An Atheist Speaks

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I sure do, but what would your decision be going only with the information I've provided?

There is only one sensible decision. Ask your questions on the way there!

There isn't enough information to answer. Quite honestly, the idea of a violent death one way and paradise the other sounds like bullshit anyway. So I'd abstain from taking either fork until more information was gathered. Maybe where I am is perfectly OK.

I figured you'd make a point of not making a decision. The original point remains though...you've still to answer that.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

A fallacy? How about this; your at a fork in the path. One road possibly leads to a painful and tortured death, whilst the other possibly leads to a happy and fulfilling life. Billions of people suggest you turn left. Not a single person suggests you turn right.

Which way would you go?

Would that decision be fallacy?

Well, at least one person has suggested going right. And his advice seems as credible as anyones.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

I liked that - but did he have billions of people suggesting one route and nobody suggesting the other?

It seems all he had was a bit of groundsign and intuition to decide from.

And, you'll love this; what evidence did he have that his route chosen was the best decision?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

Despite what's now obviously the wrong applications of christianity, it doesn't make it a useless tool. Isn't it obvious work is necessary, instead of an onslaught of destructive and pretty useless critiscism?

It doesn't make it a good tool either. We know that religion can lead people to do some pretty hideous things. That still goes on.

The problem is, god hasn't issued an update on religion. Man can't do it without convincing all the other men that it's actually god doing the updating. Even then you just get another faction branching off, usually labeled a cult.

So we are stuck with an outdated mythology that can't be updated, can't be scrapped and has the potential to do some good or unspeakable bad. If it was a peice of machinery you had to work with that had such a crap history of killing workers and innocent bystanders, it would be outlawed even if it did get the job done some of the time. But because it's religion, it gets special treatment. That's bollocks.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I figured you'd make a point of not making a decision. The original point remains though...you've still to answer that.

I have answered it. It's a logical fallacy to choose left due to popularity. Without more information the choice is essentially arbitrary, toss a fucking coin, it will do you just as much good. That's my answer and I'm sorry you don't like it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And, you'll love this; what evidence did he have that his route chosen was the best decision?

No less than the billions of people in your example had of their choice being the superior one.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

I'll get back to this point tomorrow - it's too late now.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

My issue was that you'd provided a statement I'd said. It was indeed similiar to my opinion but it wasn't in fact an actual statement I'd made. Big difference Sonny Jim.

Liar. I did not provide any pseudo-statement of yours in the post you took issue with. What I in fact wrote was a question to you in my own words. Wanna read it again? Here it is "And why is their effect irreplaceable? If people can be good without religion (which you have said) then why not communities?"

So, what I've done is demonstrate conclusively how you've continuously stated one thing and then, when called on it, claimed you've never said it. Now, pick one fucking position.

Can societies function normally without religion or can they not? Simple question, make it a simple answer.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

You haven't fucking answered it! Two decisions, left or right - that's all the options you'd have - and you'd pick the one a billion people suggest. Bet ya' 50p.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm a nobody in regarding how religion should be properly applied and I readily accept that fact. I just continually hear points concerning evil that's been a direct consequence of religion. But that hasn't been religions fault. It's man's misuse and misapplication of religion that's at fault - so it's an important aspect easily put aside in regards to arguments of religion being for good or bad.

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts.

How... convenient

Did I factually say that statement? That's only your interpretation. Poor point.

How can it be otherwise? You have categorically stated that anything bad that comes out of religion it cannot be used to judge religion - however you have favourably judged religion on the good things you say have come from it. The only wiggle room you have left yourself is whether all good things or merely some good things that come from religion are produced by the religion rather than the people.

So either way you still need to answer the question - why can religion not be judged on bad stuff and only judged on good stuff?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

My issue was that you'd provided a statement I'd said. It was indeed similiar to my opinion but it wasn't in fact an actual statement I'd made. Big difference Sonny Jim.

Liar. I did not provide any pseudo-statement of yours in the post you took issue with. What I in fact wrote was a question to you in my own words. Wanna read it again? Here it is "And why is their effect irreplaceable? If people can be good without religion (which you have said) then why not communities?"

So, what I've done is demonstrate conclusively how you've continuously stated one thing and then, when called on it, claimed you've never said it. Now, pick one fucking position.

Can societies function normally without religion or can they not? Simple question, make it a simple answer.

I'm calling it a night now Jakee, pants being on fire and what have you. I will show you the phrase you said I said which in actual fact I didn't tomorrow, in fact, maybe Monday. But it isn't in reference to the example you've provided.

Liar!

Not me sunshine.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

You haven't fucking answered it! Two decisions, left or right - that's all the options you'd have - and you'd pick the one a billion people suggest. Bet ya' 50p.

I have. You are asuming that those people have some knowledge that you don't. Well they haven't so any decision based on what they say is no better than a guess. So if you absolutely have to choose, toss a coin. Put my 50p into Sangiro's bail fund.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You haven't fucking answered it! Two decisions, left or right - that's all the options you'd have - and you'd pick the one a billion people suggest. Bet ya' 50p.

I'd take a look at the billion people, notice that most of them had all sorts of problems (disease, sorrow, loneliness, poverty, etc., etc., etc.). And then I'd probably take the other road, since the road these people are suggesting doesn't seem to be working too well for them.

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

You haven't fucking answered it! Two decisions, left or right - that's all the options you'd have - and you'd pick the one a billion people suggest. Bet ya' 50p.

It's a strawman, that's why. It has no bearing at all on the larger question.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Science can not explain everything, but neither can religion. In fact religion doesn't explain anything.

Is there anything new under the sun?
Let me paraphrase Solomon. Same old bullshit, different day.
The fact is, if you read the Bible as if it were just a book you picked up off of the library shelf, without the knowledge that there was mention of God in it, you would find a considerable amount of wisdom in the pages that is as good today as it was 4,000 yr. ago.

BTW, if you deny all historical accuracy of the Bible, you are living in a fantasy world.

[maadmax 0]

-- First, scientific truth is established by observation and repeatable experimentation, not God. Nor does it require faith. That's what is so great about science. There's no faith required.

Quote

I agree for proven scientific facts, I call it faith when it is still in the form of a theory. String theory, theory of evolution etc.

______________________________________

Back to spiritual truth:

--If it was established by God (another term that requires a definition), how is it different from religion?

God's Word is perfect, always true and incapable of corruption. Religion is man's attempt to improve on God's perfect Word. He creates these improvements in a state of self deified arrogance.

______________________________________

--If spiritual truth is vital to survival, how are non-spiritual atheists able to survive?

Quote

I don't see the death experience as the end of the road. I don't see acts committed by free will individuals on earth that are contrary to Gods Truth, as occurring in a vacuum. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction eternally. Evil acts have eternal consequences.

______________________________________

--Can you offer some examples of validated experimentation regarding spiritual knowledge?

Probably none that you would like. Spiritual truth is the building material we construct our realities out of. If well use defective spiritual values we construct a dysfunctional reality and suffer the consequences here and now, if we use Divinely inspired Truth we construct a reality that is characterized by a Peace that surpasses understanding, contentment, freedom. My spiritual experiment ,has been the testing of personal faith and knowledge to produced a inner reality beyond my wildest dreams.

_____________________________________

--Also, could you please define evil.

Quote

evil is all thoughts and actions produced in a self deified state, out side the Will of God.

______________________________________

• Quote

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I disagree. I never said billions of people having a faith in a God make his existance true. It just makes his existance more credible than a Carrowolves.

That is argumentum ad populum and it's still a logical fallacy.

A fallacy? How about this; your at a fork in the path. One road possibly leads to a painful and tortured death, whilst the other possibly leads to a happy and fulfilling life. Billions of people suggest you turn left. Not a single person suggests you turn right.

Which way would you go?

Would that decision be fallacy?

Unfortunately that is a poor analogy, because there are not just two roads at the fork, there are many. Each road has its supporters who claim happiness down their favorite and eternal misery for all the others. And, as has been previously stated, no-one making a claim has ever been down any of the roads, nor known anyone who has returned from such a trip.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I agree for proven scientific facts, I call it faith when it is still in the form of a theory.

I think you are confusing the terms theory and hypothesis.

A scientific law is an observed phenomena, such as gravity. A scientific theory is a construct, mathematical in the case of Physics, which utilizes laws in a manner that allows predictions. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is an example. It has been tested and observed to be the most accurate and precise tool we have to predict motion (on the macro scale), more so than Newton's famous equations.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an educated guess based on observed evidence or phenomena, presented in such a manner that it can be tested repeatedly and proven to be incorrect.

Quote

God's Word is perfect, always true and incapable of corruption.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? What examples of "God's Word" do you have? The only things I'm aware of that could be considered "God's Word" are also considered scientific laws, such as the law of gravity.

Quote

Religion is man's attempt to improve on God's perfect Word.

It's man's attempt at something, I'll grant that. I'm not so sure that something is "God's perfect Word," though.

Quote

I don't see the death experience as the end of the road. I don't see acts committed by free will individuals on earth that are contrary to Gods Truth, as occurring in a vacuum. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction eternally. Evil acts have eternal consequences.

I was just recently reading about a couple of experiments that credibly offer doubt regarding the existence of free will.

Quote

Quote

Can you offer some examples of validated experimentation regarding spiritual knowledge?

Probably none that you would like. Spiritual truth is the building material we construct our realities out of. If well use defective spiritual values we construct a dysfunctional reality and suffer the consequences here and now, if we use Divinely inspired Truth we construct a reality that is characterized by a Peace that surpasses understanding, contentment, freedom. My spiritual experiment ,has been the testing of personal faith and knowledge to produced a inner reality beyond my wildest dreams.

I'll take that as a "No."

Quote

Quote

Also, could you please define evil.

evil is all thoughts and actions produced in a self deified state, out side the Will of God.

So, if I define God as the universe, then there can be no evil, since that which is outside the "Will of God" is impossible. Without the ability to do evil, then I am assured to spend eternity with God.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JackC 0]

Quote

I was just recently reading about a couple of experiments that credibly offer doubt regarding the existence of free will.

I don't suppose you have a link for that?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I was just recently reading about a couple of experiments that credibly offer doubt regarding the existence of free will.

I don't suppose you have a link for that?

There’s actually been a fair amount of evidence collected over the last twenty years or so, most notably due to the introduction of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), i.e., better instrumentation that can show both 3-D structure & activity (rather than just one).

The May 2008 issue of Nature Neuroscience has section devoted to research on decision-making and the brain. Among the published papers is one entitled “Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain.” (PM me if you want the full text version for educational interest.)

Haynes has published previously on the topic, including a article last year in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Write-up on Haynes' work from Science: “Case Closed for Free Will?”

The underlying neuroscience is complex and neuronal connections (synapses) have to be formed at some point and synapses can/do reform ("plasticity").

The potential implications extend far beyond Judeo-Christian theology to law, ethical norms, and the great debates of the last 2000+ years of philosophy. One example from the February 2008 issue of Cornell Law International Law Journal: “Brave New World: Neurowarfare and the Limits of International Humanitarian Law,” which explores some of the international legal issues surrounding soldier & state culpability w/r/t human augmentation, advanced neuropharmocology, and brain-computer interface.

VR/Marg


~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~

Popular press account from Wired Science: “Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them”

“In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.

“The decision studied -- whether to hit a button with one's left or right hand -- may not be representative of complicated choices that are more integrally tied to our sense of self-direction. Regardless, the findings raise profound questions about the nature of self and autonomy: How free is our will? Is conscious choice just an illusion?

“‘Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,’ said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute [for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences] neuroscientist.

“Haynes updated a classic experiment by the late Benjamin Libet, who showed that a brain region involved in coordinating motor activity fired a fraction of a second before test subjects chose to push a button. Later studies supported Libet’s theory that subconscious activity preceded and determined conscious choice -- but none found such a vast gap between a decision and the experience of making it as Haynes’ study has.

“In the seven seconds before Haynes’ test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes’ team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.

“Taken together, the patterns consistently predicted whether test subjects eventually pushed a button with their left or right hand -- a choice that, to them, felt like the outcome of conscious deliberation. For those accustomed to thinking of themselves as having free will, the implications are far more unsettling than learning about the physiological basis of other brain functions.

“Caveats remain, holding open the door for free will. For instance, the experiment may not reflect the mental dynamics of other, more complicated decisions. ‘Real-life decisions -- am I going to buy this house or that one, take this job or that -- aren't decisions that we can implement very well in our brain scanners,’ said Haynes.

"Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision.

“‘The unease people feel at the potential unreality of free will, said National Institutes of Health neuroscientist Mark Hallett, originates in a misconception of self as separate from the brain. ‘That's the same notion as the mind being separate from the body -- and I don't think anyone really believes that,’ said Hallett. ‘A different way of thinking about it is that your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing.’

"Hallett doubts that free will exists as a separate, independent force. ‘If it is, we haven't put our finger on it,’ he said. ‘But we're happy to keep looking.’”

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

evil is all thoughts and actions produced in a self deified state, out side the Will of God.

Define 'self deified state' and define 'outside the will of god'.

I've never believed in any God, or payed any attention to what people say a god would want me to do. Am I evil?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Waiting.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Thanks Marg. I'm not convinced it actually proves that free will doesn't exist, maybe just redefines it a bit.

It doesn't suprise me that the subconcious plays a big part in the decision making process or that there is a lag between subconcious and the concious mind.

I'm not totally convinced that pushing buttons for no good reason is a particularly good test either. That sounds like something you could easily defer to the subconcious anyway, much like breathing is a subconcious act. You can push it to the concious (or maybe not if this research is correct) but it usually stays in the subconcious. The whole point of doing repetitive safety procedures in skydiving and the concept of muscle memory is just a way of getting a new activity from the concious to the subconcious. The idea is that in the event of a mal, you cut away without having to go through the mental check list of finding all your handles and pulling them in order during a moment of high stress.

Now if there was a way to tell if making a decision that required a certain amount of concious cognitive function, like solving a puzzle, was predicted by a subconcious process, that might be a bigger deal. But even then, I'm not sure it would be curtains for free will.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm not convinced it actually proves that free will doesn't exist …

Nor am I, but what it does do is make it clear that free will is not a given. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't.

I am inclined to believe that the latter is the case, if only because I have faith that one day mankind really will discover a Unified Field Theory, even if it does not occur in my lifetime.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I was just recently reading about a couple of experiments that credibly offer doubt regarding the existence of free will.

If there is no free will then there is no value in piety. There is also no value in accomplishment.
Only hedonism remains.