901. Fleabytes

Comment #139389 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 5:31 pm

MPhil,
I think I am getting it.

Do you agree that you will never have the experience of anyone else as physical brain structures are unique?

902. Fleabytes

Comment #139387 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Poor old wooter.
Where have all the theists gone?

hello?

Eternal soul here.

Going straight to hell without saving.
Convince me.
At least try.

903. Fleabytes

Comment #139379 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

those who argue that the qualitative nature of consciousness is not merely another way of categorizing states of the brain or of behaviour, but a genuinely emergent phenomenon.

Or to put it positively:

The qualitative nature of consciousness is another way of categorizing states of the brain or of behaviour.

Can I try to put this in not-so-smart-guy terms?

If a set of neurons in my brain fire off in a particular manner I experience a particular thought. If waves of these patterns occur I experience conscious thought.
(I read somewhere that a critical mass of neural activity has to occur for consciousness - to differentiate from dream states for example).
If the same waves of neural activity could be reproduced in another brain, that brain would have my consciousness. We would experience the same conscious state.

Now because my brain is unique, no one will ever experience exactly my consciousness. So in practical terms my experience, my consciousness is, and will remain uniquely mine.

If it could be the case that a physical structure identical to my brain in every respect were to be created, then it would also share my conscious thought. Except it would be spatially different.

Am I in the ballpark?

904. Fleabytes

Comment #139291 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Welcome to Loserville.

Thanks. I feel I am in good company.

905. Fleabytes

Comment #139282 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I know I am way out of my league here when discussing consciousness; I just haven't read enough about it. I hope you indulge me here.

I know you are discussing the 'hard' problem of consciousness. But is it not the case that the 'easy' problem has not completely been solved?
The neural correlate of consciousness, although supposedly the easy part of the question, has not been defined/explained completely. Is it possible that when we figure out exactly what happens in the brain when we experience consciousness, we will have a better clue as to what consciousness is?
I hope I am making sense.

906. Fleabytes

Comment #139274 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Shaden and Fedler, Thanks.
I figured it out. I took 15 double-sided pages to print one web page of 50 comments.
I think I'll save the paper.

1437 pages into a 6MB file. This thing is a book.

I'll say.
The weird thing is that I have read all of it!
I really need to get out more.

907. Fleabytes

Comment #139170 by Frankus1122 on March 5, 2008 at 8:50 am

I have absolutely loved this thread. From serious to silly and back again.

On a serious note: would it be possible for me to get a copy of this as a pdf?

Could someone more smarter than me create that and post it somewhere?
Maybe once it has gone to sleep (if it ever does).

908. Fleabytes

Comment #138737 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Secondly when I mentioned one specific answer I had received to prayer, I wrote down how I thought you would react. Liar, cheat (writing cheques without having the money), what about the poor, suffering etc.

David, people call you a liar and stupid and you get upset. Why?

I was giving one specific personal example of a specific answer to prayer. And if, as is apparent, some here cannot work out the difference between coming across £10 and receiving a specific sum of £87.50 in answer to a specific prayer,

David, many people posted that this example of prayer answered was not an example of prayer answered at all. Much evidence was given in the form of logical argument.
I asked what is the difference between your answered prayer and the person who prays for rain to the Earth Goddess and then gets rain?

Surely you can see that either your evidence for answered prayer is exactly the same as the New Age Earth Goddess worshipper or that neither is evidence at all.

The sum was specific?
I was hoping to buy a used canoe. The one I was looking at was $850. I did not have the money. I was walking in a town several kilometers from the one in which I live. I spotted a $20 bill on the ground. Just beyond that was another. And then another and then a few $50s. By the time I had gathered all the money I had $850. I looked around and could see no one that looked like they had lost any money.
I went home.
I thought a while and then called the police.
Had anyone reported any lost money?
Police: Yes. How much did you find?
Me: How much was lost?
Police: How much did you find?
Me: You first.
Police: A lady reported that she lost $850.
I turned in the money and got a nice thank you note.

I guess that is also evidence of God. He was testing me. Yea! I get to go to heaven!
Me: But wait, I deny Your existence.
GOD: Sorry about that. I love you but you go to hell.

David, your evidence isn't evidence. Anyone who has any concept of sane rational logical thought can see that.
If you truly cannot see that then you are, in fact, stupid. I do not say this to be mean. Facts are facts.
If you do understand that what you have tried to pass off as evidence of God answering your prayer, is, in fact, no evidence at all, and yet you claim it to be such, then you are a liar.

I guess you are not really open to any kind of rational argument.

Right back at ya babe.

909. Fleabytes

Comment #138714 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Bonzai

Thanks for the info on Atran. Dennett suggested it could be a meme.

I don't know from memes. I see patterns of behaviour that are passed on culturally; strong ideas, useful ways of seeing the world. Like the food we eat and the clothes we wear are ideas that get passed on through our culture, I think the same can be said of religious ideas. So yes, they can change. However, built into the religious idea is a resistance to such change.

910. Fleabytes

Comment #138708 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I don't think any healthy human can be an uber-rationalist. Sometimes the best adaptive strategy is to be irrational.

Yes! I remember this episode. It was where Spock lost it in the Roika mating ritual.

911. Fleabytes

Comment #138683 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Lorien

It could also be possible that religious minds have evolved physiologically towards these traits, possibly making it practically impossible to change people's minds. If that is true there is nothing wrong with faith as much as there is nothing wrong with someone with blue eyes.

Dennett describes religion as a meme that has benefits for itself but not necessarily the host. It is in some ways like the common cold virus. It won't kill you but on the other hand it doesn't really do you any good. Although this can't be said of religion in all instances.

912. Fleabytes

Comment #138622 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Lorien

what is causing religion?

Have you read Breaking the Spell?

Dennett attempts to provide some suggestions as to why it might have arisen and why it is so persisitent. (attempts to provide some suggestions --sounds McGrathish)

It has a built in mechanism that prevents scruitiny. If you question the faith and find it wanting then there is something wrong with you. You need to strengthen your faith by persisting. This may explain Mother Theresa's continuation in her role despite the fact that she really didn't 'feel the presence of god' in her life.

913. Fleabytes

Comment #138610 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Bonzai:

In practice it is an art in many ways. So so science may be just consisting of checking fact and proceeding logically, but not the truly brilliant science. It is a combination of taste, insights, and seeing things from odd angles which other people would not have thought of.

We are, of course, pattern seeking beings. We see elephants and clouds and Jesus on our toast.

However, we have amazingly complex brains that can construct intricate and detailed patterns which can be mistaken for actual maps of 'reality'. The constructed worlds of science fiction and fantasy are examples of this.

Thinking in this way can lead to new insights. What if this wasn't the only universe? What if there were multiple universes? Could it be real? What starts initially as a fantasy, turns into science when evidence proves that the pattern fits well.

So scientists need to have flights of fancy; to look at the world from odd angles. The ideas they come up with need to 'fit' however. Experimental results need to confirm the hypothesis or what you have is just an interesting idea.

I think that religion or the concept of god is an interesting idea that just doesn't 'fit'. It does fit in many ways. It has its benefits. It brings comfort, it explains how we came to be and what our purpose is. It tells us how we should treat one another and provides a framework for our lives.
But...
there are cracks in the theory. There are cracks that should tell us that it is false.
There are other stories that fit better. Science is a better story.
Science has built into it this idea: this is the story so far. We know it needs some work and we are currently revising it to come up with a better version.

The book of religion has been sent to the printer and published. Each new edition, however, contains the same errors as the last edition.

How's that little metaphor?

914. Fleabytes

Comment #138401 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 9:10 am

When you abandon reason for a 'deeper'/'higher' understanding there are no limits as to what is and is not acceptable.

D Robertson can think that God sent him the money for the bus. He sees it in that light. He sees events that happen in the world through that filter of faith. Hence he has 'evidence' of God intervening in the natural world.

Okay, but:

I prayed to the Earth Mother for rain because my tomatoes were wilting. A couple of days later it rained. More 'evidence'. Just as acceptable because there are no standards as to what is considered evidence.

Is this why there is such deafening silence from the theists with regard to the call for evidence?

915. Fleabytes

Comment #138358 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 8:27 am

It is people like McGrath I find really bizarre

I was listening to a faith/spiritual themed radio program on the weekend and the guest said that people get too concerned with the "facts" when asking questions about spiritual experience. The facts don't matter.

I think the objection would be that using 'reason' as the sole basis for conducting your life is, well, unreasonable. But there is the problem for someone who does think that reason is reasonable; not only that but necessary. When you abandon reason for a 'deeper'/'higher' understanding there are no limits as to what is and is not acceptable.

Am I right about this Steve? You seem to have been asking in past posts for the standard by which one would judge the claims made by those who believe in what would otherwise be unbelieveable things.

916. Fleabytes

Comment #138276 by Frankus1122 on March 4, 2008 at 6:05 am

With all this tendency toward forgiveness and turning the other check you would think this was a Christian site.

Actually, no.

Actually actually I am enormously proud to be marginally associated with this site. The sense of community and the kindness and reasonableness has got me all emotional.
I often laugh out loud when on this site; I am now welling up with the evidence of goodness shown here.

I'm off to weep now.

917. Fleabytes

Comment #137965 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

I was actually going for Churchill's:

"This is an impertinence up with which I will not put!"

when he was criticised/criticized for ending a sentence with a preposition.

918. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #137961 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I agree. I don't want to get into the Climate Change issue here. I merely brought up my experience with both movies and a group of 12 year olds. I was trying to show them that there were ways to check claims and pointers to potential bias. I said they could do some more research on their own and then the bell rang and they went to math class.

Hopefully I got them thinking and considering the fact that some issues are complex and do require a bit of work in determining the truth.
We then went on the next day to look at various newspapers and tried to determine if there was any bias evident in them.
These are 12-13 year old kids. I was not expecting them to do an exhaustive fact checking of all the scientists in TGGWD. They are just getting their feet wet with this type of stuff. I am trying to point them in the right direction.

919. Fleabytes

Comment #137953 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm

The only problem with the site is there is way too much to keep up with.

Or for the grammarians:

There is way too much with up I must keep.

No, that's not right. How about:

There is way too much with which I must keep.

Help!

920. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #137833 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Yes, I got most of that from "The Great Global Warming Debate" which I watched immediately after Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." What am I to believe? Which side is science and which is pseudoscience? How do I tell? Can I tell?

I am only going to comment on this small part.
I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' with my class. I then watched 'The great Global warming Debate'with my class.
What were we to make of these two opposing viewpoints?
We did a little research. Nothing really in depth. We Googled and Wikipediaed both movies.
We found that there was some controversy around TGGWD. Some of the scientist felt they were taken out of context.
We then looked at the names of the other scientists in the movie. We randomly chose one and looked up his credintials. We discovered that he worked for a think-tank called the (?) Something(can't remember) Group. we looked up this organization and found that a portion of their funding came from Exxon.
It was a good lesson for the students. It was not an exhaustive search but we have the technology to do this sort of thing fairly easily.

921. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137817 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Hello,
wondering when you were going to get around to answering any questions.

Your inability to do so is making many feel like they have won this argument with you.

Please provide some answers.
Our eternal souls depend on you.
Do it for God.

922. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137803 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I've always wanted to fight a dog with my bare hands.

923. Fleabytes

Comment #137732 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Reverend Dark

Sam Harris's recent written debate was excellent; with his opponent steadily giving ground.

Was this with Andrew Sullivan?
Where Harris says at one point:

You simply wrote to inform me that you have never doubted God's existence, cannot account for how you came to believe in Him, and are well aware that these facts will not (and should not) persuade me of the legitimacy of your religious beliefs. I now feel like a tennis player, in mid-serve, who notices that his opponent is no longer holding a racket.

I love that last line. I am afraid that is what it boils down to.
Any theist care to contradict me?
Any theist want to tell me by what criteria they judge which passages in the Bible are metaphors and by what criteria they then determine the absolute meaning of those passages?

924. Fleabytes

Comment #137615 by Frankus1122 on March 3, 2008 at 8:59 am

The Atheist's Handbook it clearly states that you are required to barbecue at least one Christian every year

I hope no one is suggesting that we actually eat someone. I had enough of that at St. Thomas More catholic church every Sunday for the first 20 years of my life. I then became a vegetarian and had to leave the church.

For further commentary on eating flesh and drinking blood see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XzaOMd3COE

925. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137314 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 4:24 pm

looks like it's time to renew my ROM membership! :)

I'm booking a trip to the ROM with my class when I get to school tomorrow.

926. Fleabytes

Comment #137276 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Procrastination must be necessary for smart-types

Cartomancer said he becomes more eloquent when he procrastinates.

I'm not very smart but also I put off things. Usually my house gets really clean but lately I've been hanging out here instead of writing reports.

927. Fleabytes

Comment #137199 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Naive observer: Uh, I don't know why you're freaking out, dude

Hey! I've done that!

Then I became the freaking out dude.

928. Fleabytes

Comment #137198 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 2:00 pm

You only think that the text has been rewritten a number of times is because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

Wow!
Are there not Biblical scholars who have looked at hundreds of copies with hundreds of errors?
Yes there are.

SNAP

929. Fleabytes

Comment #137188 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Evolution explains all the shapes, sizes and variation in life.
Thermodynamics explains that an immaterial god can't affect the universe.
That's enough to rule out the god of christianity.

SNAP

930. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137180 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Did you ever think that perhaps your paradigm of life may be limited? Do you ever reflect that someone may have a perspective of life you've never considered?

Maybe you are right. I have found that when I become absolutely convinced of something I tend to disregard the possibility that I may be wrong. I try not to be so arrogant as to believe I have the absolute final answer to every question.

Maybe you need to ask yourself these questions.

931. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137161 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm

"'personal freedom above all' cannot rule supreme"

I disagree. Do you have a specific example by which to examine this idea that you would label as such?

Again, mind your own business. Did these people ask for you help? Did these people ask for your defense? Why would you or anyone be so arrogant to think that another person was incapable of taking care of him/her self?

Does one not have the personal freedom to do whatever s/he wants? If Stryrer or Steve or SharonMcT or Cartomancer or Frankus feel it is their business to tell you we think you are way out of line with your vicious vehement vitriol why do you feel that we do not have that right?

It's always about the other person, though, isn't it. It's never about your personal approach or choices.

SNYC, I don't what you to let loose on me but I feel I need to tell you that you come off as a bit of a nutter. Now maybe you are and maybe you aren't. I don't really know you. I can only judge from what I read here. Based on what I've read you seem to too easily jump to the red zone.

You are personally free to do what you like and respond as you see fit. But in a society of people you don't get to make all the rules, or ignore the conventions of semi-polite discourse without suffering the consequences.
What are those consequences?
Nobody likes you.
Now, you may not care about this and that is fine. But you are going to find yourself isolated and alone with no one to talk to.
That is what I mean when I say personal freedom cannot reign supreme.

What do you think? Can you respond without the name calling? I know I said you come off as a bit crazy and out of control, but can you prove me wrong?

932. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137060 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 9:01 am

To Murtzuphlus:

Fuck you.



:)

933. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137053 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 8:36 am

I think I said I try to opt for a more nuanced/sophisticated outlook. Nuanced has connotations of wishy-washy. Sophisticated has other connotations with which I am not particularly comfortable. But perhaps you get the idea.

I just admire the questioning of some basic moral assumptions in society like the general assumption that "selfishness is evil" or "sacrifice is good".

These are not black and white issues. Again, there is a middle way.

They're just too ambiguous for that.

Yes.

934. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137046 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 8:18 am

when I was defending Ayn Rand

dogmatic about my political views

that would be too evolved to do.

These 3 quotes from this thread stick out for the following reason. It has been my observation (not a statistical fact in any way that I can prove) that many people go through an Ayn Rand phase in their early post secondary education. However, they often grow out of it as their thinking becomes more sophisticated (?)/ nuanced (?) and less dogmatic.
I hope that is not perceived as hurling insults.
We'll see.

935. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137027 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 7:05 am

Frankus:

Sometimes you may need to forgo certain personal freedoms for your greater good

SNYC:

You can claim an altruistic action is for someone's greater good

You misunderstood my point. While admitting that it all ultimately comes down to self interest, there are intervening stages where the idea of 'personal freedom above all' cannot rule supreme. Personal freedoms are willing given up because it ultimately is better for you.

936. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137006 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 5:48 am

ALL INTERESTS ARE PERSONAL INTERESTS

Please tell me where this statement is wrong - ON ANY LEVEL?

There is no interest that is NOT personal self-interest.

But not always directly so. Your personal freedom dogma is an example. Sometimes you may need to forgo certain personal freedoms for your greater good.

937. Fleabytes

Comment #136998 by Frankus1122 on March 2, 2008 at 5:32 am

From Brian English:

I find it quite astonishing that a theist will say god is unknowable with one hand and say she/he knows god's qualities and will with the other.

I cannot believe how dim-witted you atheists can be!
Of course God is ultimately unknowable because He is beyond human comprehension. But He loves us so He REVEALS Himself to us through the Holy Bible in a way that everyone can understand.

Jeesh!

938. Leaving the Faith

Comment #136814 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Steven Pinker has some good stuff on Big Think as well.

http://www.bigthink.com/experts/browse-by-name/steven-pinker/1

939. Fleabytes

Comment #136781 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Steve about David Robertson:

Unless he is just making things up.

I am getting a lot of laughs tonight.

I also love the philosophy stuff. I'm no MPhil but it was my major in university.

940. Fleabytes

Comment #136739 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Steve,

I can begin to see Robertson's ploy

I honestly think you give him too much credit.
You are using your sophisticated mind to see subtle potential patterns that are not there.

941. Fleabytes

Comment #136733 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Brian,

They need to dress up their faith with rationality so that it doesn't seem vulgar.

But if the rationality is ultimately lacking doesn't it all boil down to the same thing?

942. Fleabytes

Comment #136722 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm

mikejswalker, that is what I was trying to do. It is sort of hard but I like the idea. We should be able to see things from their point of view.

In that regard:

MPhil says:

And furthermore, the problems with consciousness, agency, personhood and being perfect - and outside of space(time) is something they cannot get around with any interpretation.

What didn't you understand about God being above and beyond our understanding? There are things about God which are mysterious; there are paradoxes which seem impossible to believe, but with God all things are possible.


Is that about right for a theist argument?
I am seriously asking.

943. Fleabytes

Comment #136700 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Ah, but then we can point out that it is silly to use human terms (like omnipotent) to describe him.

Wrong!
The correct answer is:

"How can you know anything about Him?"
or
"How do you know 'God's ways are not man's ways'?

How do you know anything that you make up about God is true?


Okay, your answer is good too.

944. Fleabytes

Comment #136673 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 2:43 pm

MPhil:

You seem to have forgotten one little thing:

"God's ways are not man's ways."

Because of His omnipotence He is not bound by your, so called, Logic. You are limited by your puny human brain and your puny human logic. The Logic of God includes the irrational and the non-sensical. It is beyond (more complex than) human understanding.
Just because there is no humanly way possible to seriously believe in the Bible god does not mean that he does not exist.
If He doesn't exist then how do you explain the 80 pounds (I don't know where that pound symbol is on my keyboard) that he gave to David Robertson?

945. Fleabytes

Comment #136641 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Have you seen the message you get if you click on GOD HIMSELF's user name? !!!!

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

946. Fleabytes

Comment #136634 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 2:03 pm

To GOD HIMSELF
You beat me to it.
I was just creating a new email and everything.
DAMN YOU!

947. Fleabytes

Comment #136613 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm

You asked for some evidence - I keep giving it to you and you keep either ignoring or ridiculing.

Okay. Try again.

clearthinker, was the money thing really offered as evidence? Seriously? Because if it was then -not to ridicule but- it was not really evidence.

If a Wiccan prays to Mother Earth for a good harvest and then gets a bumper crop are we to accept his/her testimony?

Surely you can see .....

You know what? Forget it.

948. Fleabytes

Comment #136577 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Storeo:

Lets suppose that the claim that Christians, on average, give more to charities than atheists is true. Would this say the slightest thing about the claim that Jesus was the son of God

No. I think hello is trying to say that Christians are better/ more moral people than atheists.
Of course we have the prison statistics.

Hello, I am a fence sitting atheist. I want to believe in god but I need some evidence.

Convince me with something incontrovertible.

My soul depends on you.

949. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136514 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

My powers of verbal expression increase markedly in direct proportion to how much I procrastinate and how little work I get done on my doctoral thesis.

The only thing that happens to me when I procrastinate (I have report cards to write) is my house gets clean.

Satan, you say. Hmmm.

950. Fleabytes

Comment #136509 by Frankus1122 on March 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

To be fair, they do provide what they believe is evidence (such as personal revelation).

Well, I was going to sample his 'getting the money he prayed for' as the type of evidence provided but to be honest I really didn't want to get into it with him.

You are right (again). There have been some conversations but it does sort of degenerate into 'I believe god is a time traveling alien who speaks to me in my head' sort of thing in the way of proof.