pendantic, you damned pendants.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Googled magic. Definitions: I'm going to base my argument away from Clarke's law on magic and technology, simply for the sake of clarity. 'Mysterious' and 'Supernatural' are, in their useage, not based in reality. Whatever causes the action isn't knowable or observable using realistic natural laws, and therefor comes from somewhere outside of reality. So, yeah, still having no basis in reality. And that right there? The little passive-aggressive 'Well, that's not the EXACT text' thing you did? That's the definition of pedantic. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedantic posted:pedanticor pedantical Covers the bases. And, yeah, I mis-spelled it the first time around. I can admit my mistakes. And once again, it all just detracts from what people are saying to you in this thread: That God, and Religion, don't have a scientific basis to work from. It's a matter of faith, which itself precludes reason, and shouldn't be treated in the same manner as scientific observation. Personally, that's not to say that religion is wrong. They're just two separate questions, and mashing them together makes this complicated and messy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I'm not claiming that any part is 'out of the brain', nor is any part 'in the brain'. Such talk is nonsense. Space and time present themselves as modes for cognition to the mind. Then it makes no sense to identify the mind with spatio-temporal structures such as the brain. The mind is prior, immediate to itself. So, instead of saying, as you did earlier, that there are parts of consciouness that exist outside of the brain, you are now saying that the brain and the mind are entirely separate things, acted upon by different forces. Did I get that right? Not asking sarcastically, legit trying to follow your train of thought. Okay, what are the differences? What distinction exists between mind and brain? Is the brain the storage for the mind, or a parallel structure, or a separate concept? How are they interconnected? And what are these forces effecting things outside the brain?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
So, to review: The Kingfish has no idea about the definition of historical documents, literally contradicts himself within sentences of each other, and then blames other people for not understanding his meaning. Crowsbeak is still going 'hey, REDDIT! hahahah I have the high ground trillby wearing idiot!' and generally being a poo poo. The Belgian is continuing his 'No, You!' streak, and is currently on a tangent about how the Mind and Brain are two separate entities, despite being asked to show any correlation about these things and refusing to do so. Good to know. Ok, fine. You want a 'reddit atheist'? You guys are the definition of the chess-playing pigeon. Currently you've moved past the 'first move' phase, and are currently stuck in a 'making GBS threads on the board' loop. Once people stop listening to your stupid, repetitive bullshit then you'll be in the full 'strut around in victory' phase, and then the thread will get gassed. This isn't even a debate any longer. You latch onto the smallest, simplest fallacies in the counter-argument and blow them completely out of proportion to mask the fact that you can't answer the basic questions or respond to the counter arguments of people debating you. You've moved the goalposts so far out of the original arena that they're currently sitting a few counties apart. So, a little personal attachment: The Belgian: If you believe that the mind can experience things outside the brain, then please show us proof. Otherwise your argument has no basis to form itself on, and should be revisited. Crowsbeak: Actually spend some time on r/atheism, or r/truechristianity, and see just how bitter, vitrolic and asinine people can get. who what now, rudatron and sedanchair have all at least tried to put some substance into their arguments before they called you raving idiots. Opening your mouths only helps prove their points about being raving idiots. The Kingfish: The meaning 'historical document' that you have and that rudatron has are different. You say it's any document from the past; rudatron says it's a document that has a historical purpose. Honestly, your definition would also put tales of Atlantis and the Epic of Gilgamesh as historical documents, which does nothing to prove their veracity or value to historians outside of cultural trends. Also, when you post sentences in direct contradiction, like: The Kingfish posted:The bible is not a biography. The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. There is historical evidence in the Bible because it is made up of a series of historical documents. Then it undercuts your arguments. Can we please stop this poo poo now and get onto a topic that actually moves forward? How about a new topic, here we go: Belief is influenced by culture and upbringing. So, if a person's beliefs change, what do you think are some of the factors in that change?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I have repeatedly stated my own position with perfect clarity. I presented useful background material as you guys are clearly unfamiliar with phenomonalism and phenomenology. Quantum Theory Quote! Richard Feynman posted:I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Also, interjecting about the Husserl stuff: Interesting read. But, once again, it avoids the major question that's been asked so far: What constitutes 'outside the brain' influences on the mind? And on another subject, how do we measure/observe those influences? All respect to the material, but it seems that Husserl is speaking from more of a spiritual perspective rather than a naturalistic perspective. The end of your first infoblock sums it up fairly well: The Belgian's 'Husserl', part one posted:As was the case previously with the psychic, everything that has newly flowed in is now concretely localised in the world through the living body, which is essentially always constituted along with it. I - the-man, together with the transcendental dimension now ascribed to me, am somewhere in space at some time in the world's time. Thus every new transcendental discovery, by going back into the natural attitude, enriches my psychic life and (apperceptively as a matter of course ) that of every other. Husserl sees himself as two distinct entities: The physical self and the transcendental dimensional self. The argument we are having now is whether there is evidence for this secondary self, or if the brain and it's reactions are the source of what we know as 'self'. Which isn't answered by what you posted. Philosophically it wraps up nicely; observably, not so much. The Belgian's 'Husserl' part two posted:But does this mean that it is in the world in the way that the physical body is and that, when men with living bodies and souls are experienced in the world as real, their reality, as well as that of their living bodies and souls, could have the same or even a similar sense to that of the mere physical bodies? Even though the human living body is counted among the physical bodies, it is still "living" - "my physical body," which I "move," in and through which I "hold sway," which I "animate." If one fails to consider these matters - which soon become quite extensive - thoroughly, and actually without prejudice, one has not grasped at all what is of a soul's own essence as such (the word "soul" being understood here not at all metaphysically but rather in the sense of the original givenness of the psychic in the life-world); and thus one has also failed to grasp the genuine ultimate substrate for a science of "souls." Rather than beginning with the latter, psychology began with a concept of soul which was not at all formulated in an original way but which stemmed from Cartesian dualism, a concept furnished by a prior constructive idea of a corporeal nature and of a mathematical natural science. And here he states, clearly, that physics cannot describe souls, and thus is burdened from the start. Though not the exact wording, this is the 'naive materialism' at the heart of your debate. But, once again, it offers no proofs. It's philosophical in nature, completely unprovable and unfalsifiable. Which, to a person who is asking for the scientific, observational answer to something, is pointless. There. Did I get everything, or did I leave something out?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Zodium posted:not at all looking to beat the meaning out of the word "physical," only to beat what it means to you out of existence. it is a fun pastime though, i'll give you that. i will give you that. Hallucinations come as an effect of chemical processes in the brain. They are not physical, but their causes are. Stop being a poo poo, you're not clever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Zodium posted:like I said, you and WWN are just regurgitating a mangled version of Churchland's neurophilosophy, which is really not as hot as happening anymore as it was when you were in college. you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everything's gonna stay just the way it was when your world view was at its most moldable forever, but eventually the consequences of ignoring reality always catches up with us. Then what's the alternative, how is it testable, and what do we do about it? You haven't answered any of that. You've just spouted off about us being ignorant about the subject and posting dumb thought exercises that can be answered again and again. It's a cycle of lovely posting. Nevermind the fact that outside hallucinogenic factors like LSD have been studied, and the mechanisms on how they happen are well documented. Or the fact that you yelling over and over about how neurophisiology is outdated, without giving any sort of successor or alternative with proper study? Y'know, this isn't even my field? I picked it up from the Discovery Channel. This is stuff Children know. (In case you didn't get the reference. You're still stupid.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:
Can we use experiences in the past, or do we have to start the few week cycle over again? Also, 'you really gotta want it' is a set of wheels on a goal post if I've ever seen them, because if the findings don't conform to your own, you can simply say that we didn't want it enough. Hence the argument continues forever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
So, here is a question: We've seen two sides to the 'believe with your heart' camp, one who said they didn't feel poo poo, and another who said they came to know god. So what? Is there any sort of repercussion or reward for one side or the other? Why does it matter what someone else finds at the end of the belief tunnel?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 20:31
|
|