PDA

View Full Version : Agnostics/Atheists and maybe why they support Ron Paul




BagOfEyebrows
04-28-2008, 05:34 AM
I wasn't going to post to this forum anymore, but I needed to share some stuff as a 'last post' that came to mind and heart over the past few days, because I think it will help unite us and give us a better understanding of what is happening. Apologies in advance if this initially offends anybody - it is not my intent to offend. I blogged it with love, and I share it on this forum with love.


~A Former Agnostic Perspective~

A lot of Libertarians are atheists. Some are Christian. Some, like me, were/are agnostic (re: maybe, not sure, no conclusive evidence either way.)

One thing I never doubted, though, is the existance of a man named Jesus Christ. In fact, when I talk with atheists, they, too, have overwhelmingly agreed that a man named Jesus existed, and that the principles themselves are genius and flawless.

Which got me to thinking... what if God is just those principles?

What if that is the equation by which we all agree that liberty and freedom and individualism as well as collectively seeking out 'good will towards mankind' as being only possible via those principles?

P+A=L+F Principles and Action equals Liberty and Freedom

I think a lot of people have had the principles but forgot to 'act' upon them and with them. The principles also get... manipulated and twisted up. In government, in media, and... in churches, the very place that expresses to hold them the most dearly and sacred. I think they forget to hold up their decisions to the light of those principles, as we have done in government with our laws and our bills and our ammendments.

Why would atheists and agnostics come to the defense of the Constitution(s) of the USA so strongly, when it was written with the principles set forth in Christianity? Maybe it's because we ARE born with those principles - and no religion has dibs on those principles as those principles are seperate from any Earthly titles we want to give to them. Some Christians might think that their religion best adheres to the principles... but, as God and Jesus Christ themselves explained, those principles are in individual hearts and minds, they do not have to belong to a collective in order to exist.

Would God, or those principles, cease to exist should the entire planet Earth become atheists? NO. Those principles ARE God. The more I think about it, the more I think I've been wrong all along in my debates with and about God - he does exist, after all - and I have actually believed in him, had faith in him and honored him all along, too. Just not the bible version... not the tv version... not the version of him that I could not logically come to terms with.

God, not as a 'being' so much as a set of definite rules, laws, and logical guide to survival in a complex universe... that might be it. Not just a physical survival, but a mental and spiritual survival, even without a 'religion', one can abide by those principles and have complete 'faith' in those principles, and in essence, actually aknowledge the existance of God simply because they aknowledge the perfection of those principles.

God is perfect. He is those principles. They are flawless. They are common sense and logical.

If God is those principles, then I'll have to state, right now, that I do actually think God exists - not the God laid out in the Bible, as I think he got misrepresented there, but as those principles that are explained in the State and Federal Constitutions of the USA.


Life can not exist (for long) unless thoe principles (re: God) are adhered to and honored and ACTED upon - the principles are: don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal. Don't judge - not even those that break those principles - it's not your job. That is the job of God, those principles, the individual themselves. Your job is to lead by example, and to help folks back up, to re-embrace the principles, even when they have deviated from them. For their very survival - and for yours.

So there's my little mornin' ramble about how I came to terms with the fact I'm no longer Agnostic. I just don't have a religious sect or church to describe my relationship with God. It's personal.

Thank you, God - 40 years I struggled with this. Half way to 80, you decide to finally end the debate with your wisdom and good sense of humor & compassion. You win. Yep, I believe in you. Yep, I honor you. We're cool with each other now... there's no more debate. You are those principles. I love you. :)

Some other thoughts (and there will be more because this is making more sense to me as it washes over me in peace)

1. I think God realized he was misrepresented in the Bible, and it's why he allowed the creation of the state Constitutions in the USA -

2. Atheists and Agnostics who defend the Constitution are defending the existance of God - just as Christians, Catholics and any other religious sect has -

3. God is actually in each of us - which cracks me up, because I've been thinking it, defending it, and abiding by it and yet denying it for most of my life

4. Governments are severing our connections with each other (more on this next time I blog) as well as with God/Those Principles - but, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do" - or whatever it was that Jesus said as he was crucified - it's not my job to judge those who are mangling up the Constitution by forgetting to hold up EVERYTHING to the light of the principles/God - it is my job to try to lead by example and with action.

5. God must have been chuckling to himself these past 4 decades as I debated his existance while simultaneously defending it. All morning I've been laughing to myself and at myself, humbled. Hahaha - man, God is a great guy.

6. I can't be the only one who has come to this conclusion - unite. We've got so much work to do.

Xenophage
04-28-2008, 05:40 AM
As an atheist, my answer is "no, no, and no" to your post... maybe a few more "no's" as well for good measure.

That doesn't change the fact that we're political allies, however, and I don't really want to argue religion or philosophy with you.

There are many varied reasons that atheists might support Ron Paul, but as for me (and I imagine quite a few others) it is simply the condition of a rationalist philosophy. My atheism and my libertarianism are closely related: I trust in logic.

RevolutionSD
04-28-2008, 05:44 AM
As an atheist, my answer is "no, no, and no" to your post... maybe a few more "no's" as well for good measure.

That doesn't change the fact that we're political allies, however, and I don't really want to argue religion or philosophy with you.

There are many varied reasons that atheists might support Ron Paul, but as for me (and I imagine quite a few others) it is simply the condition of a rationalist philosophy. My atheism and my libertarianism are closely related: I trust in logic.

The notion of religion and the notion of government are currently dying. The new generation consists of mostly atheists. There is no daddy up in the sky and there is no daddy government that is going to take care of you. Freewill is why us atheists are attracted to the RP campaign.

Xenophage
04-28-2008, 05:49 AM
The notion of religion and the notion of government are currently dying. The new generation consists of mostly atheists. There is no daddy up in the sky and there is no daddy government that is going to take care of you. Freewill is why us atheists are attracted to the RP campaign.

Amen brotha ;)

Conza88
04-28-2008, 05:57 AM
"Religion does not have a monopoly on morality" ~ me.

robert4rp08
04-28-2008, 06:04 AM
Freeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Conza88
04-28-2008, 06:07 AM
http://www.the-trukstop.com/articles/2007/images/ten_photos_taken/10.jpg

In respect to the potential future of this thread. Uh oh. :)

wgadget
04-28-2008, 06:11 AM
I'm a Christian for Ron Paul, but I have a new appreciation for atheism due to Ron Paul's logic!

: )

yongrel
04-28-2008, 07:29 AM
Yeah... this ain't grassroots.

amy31416
04-28-2008, 09:29 AM
Mr. B.O. Eyebrows--

Thoughtful post, I see where you're coming from. Atheists, as you might see in the response to your post, are generally much more hardline about the notion of God. Agnostics, like myself, are a bit more fluid and possibly have a shred of optimism that there might be god in some inconceivable form and are, therefore, more open to some metaphysical possibilities like the one that you espouse.

I'm glad that you found something that works for you. I have simply accepted that it's something I'll never know and that works for me.

That said, yeah, this isn't grassroots. Either off-topic or hot-topics, depending on how civil this thread stays. Oh, and I still think you need to befriend yourself with Mitt Romney's Eyebrows.

Roadrcr
04-28-2008, 10:06 AM
Ever notice Ron Paul has not had any preacher drama as of yet ? I am an aethiest and strongly believe in seperation of church and state. If you want to be religious by all means do so thats your right. But do not make me abide by your gods laws and that is only one of the reasons I love Ron Paul .

1000-points-of-fright
04-28-2008, 01:35 PM
BagOfEyebrows,

You contradict yourself. In the beginning of your post, you describe God "not as a 'being' so much as a set of definite rules, laws, and logical guide to survival in a complex universe". Then later you ascribe to God the qualities of a conscious being such as thought, a sense of humor, being a great guy.

Which is it? As set of unwavering truths or a great guy with a sense of humor?

BagOfEyebrows
04-28-2008, 02:55 PM
Mr. B.O. Eyebrows--

Thoughtful post, I see where you're coming from. Atheists, as you might see in the response to your post, are generally much more hardline about the notion of God. Agnostics, like myself, are a bit more fluid and possibly have a shred of optimism that there might be god in some inconceivable form and are, therefore, more open to some metaphysical possibilities like the one that you espouse.

I'm glad that you found something that works for you. I have simply accepted that it's something I'll never know and that works for me.

That said, yeah, this isn't grassroots. Either off-topic or hot-topics, depending on how civil this thread stays. Oh, and I still think you need to befriend yourself with Mitt Romney's Eyebrows.

it's ok if the mods want to off-topic it - I wouldn't be offended or mind. I understand where the atheists are coming from - my mind was leaning towards atheism, but the not knowing either way kept me wondering, searching for an answer. For some reason, the idea of the pricniples being God stopped all mental questioning for me. (so much for 'last post', lol)

Mitt Romney's Eyebrows makes me laugh - my nickname just tends to creep people out when they think about it. I've a dark sense of humor.

amy31416
04-28-2008, 03:06 PM
it's ok if the mods want to off-topic it - I wouldn't be offended or mind. I understand where the atheists are coming from - my mind was leaning towards atheism, but the not knowing either way kept me wondering, searching for an answer. For some reason, the idea of the pricniples being God stopped all mental questioning for me. (so much for 'last post', lol)

Mitt Romney's Eyebrows makes me laugh - my nickname just tends to creep people out when they think about it. I've a dark sense of humor.

Oops! It's Mitt Romney's Sideburns, not eyebrows. I've always appreciated a dark sense of humor, your name made me laugh, it didn't creep me out.

Whatever way you come to it, it's nice to take a break from all the mental gymnastics involved in the whole question and just decide to live the best way you can on your own terms.

Why last post? Personally, I like reading alternate views on most anything.

nate895
04-28-2008, 03:11 PM
The notion of religion and the notion of government are currently dying. The new generation consists of mostly atheists. There is no daddy up in the sky and there is no daddy government that is going to take care of you. Freewill is why us atheists are attracted to the RP campaign.

Being young myself and living in ultra-liberal Washington, I can say with certainty that the vast majority of young people are Christians. There are a few who aren't, but overall, I'd say it's 75-80% Christian.

BagOfEyebrows
04-28-2008, 03:11 PM
BagOfEyebrows,

You contradict yourself. In the beginning of your post, you describe God "not as a 'being' so much as a set of definite rules, laws, and logical guide to survival in a complex universe". Then later you ascribe to God the qualities of a conscious being such as thought, a sense of humor, being a great guy.

Which is it? As set of unwavering truths or a great guy with a sense of humor?

I've been trying to figure that out myself - because you're right. It's a conradiction of sorts. Right when I thought I had it 'all figured out' that God was 'just those principles', omnipotent (sp?) and all that fit right in with it, being born with 'Jesus in your heart' and "God" inside you - fit right in as well. Then, without even realizing it was happening, I started smiling and thinking of God in 'being' terms (right when I'd determined he wasn't), because it's 'inside of us' as humans - the principles, we as 'beings' - and they meshed.

Which, yep, makes no sense, but at the same time is just the way it is (at least in my nutty noggin) - that's the part of it that I'll spend probably another 40 years sorting out.

Just a theory about God/Principles - could be wrong, but wanted to share it.

sophocles07
04-28-2008, 03:12 PM
One thing I never doubted, though, is the existance of a man named Jesus Christ. In fact, when I talk with atheists, they, too, have overwhelmingly agreed that a man named Jesus existed, and that the principles themselves are genius and flawless.

I would not call them genius or flawless; they are good, though. I’m not even sure they were novel at the time he lived. Plato and many others have all outlined and argued for similar moralities; reciprocation, action from accordance with reason and goodwill. Flawless? Anything with the taint of the supernatural as its justification is flawed; his ethical principles are self-evident, there need be no god involved.


I think a lot of people have had the principles but forgot to 'act' upon them and with them. The principles also get... manipulated and twisted up. In government, in media, and... in churches, the very place that expresses to hold them the most dearly and sacred. I think they forget to hold up their decisions to the light of those principles, as we have done in government with our laws and our bills and our ammendments.

I agree. One can eat Whoppers and vote Bush twice and call oneself a Christian; it’s ridiculous.


Why would atheists and agnostics come to the defense of the Constitution(s) of the USA so strongly, when it was written with the principles set forth in Christianity? Maybe it's because we ARE born with those principles - and no religion has dibs on those principles as those principles are seperate from any Earthly titles we want to give to them. Some Christians might think that their religion best adheres to the principles... but, as God and Jesus Christ themselves explained, those principles are in individual hearts and minds, they do not have to belong to a collective in order to exist.

Agree here too. Morality-ethics are natural to man; they do not necessitate a godhead.


Would God, or those principles, cease to exist should the entire planet Earth become atheists? NO. Those principles ARE God. The more I think about it, the more I think I've been wrong all along in my debates with and about God - he does exist, after all - and I have actually believed in him, had faith in him and honored him all along, too. Just not the bible version... not the tv version... not the version of him that I could not logically come to terms with.

I don’t see why you need to call it “God.” You’re essentially invoking Wordsworth’s “the human heart by which we live” idea; the kingdom of god is within; etc. Why stretch it out to a supernatural projection?



Some other thoughts (and there will be more because this is making more sense to me as it washes over me in peace)

1. I think God realized he was misrepresented in the Bible, and it's why he allowed the creation of the state Constitutions in the USA –

This is riddled with mal-logic. God “realized” something? Wouldn’t he, flawless, omnipotent and perfect, KNOW these things instantly and outside of time? I don’t understand at all why you say that God is the principles, but then you still hang on to this anthropomorphized dream-figure who “acts” just as men do—“realizes” things, cheats on Hera, punishes Job, creates Constitutions.


2. Atheists and Agnostics who defend the Constitution are defending the existance of God - just as Christians, Catholics and any other religious sect has –

I disagree, but at least you’re finding a way to justify complete adherence to the Constitution.


3. God is actually in each of us - which cracks me up, because I've been thinking it, defending it, and abiding by it and yet denying it for most of my life

My disagreement here is one of semantics, phrasing. You can say “God” is within each of us, but I think the word GOD is so meaningless—1,000,000 people use it meaning something different—that I would prefer not use it; why relax onto wasted abstractions when you can describe something much more precisely and variously. I mean, Hindus would agree, but it means something totally different; Rimbaud, who I think was an atheist or agnostic, would agree, but not in the sense of a Christian God in your heart.



5. God must have been chuckling to himself these past 4 decades as I debated his existance while simultaneously defending it. All morning I've been laughing to myself and at myself, humbled. Hahaha - man, God is a great guy.

A laughing god; you ARE a Hindu.

Have you read Jane Harrison, James Frazer, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, or William Blake? You might like it (they all have similar, though not exactly similar, views on religion as something “within” but do not reduce it to “God”).

Kludge
04-28-2008, 03:16 PM
Atheists, as you might see in the response to your post, are generally much more hardline about the notion of God. Agnostics, like myself, are a bit more fluid and possibly have a shred of optimism that there might be god in some inconceivable form and are, therefore, more open to some metaphysical possibilities like the one that you espouse.

Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is there any difference in matters of religion?

Sure, Satan may be my neighbor, but don't tell me he is without proof.



Paul's positions parallel with my own in many cases. I, and many others, are willing to compromise and vote Paul as a moderate - a uniter.

BagOfEyebrows
04-28-2008, 03:21 PM
Oops! It's Mitt Romney's Sideburns, not eyebrows. I've always appreciated a dark sense of humor, your name made me laugh, it didn't creep me out.

Whatever way you come to it, it's nice to take a break from all the mental gymnastics involved in the whole question and just decide to live the best way you can on your own terms.

Why last post? Personally, I like reading alternate views on most anything.

I'd rather read/listen/learn than join most discussions the past year or two. This forum has linked me to some of the most incredible videos and online websites for study/learning - if I start yapping, I'll miss out on some more learning/research. There's a lotta resources here, too, for off-the-computer stuff and ways to promote the message of Liberty.

It's kinda like a mini university here, if utilized in all the ways possible.

libertarian4321
04-28-2008, 03:27 PM
Sorry it took so long to reply- I had to use a Q-tip to clean the vomit out from between the keys of my keyboard- and that ain't easy!

I support Ron Paul because he understands the Constitution, it has nothing to do with God, Neptune, Jupiter, Jesus, the Great Pumpkin, Allah, or any other fantasy character/imaginary friend.

I have nothing against people believing in the religion of their choice, however. Heck, I like fantasy, too- Tolkien, etc.

BTW, there is plenty of "thought" in the Bible that is far from "perfect" or "flawless", but I guess thats another topic and certainly has nothing to do with supporting Ron Paul.

yongrel
04-28-2008, 03:30 PM
Being young myself and living in ultra-liberal Washington, I can say with certainty that the vast majority of young people are Christians. There are a few who aren't, but overall, I'd say it's 75-80% Christian.

I dunno what part of Washington you're living in, but in my experience the young folk in WA are all either Mormon or apathetic/atheists.

nate895
04-28-2008, 03:31 PM
I dunno what part of Washington you're living in, but in my experience the young folk in WA are all either Mormon or apathetic/atheists.

Well, you can look at my location.

dannno
04-28-2008, 03:34 PM
I am agnostic



Which got me to thinking... what if God is just those principles?

I agree. This is pretty much the only exception to another phrase which I agree strongly with, which is, "I don't know what God IS, but I know what he ISN'T."




2. Atheists and Agnostics who defend the Constitution are defending the existance of God - just as Christians, Catholics and any other religious sect has -

They are defending the principles of freedom, and God put us here to make our own choices. The Mormons (LDS) call this "free agency", so there is something to this..





6. I can't be the only one who has come to this conclusion - unite. We've got so much work to do.

Yep

amy31416
04-28-2008, 03:34 PM
Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is there any difference in matters of religion?

Sure, Satan may be my neighbor, but don't tell me he is without proof.



Paul's positions parallel with my own in many cases. I, and many others, are willing to compromise and vote Paul as a moderate - a uniter.

I'm not going on what anyone tells me, quite simply on the first law of thermodynamics. That's what it all boils down to for me and is the only thing that separates me from the atheists. So, despite your declaration that I can not possibly be agnostic, I beg to differ.

Zolah
04-28-2008, 03:35 PM
Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is this any difference in matters of religion?

Sure, Satan may be my neighbor, but don't tell me he is without proof.



Paul's positions parallel with my own in many cases. I, and many others, are willing to compromise and vote Paul as a moderate - a uniter.

Why is this different from religion? - existence of God can't be proven or disproven, so I remain open-minded about it. At the base of my beliefs is an open-mindedness of every possibility until a conclusive possibility is realised. Your example of a monster can be proven/disproven assuming it is at a certain location where it can be seen, as it interacts in the physical world I assume it must be visable in the physical world.

dannno
04-28-2008, 03:41 PM
Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?


It sure can when you live in a world lacking a complete data set ;)

Kludge
04-28-2008, 03:42 PM
I'm not going on what anyone tells me, quite simply on the first law of thermodynamics. That's what it all boils down to for me and is the only thing that separates me from the atheists. So, despite your declaration that I can not possibly be agnostic, I beg to differ.

If God exists, and the supernatural events occurred that were in the bible, all scientific laws are useless, flawed and unnatural.


Why is this different from religion? - existence of God can't be proven or disproven, so I remain open-minded about it. At the base of my beliefs is an open-mindedness of every possibility until a conclusive possibility is realised. Your example of a monster can be proven/disproven assuming it is at a certain location where it can be seen, as it interacts in the physical world I assume it must be visable in the physical world.


I forgot to mention that MY monster is undetectable by all current means, however - take my word as the only truth needed - IT EXISTS (I've also home-published a book detailing it's existence, which I'll sell for a... very.... reasonable.... fee...).

nate895
04-28-2008, 03:44 PM
If God exists, and the supernatural events occurred that were in the bible, all scientific laws are useless, flawed and unnatural.

This might come as a shocker, but the reason they are called scientific "laws" is because scientists theorized that it was God that decreed them to be the case.

EX: For gravity, God made a decree that all centers of mass should attract each other and the larger they were, the more power or "gravity" they'd have.

Kludge
04-28-2008, 03:46 PM
This might come as a shocker, but the reason they are called scientific "laws" is because scientists theorized that it was God that decreed them to be the case.

EX: For gravity, God made a decree that all centers of mass should attract each other and the larger they were, the more power or "gravity" they'd have.

And certainly God is exempt from these rules himself.

:(

Bah...

nate895
04-28-2008, 03:47 PM
And certainly God is exempt from these rules himself.

:(

Bah...

Well, he's King, ain't he?

Kludge
04-28-2008, 03:50 PM
Well, he's King, ain't he?

*waits for Yongrel to pick up after his failure*

BagOfEyebrows
04-28-2008, 03:50 PM
I would not call them genius or flawless; they are good, though. I’m not even sure they were novel at the time he lived. Plato and many others have all outlined and argued for similar moralities; reciprocation, action from accordance with reason and goodwill. Flawless? Anything with the taint of the supernatural as its justification is flawed; his ethical principles are self-evident, there need be no god involved.



I agree. One can eat Whoppers and vote Bush twice and call oneself a Christian; it’s ridiculous.



Agree here too. Morality-ethics are natural to man; they do not necessitate a godhead.



I don’t see why you need to call it “God.” You’re essentially invoking Wordsworth’s “the human heart by which we live” idea; the kingdom of god is within; etc. Why stretch it out to a supernatural projection?




This is riddled with mal-logic. God “realized” something? Wouldn’t he, flawless, omnipotent and perfect, KNOW these things instantly and outside of time? I don’t understand at all why you say that God is the principles, but then you still hang on to this anthropomorphized dream-figure who “acts” just as men do—“realizes” things, cheats on Hera, punishes Job, creates Constitutions.



I disagree, but at least you’re finding a way to justify complete adherence to the Constitution.



My disagreement here is one of semantics, phrasing. You can say “God” is within each of us, but I think the word GOD is so meaningless—1,000,000 people use it meaning something different—that I would prefer not use it; why relax onto wasted abstractions when you can describe something much more precisely and variously. I mean, Hindus would agree, but it means something totally different; Rimbaud, who I think was an atheist or agnostic, would agree, but not in the sense of a Christian God in your heart.




A laughing god; you ARE a Hindu.

Have you read Jane Harrison, James Frazer, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, or William Blake? You might like it (they all have similar, though not exactly similar, views on religion as something “within” but do not reduce it to “God”).

Watched the Joseph Cambell vhs series on religion/myth - something like 6 vhs tapes - that was good. Not sure about the others - might have read their work at some point. Joseph Cambell sticks out, though, because his work definitely made me think more about things.

I know that there were others along the way with the same principles - there were other nations before ours with outlines of Constitutions/ideas for government that were similar, too - it all just keeps coming back to those principles.

I'm not sure why the non-being aspect quickly reverted to the 'being' aspect of God for me - just happened. It's sorta both (in my head, anyways) - the principles as a non-being, a 'life-force' that guides things - but then, a 'being' via each of us.

Could just be my dark sense of humor creating God as the perfect prankster who beats me at debate 40 years into the discussion. Maybe I was just tired of arguing with God, the idea of God, and the lack of 'knowing for aboslutely certain.'

Except that I'm not one who selects surrender - and I'm not one who minds, after 40 years, not knowing something. There's tons I don't know and will never know - God existing wasn't even on the top of my list of 'things to get to know.'

All I know now is that the conclusion, for me, is that God is the principles - no religious sect - nothing changes in my daily life - I'd been following the principles anyways. Defending them, honoring them.

I'm going to google later on those authors you listed - probably good reading there. :)

homah
04-28-2008, 03:51 PM
Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is there any difference in matters of religion?

Yes. But the fact that we exist confuses me enough to leave open the possibility that we are part of some grand plan (and by that I don't mean that we were necessarily created by a single God, but that our existence is part of some plan that perhaps we cannot even comprehend). I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to not be sure either way and classify yourself as Agnostic.

amy31416
04-28-2008, 03:53 PM
If God exists, and the supernatural events occurred that were in the bible, all scientific laws are useless, flawed and unnatural.



I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what "god" may or may not be. I don't think, that if god exists, it is a supernatural being sitting on a cloud looking down upon us, judging every thing we do.

Honestly, if it (god) does exist, I think it's possibly some type of force of nature that defies logic we can currently understand. Why do you think physicists refer to the "god" particle? Why did Einstein say "I refuse to believe that god plays dice?"

It's not because any of them believe in the Santa Claus version of god, it's an entirely different concept. Sorry I can't explain it any better than that.

Edit: I read another one of your posts--you think that my being agnostic means that I believe in the bible as a message from god. I assure you, that is not the case. I file the bible alongside the Iliad and the Odyssey in my head. It's a good story, occasionally historical, an interesting piece of literature--no more, no less.

BagOfEyebrows
04-28-2008, 03:57 PM
I am agnostic



I agree. This is pretty much the only exception to another phrase which I agree strongly with, which is, "I don't know what God IS, but I know what he ISN'T."




They are defending the principles of freedom, and God put us here to make our own choices. The Mormons (LDS) call this "free agency", so there is something to this..





Yep

whew... for a while here, I was thinkin', ya know... am I just nuts? ;)

Glad to know you came to the conclusion, too.

I'm being requested off the computer - thanks for this thread so far. Very interesting to hear other opinions and thoughts on this. Folks are being funny and civil - I've enjoyed it. :)

Joe3113
04-28-2008, 04:13 PM
Why do people group Agnostic and Atheism together and contrast them with Theism. You would be more correct to group Atheists and Theists in contrast to Agnostics. Both Atheism and Theism require faith.

AzNsOuLjAh27
04-28-2008, 04:15 PM
i want to go vote for obama when i see threads like this

rational thinker
06-02-2008, 11:57 AM
Both Atheism and Theism require faith.

You're half right. I'm going to state this again:

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.

So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

Everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

The real question, then, is how honest we can be about it.


And you're also asserting the positive claim when stating that there is a god. If you do not provide any evidence, then I can claim without any faith that there probably is no god. Atheism is by defintion a lack of faith. I consider myself an agnostic atheist in that I would not know if there is a supernatural being (outside of the universe), but I choose not to believe in it due to lack of evidence. No faith required here.

BagOfEyebrows
06-02-2008, 03:31 PM
not to stir up anything, although I know it probably will, but if my theory is right and God is simply just the principles, then each atheist and agnostic (including those in this thread) believes in God - they just don't know it. It kinda freaks me out.

I think about how many atheists/agnostics in various political ideologies who really, really 'get' the principles of liberty and freedom would literally die to protect those principles... and I got to thinking about it just being logical and even compassionate to want to protect the principles, as without them, life would be unsustainable and would eventually destroy itself.

It's sort of like we're all embracing God, as just a logical set of rules, that would lead us to a pretty awesome life here on planet Earth, if we just followed the logic and compassion of those rules.

It's what every hardcore atheist Libertarian probably will come to terms with... that day it dawns on ya that, all along, you were God's greatest defender. You had more faith in him, more of an understanding of him, and more love for him than some of your 'religious' brothers and sisters. God loves you for it, and he's gonna punk you like he punked me - I'm telling ya. You'll laugh about it, and feel pretty dang humbled by it. God's comical and rock and roll. He probably gets a kick outta watching the different 'traditions' in various churches and sects of religions devoted to him and just keeps hoping they one day really embrace the principles, the core of 'him' - ya know? God must sigh and chuckle a lot. He probably cries a lot, too. And I bet he LOL's and ROFLHAO's, too.

And he does it through us.

God's in each of us - Jesus, too. I think they've been trying to tell us that a lot louder lately. I think the proof is all around us - we better pause to listen.

It's not the God in the Bible - he's inside you, tap into him. Jesus did - sure, it got him crucified, but pretty much all of you who get those principles would die to defend them, too. They can't crucify all of us - heck, if we were around back then, they wouldn't have even achieved the crucifying of Jesus. Jesus really got the shaft with his grassroots.

I hope I don't get banned for saying that, but I sometimes get really angry about how Jesus got killed for just being a peaceful guy trying to explain the principles and help folks out.

Anyways... there's my ramble for the month of June.

kombayn
06-02-2008, 03:39 PM
I do not believe in religious texts, but I love Ron Paul because I enjoy the message of Freedom he preaches. It's a solid foundation message, we should unite for the common message, not our religion.

Paulitical Correctness
06-02-2008, 03:51 PM
I think a lot of ________ like Ron Paul because even though his Christian faith is strong, he didn't once use it to propel his campaign or try to strengthen his message with it.

/2cents

MMolloy
06-02-2008, 07:37 PM
i want to go vote for obama when i see threads like this

LOL

nbhadja
06-02-2008, 07:46 PM
Well, you can look at my location.

Being a part of the younger generation, I can tell you that most youths are atheists or agnostic.

nbhadja
06-02-2008, 07:48 PM
Why is this different from religion? - existence of God can't be proven or disproven, so I remain open-minded about it. At the base of my beliefs is an open-mindedness of every possibility until a conclusive possibility is realised. Your example of a monster can be proven/disproven assuming it is at a certain location where it can be seen, as it interacts in the physical world I assume it must be visable in the physical world.

The theory I just created about a giant magical waffle creating the Federal Reserve can't be proven or disproven either. Are you open minded about the waffle creating the Federal Reserve??

nbhadja
06-02-2008, 07:50 PM
i want to go vote for obama when i see threads like this

If a thread like this makes you wanna vote for a war loving globalist federal reserve communist pawn like Obama then you need some serious guidance.

Zolah
06-02-2008, 08:02 PM
The theory I just created about a giant magical waffle creating the Federal Reserve can't be proven or disproven either. Are you open minded about the waffle creating the Federal Reserve??

Maybe if you find a better example you might make a point, otherwise you're just being frivolous.

badmedia
06-02-2008, 08:26 PM
Personally, I consider those who are spirtual and not christians per say as being christians, while those who claim to be christian are in fact not christian. Get ready, because I'm probably about to piss off both sides.

I for 1 believe in jesus, his path and the way. I believe he is the truth, and that god so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, and those who believe in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

I sound like a christian don't I? No, not really.

Because a christian celebrates the death of jesus, because they believe he died on the cross for their sins, resolving them of any punishment for their sins. Which is a nice gesture, but also completely false. I unlike those who call themselves christians instead celebrate the life of jesus, his teachings and believe that if I truely believe in Jesus, then I will follow his path - as the bible even says. And I believe that his purpose, and why god had to send Jesus here is to show people that path, not to die on a cross for our sins. Dieing on the cross for our sins makes no direct sense at all. Couldn't god have just as easily said - ok you are all forgiven, without turning his son into the whipping boy? Yes he could have. Therefore, there must have been another reason for it. And that reason IMO was to show the world how people and god act, and to show people what a truly good person is capable of.

He said it himself, if this were his kingdom there would be things to defend him. Instead of fighting back, leading the people into a rebellion and taking up evil ways himself, he said no - that is not the way you do things, it is better to die standing up for what you believe in, than take to evil yourself. Because then you do not rid the world of evil, you merely replaced it.

Todays christians worship the symbol of Jesus, his image. Not what he came here to teach and show the world. It's the result of a materialistic mindset that has crept into society over the years. Today, christian religion is all about materialism, and very little about spirituality.

I myself was once an atheist. And also in the same boat as what is described. I thought Jesus was a good person who was right etc, and it was sad more people didn't act that way. I rejected and still do reject their notion of what god is. The god christians believe in sounds more like Satan than a creator god to me.

I then realized I was probably being a bit arrogant. It's a big universe, many things. It's quite possible there is a god out there. And so I became agnostic. I figured there probably is a god/creator/intelligence to everything, but I didn't figure anyone knew anything about it. So I began to search.

And as the bible says, seek and you will find. And I did. I had things happen to me in such a way that was just couldn't be explained. I would ponder a question in my head about reality, and it would be answered in the real world within days or hours with something completely unrelated. I started to notice the patterns in the world, I contemplated good vs evil, and how without evil you could never understand what good was. Much the same as you wouldn't understand temperature if you had never experienced both hot and cold. I also realized that we are all 1 conscious being, that everything was connected and had meaning.

This had no religious background to it, all based on things in my life, hear and now. I gained the majority of my knowledge this way, and I honestly have more knowledge than I even can being to explain.

But then something very odd happened. I started to see various bible quotes here and there. And I was like wow, thats true. But most of the time I was seeing what was said as something new, and for the first time. Sure I had heard it before, but I never accepted the way it was presented. But now I understood exactly what the bible was saying. When I read John 14, it even went so far as to explain exactly what happened to me, and the connection and truth I felt and realized. I then learned that what I had felt was what is refered to as the holy ghost. So if anyone tells you the bible won't make sense without the holy ghost helping, that is correct.

Even the story of Isaah(I think it was), where he thought he was going crazy and asked for a sign 3 times. That happened to me. I also thought - omg I'm going crazy, this isn't normal. But the information and understandings just kept coming and on and on I learned.

Jesus said the truth shall set you free, and it will. Once you realize and understand what/who you truly are, you will not be as scared to die, nor will you operate based on fear as those who promise false gifts in washington with you to.

I have never had faith, and I still don't. I am a show me type of person, and I was shown. Nothing I was shown is physical or can be proven in the physical. It is an understanding of knowledge you receive that is the true reward, not physical material. Knowledge impossible to communicate verbally really.

In the end, if you truly understand, then you will get christ consciousness. That is to say, that you will see things in the same manner that Jesus seen things in. You will understand what is good, see past the material and no longer be blind and then you will be fit to leave the lesson into your place in "heaven".

For example, I know what "time" is. I know it's not real. I know the universe is actually static and never moves. I know there are many realities and dimensions beyond what my senses have, or my brain can even conjure up in my imagination. Quantum Physics is also starting to prove this in an odd way. They still do not realize it's the soul that moves, not the universe. But they are seeing the wave of potentials which is a start in the right direction. Soon they will realize that it's not actually a wave that moves, but static and our soul/consciouness only choose which part of the static to bring active.

You move in this universe based on your heart. Also what Jesus talked about, otherwise known by some as Karma. If you do good things, you will move to better things in the universe. If you do bad things, you will move to worse things in the universe. This is apparent even in the physical and personal self. Treat someone good, you make a new friend. Treat them bad, you make a new enemy. The universe operates on the same matter. It will keep getting worse until people wake up and see the truth. That is by design to teach you, the same way a stove eye will burn you.

Hell does exist in a way. If you are bad enough and don't learn, you will create your own personal hell. But you will not stay there for eternity, because it's only there to teach you a lesson. The moment you make the choice to see through the eyes of love, rather than the eyes of fear, you will start to life yourself out of that. However, it is entirely possible to spend eternity in hell if you refuse to learn. This also happens on a bigger level, although we don't notice it as easy, and pass it off as just the way the world works.

It's like the whole god choose who is king/president. I use to think - well that is nuts. But now I realize, it's not so nuts really. People will get the king/president they deserve. If they aren't standing up for the right things, get caught up judging other people, and in false promises gifts, then you will get a bad leader. Because the people actually need that bad leader to show them the evil, so they can learn and fix their mistakes. So yeah, he does choose them, but that doesn't mean it's a good leader, it just means it was the leader needed to teach people. As much as I dislike GWB, I would shake his hand and give him a big hug if he showed up on my front doorstep today. Because he was the one who showed me the way. Until then, I was too busy caught up judging other people, worrying about the material etc, as many Americans are today. By being the evil, he taught me the difference between good and evil. I do not doubt at all that he must have a great soul to be given such a task. It is common to hate the teacher.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. I strongely urge any of you, no matter what your current relgion, to be open minded and think about things logically. You seek by asking questions. Those questions will be answered, I can promise you that. You will just need to look and think(meditate) about it a bit, and suddenly things will start to come to you.

It sounds crazy I know. As I said, thought I was going crazy at first. But I'm not crazy. I'm actually pretty rational and logical. I just see why Jesus was right in what he said now. To the point where you could prove to me that Jesus never existed, and if I died tommorow I would no longer exist and I would exact the same way I do now.

MMolloy
06-02-2008, 08:27 PM
I believe that God=Truth+Love+Justice

He has given us free will... our choice to return love or not; to participate in his creative design or to destroy (or sit and stare at our navels)

Those attracted to truth will ultimately find God... not some commercialized version but the real God.

He boiled down his laws to one: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’

And I also believe there is a Deceiver and his lies always produce fear... fear to love each other and fear that God does not love us.

To me, you religion or lack there of is not very important... I'd much rather talk with an honest atheist or democrat or any other label for my brothers and sisters than to talk to a liar/deceiver... even if they were my mirror image.

I guess my bottom line is that most people are working on Ron Paul's campaign because they believe honesty is important... especially in our elected officials. And that unites us more than the labels separate us.

My 2 cents

And with your forbearance:


"It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how can the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was, when so much bad had happened? But, in the end it’s only a passing thing. The shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer. Those are the stories that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories, had lots of chances at turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because, they were holding onto something."

"What were they holding onto Sam?"

"That there is some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. and it's worth fighting for!"

badmedia
06-02-2008, 08:44 PM
I believe that God=Truth+Love+Justice

He has given us free will... our choice to return love or not; to participate in his creative design or to destroy (or sit and stare at our navels)

Those attracted to truth will ultimately find God... not some commercialized version but the real God.

He boiled down his laws to one: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’

And I also believe there is a Deceiver and his lies always produce fear... fear to love each other and fear that God does not love us.

To me, you religion or lack there of is not very important... I'd much rather talk with an honest atheist or democrat or any other label for my brothers and sisters than to talk to a liar/deceiver... even if they were my mirror image.

I guess my bottom line is that most people are working on Ron Paul's campaign because they believe honesty is important... especially in our elected officials. And that unites us more than the labels separate us.

My 2 cents

And with your forbearance:

Nice quote. I actually have a related story I didn't tell above. What started the entire thing for me to begin with.

I'm sitting on my friends porch, and we are talking away and hanging out etc. Suddenly, within a blink of my eye, I had this vision. In real time, it lasted less than a second, but in my mind, much more time had passed.

My consciousness is like sorta pull away, and I am in this white room with no edges that goes on forever, just like in the movie the matrix is the closest thing to it where they have loaded up in a blank world. There is this being in front of me that is nothing but pure golden light. I do not see any features that would allow me to distinguish any specific person I was looking at. But it was like the sun, but in the shape of a person. Anyway, it somehow communicated to me "Do you want it to end?". And without thinking I replied: "No, there is still good out there". I never got a chance to think about it or anything. It like a movie that played in my head. After that, I could see myself leaving my friends house and driving down the road, only I was like 30 feet up in the air watching the car. Then I was back on the porch.

I'm pretty sure the choice was made before I had the vision, the vision only made known my choice. Like I say, I didn't get to think about the response or anything, it was automatic like another part of me was saying it.

That was why I thought I was going crazy. But when I read your quote there, I immediately thought about this, and got a bit of a giggle at it since he says the same thing.

bojo68
06-02-2008, 09:32 PM
To me, this movement should appeal more to athiests/agnostics because it's logical, and religion isn't, so it should appeal to the religious less.

driller80545
06-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Satori!

Theocrat
06-02-2008, 10:11 PM
To me, this movement should appeal more to athiests/agnostics because it's logical, and religion isn't, so it should appeal to the religious less.

This whole movement is because of a religious man (http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/statement.htm) whose ideas for liberty and limited government (among other things) sparked an entire nation to follow him in restoring right government under our Constitution. Your "atheist" antics to suppress those Ron Paul supporters with genuine faith in the living God by appeals to logic (which no "atheist" can justify in their own naturalistic worldview) simply fall short at the feet of your own absurdity and arrogance.

qh4dotcom
06-02-2008, 10:57 PM
As Ron Paul said in his Manifesto book "We live in a fantasy world"...and I think that applies to religions as well...when people are born, they are not aware about God...they learn about God from other human beings...and that's where my problem is...that human beings invent too many fantasies about God...like what people said hundreds of years ago that God had made the Earth was the center of the universe...and there are too many contradictions between what one religion says about God and what another says...and this has been going on for hundreds of years....so since I can't trust what humans say now about God and what they said thousands of years ago, then I do what Amy said...I remain open minded about God and accept the fact that it's something I'll never know and that works for me.

SeanEdwards
06-02-2008, 11:05 PM
Atheists/agnostics like Ron Paul because we're fucking smarties, just like the good Dr.

:D

And Christianity is plain dumb. Turn the other cheek? Please. Dumbest thing I ever heard of.

(please forgive my anti-christian trolling, i get bored. besides, you're supposed to be turning cheeks ;))

Paulitical Correctness
06-03-2008, 02:11 AM
You'd think Ron Paul supporters, of all people, would be tolerant of each others' beliefs. :rolleyes:

Besides, everyone knows that the flying spaghetti monster is the only logical thing to put faith into.

!

cska80
06-03-2008, 02:27 AM
I'm Agnostic and I support only Ron Paul. There's more to it, but I believe that morals and certain principles are just a part of human nature. I don't believe that anyone in born to rule over others. I don't believe that anyone is born to infringe on other's beliefs or freedoms.

Just a couple things here...

I also believe that 'seperation of church and state' is a farse, and I'd have no problem with religion being taught in school. If I didn't like it, I'd send my kids where it isn't taught. If someone is offended by a point of view, get over it. If you're that weak minded where you feel you'll be indoctrinated just but hearing a few bible passages, you have more problems than religion in school.

I believe that our rights are granted to us by our 'creator'. Who am I to tell you there is no creator? How do I know, and how do YOU know there is one? I do know there is something more powerful out there than you or I, and it's human nature. It doesn't feel good to kill someone in human nature, unless you're a crazy person, so obviously we need laws against murder. It feels good to give to charity in human nature, but we don't need LAWS to force people to do so. Anyone getting this?

Hard to explain, but I'm done.

FireofLiberty
06-03-2008, 04:12 AM
Well, I'm Agnostic and support Ron Paul...

bojo68
06-03-2008, 04:21 AM
This whole movement is because of a religious man (http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/statement.htm) whose ideas for liberty and limited government (among other things) sparked an entire nation to follow him in restoring right government under our Constitution. Your "atheist" antics to suppress those Ron Paul supporters with genuine faith in the living God by appeals to logic (which no "atheist" can justify in their own naturalistic worldview) simply fall short at the feet of your own absurdity and arrogance.

Oh boy, your fantasy knows no bounds. First of all, this movement started centuries before Dr. Paul was born, so claiming he started it is more than a little ridicoulous, but obviously fact has no effect on you. Secondly, if as you state an entire nation were "following" as you so ineptly put it, we wouldn't be getting 10~15 percent.
Going for screw up #3, I don't have "atheist" antics, because I'm not, whatever antics I have are mine, not somebody elses. Lastly, your absolutely clueless about what I can or can not justify, and for you to present otherwise is testamonial of your own absurdity. Far as arrogance goes, not generally, but I'll make an exception in your case.
Even Ron Paul does not like to discuss religion in politics, and nobody's trying to "suppress" you or anybody else, it's just that YOU are trying to pawn off your garbage and claim the movement itself backs your position, which Ron Paul knows better than to do.
Not only do I reject your religion, but I ESPECIALLY reject your unabashed attempt to hijack the movement and put your brand on it. I've been a freedom fighter my entire life, as Ron Paul has, and will defend your individual rights along with any other US citizens. We've had 911 people try to claim this movement is theirs, religious nut bags try it, Israel nut bags try it, along with many others.
Fact of the matter is this movement is about freedom, and your thinking you can impose your brand on it is what deservedly gets you and your type in trouble.
I've only been supporting Ron Paul for about 18 years, and I don't need some mental midget coming along and telling me he sparked something recently and I come up short. Just because some have have been asleep for decades and finally woke up doesn't mean that either Ron or I come up short. Just so you actually do know something for a change, I'm 6'9", and I'd be willing to bet your considerably shorter.

garrettwombat
06-03-2008, 05:10 AM
Thomas Paine... the very man who came from England to spread the idea of a constitution and a republic to america... was very anti christian.

"The Age of Reason" by thomas paine explained the plagerization of the bible and the similarities between all pagan gods and jesus.

some may say if there was an original founding father, Thomas Paine would be that man.
so the crap that america was founded on Christianity is a bunch of bull.

tremendoustie
06-03-2008, 05:13 AM
It's pretty arrogant, and ignorant, for either side to say that the other is necessarily irrational. If you're agnostic/atheist and can't see that there are very intelligent, reasonable Christians or if you're a Christian and can't see that there are very intelligent, reasonable agnostics/atheists, than the only thing you've succeeded at is proving that you have let your own bias make yourself unintelligent and unreasonable.

If one considers one's position logical, and the alternative less so, how about a discussion of those ideas, rather than the trading of insults? I for one would be up for a discussion (perhaps by PM or somewhere other than GC), but I'm sure as heck not going to parachute in dropping insults, which accomplishes less than nothing - and we're certainly going to have to be better than that if we're going to convince anyone about anything, let alone convince the entire country to try freedom.

tremendoustie
06-03-2008, 05:28 AM
Thomas Paine... the very man who came from England to spread the idea of a constitution and a republic to america... was very anti christian.

"The Age of Reason" by thomas paine explained the plagerization of the bible and the similarities between all pagan gods and jesus.

some may say if there was an original founding father, Thomas Paine would be that man.
so the crap that america was founded on Christianity is a bunch of bull.

Just as there are many Christians and non-Christians here, I'm sure there were many Christians and non-Christians involved in the founding of our country. I don't really think the argument matters much one way or another. The constitution was set up to protect liberty, and individual rights, including freedom of religion -- so who cares who founded it? It's like Dr. Paul says regarding constitutional government -- in a constitutional government one does not really care if a leader shares a different ideology, because the constitution prevents them from implementing heavy handed policies based on that ideology. If the country was founded by 100% Christians or atheiests, it doesn't matter, we've still got freedom of religion.

tremendoustie
06-03-2008, 05:37 AM
Atheists/agnostics like Ron Paul because we're fucking smarties, just like the good Dr.

:D

And Christianity is plain dumb. Turn the other cheek? Please. Dumbest thing I ever heard of.

(please forgive my anti-christian trolling, i get bored. besides, you're supposed to be turning cheeks ;))

I don't know, I think turning the other cheek is a pretty good idea a lot of the time. It worked pretty well for Ghandi and MLK. Not responding in kind eliminates the main source of self-justification for an agressor, and the immorality of their actions becomes obvious to all. In addition, sometimes a "gentle answer turneth away wrath" I mean, if a 350 lb guy comes up to your window with a baseball bat, responding with agression and threats may not be the way to go ;). This kind of response can nip a lot of conflict in the bud. I think violence is still necessary sometimes to protect innocent people though ...

SteveMartin
06-03-2008, 05:45 AM
Agnostics/Atheists and maybe why they support Ron Paul

Because they, to a large degree, do not really understand who Ron Paul is, or how our government was formed and/or what our founding documents are based upon....i.e. Christian principles. They make Ron Paul out to be a libertine, rather than a libertarian.


A few quick points, and then I'll leave this thread to Amy and Yongrel:

1. I have been saying for quite some time (and taking a great deal of heat for it) that the atheist/agnostic element is taking over the movement to a large degree, and this thread proves it.

2. Ron Paul is not either an atheist or an agnostic, but rather a devout Christian:


I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator. --Ron Paul

3. Without atheism, Communism could never have arisen to murder millions, and without atheism this country and our Constitution could never be subsumed by an emerging godless world government.

4. We never had a chance of winning the Republican nomination (when over 50% of registered Republicans call themselves "Conservative Christians") while led by atheistic libertines at the national level.

bojo68
06-03-2008, 05:50 AM
Just as there are many Christians and non-Christians here, I'm sure there were many Christians and non-Christians involved in the founding of our country. I don't really think the argument matters much one way or another. The constitution was set up to protect liberty, and individual rights, including freedom of religion -- so who cares who founded it? It's like Dr. Paul says regarding constitutional government -- in a constitutional government one does not really care if a leader shares a different ideology, because the constitution prevents them from implementing heavy handed policies based on that ideology. If the country was founded by 100% Christians or atheiests, it doesn't matter, we've still got freedom of religion.

good point.

SeanEdwards
06-03-2008, 06:18 AM
...

DriftWood
06-03-2008, 06:28 AM
You're half right. I'm going to state this again:

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.

So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

Everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

The real question, then, is how honest we can be about it.


And you're also asserting the positive claim when stating that there is a god. If you do not provide any evidence, then I can claim without any faith that there probably is no god. Atheism is by defintion a lack of faith. I consider myself an agnostic atheist in that I would not know if there is a supernatural being (outside of the universe), but I choose not to believe in it due to lack of evidence. No faith required here.

I find the concept of agnosticism of limited use. I would even say that agnostics who are not atheists are unreasonable. About the only thing we can know for sure to be true, is maths and logics, everything about reality (anything empirical) is unknowable.

This does not mean that we cant know anything about reality to a reasonable degree of certainty. We can know what is a likely or unlikely in reality. We know gravity, sunrise are reasonably likely things. (The apple has fallen every time we have dropped it so it will most likely fall the next time we drop it. The sun has risen every day, so it will most likely rise tomorrow. Its not likely that the next time we drop the apple, it turns into a rabbit and runs away, that never happened. Its not likely that tomorrow, instead of one sun there will be three suns in the shape of mickey mouses head. Its possible but not probable.)

The same goes for religion and atheism. A agnostic will correctly say that we can't know anything about reality for certain. But most self described agnostics will also say, or at least imply, that god (pick any religious definition) is as likely/unlikely as the none existence of such a god. To a agnostic any theory about reality is equally unlikely. Evidence or the lack thereof makes no difference. This is where my "beef is" with agnostics. An agnostic would have to hold that the outcome of dropping a ball, one theory being that it would fall, another being it would turn into a rabbit, are both equally unknowable and unlikely outcomes.

The evidence against (any religious definition of) god is overwhelming, and there is no evidence for such a god. Therefore god is unlikely, and atheism is the most reasonable theory.

There are also some purely logical problems with a theory about god.. and therefore also with agnosticism:

A purely metaphysical god, a thing that is unprovable, is a god that can not interact with reality. If it could interact with reality, it could be proven, and we could have evidence. However, any such (purely metaphysical) thing that can not act as to prove it exists, by any reasonable definition, does not exist at all. Either god exists in reality, and it can be proven. Or it exists in metaphysics only, which means it does not exist in reality, that about as none-existent as anything gets. Saying that god is just metaphysical, is just another way to say that he does not really exist.

So in the end, God (the religious definitions) is not a reasonable theory. Atheism is the more reasonable theory. Agnosticism who say that both require faith (just another word for assumptions), fail to say that one requires lots of faith and the other very little. An agnostic who is not an atheist, unreasonably give both theories equal probability.

Cheers

BillyDkid
06-03-2008, 07:08 AM
Why wouldn't they support Ron Paul? Why is it even a question? How is Ron Paul's or anyone else's faith even a consideration - since it is perfectly inappropriate and wrong for a political leader to govern according to their religious views or lack of them. We already have the principles laid out on which the country is supposed to be governed. This mixing up of religion and politics is wrong in every possible way. It contaminates and ruins both. Even some in the religious right are beginning to recognize this. Many people of faith have recognized this all along.

tremendoustie
06-03-2008, 07:41 AM
I find the concept of agnosticism of limited use. I would even say that agnostics who are not atheists are unreasonable. About the only thing we can know for sure to be true, is maths and logics, everything about reality (anything empirical) is unknowable.

This does not mean that we cant know anything about reality to a reasonable degree of certainty. We can know what is a likely or unlikely in reality. We know gravity, sunrise are reasonably likely things. (The apple has fallen every time we have dropped it so it will most likely fall the next time we drop it. The sun has risen every day, so it will most likely rise tomorrow. Its not likely that the next time we drop the apple, it turns into a rabbit and runs away, that never happened. Its not likely that tomorrow, instead of one sun there will be three suns in the shape of mickey mouses head. Its possible but not probable.)

The same goes for religion and atheism. A agnostic will correctly say that we can't know anything about reality for certain. But most self described agnostics will also say, or at least imply, that god (pick any religious definition) is as likely/unlikely as the none existence of such a god. To a agnostic any theory about reality is equally unlikely. Evidence or the lack thereof makes no difference. This is where my "beef is" with agnostics. An agnostic would have to hold that the outcome of dropping a ball, one theory being that it would fall, another being it would turn into a rabbit, are both equally unknowable and unlikely outcomes.




I agree that agnosticism can be at times a bit of a cop out - and the points you make regarding how nearly nothing is truly provable are right on the money. However, I don't think that agnosticism is necessarily unreasonable. One could believe that while God could exist and interact with reality, evidence for or against such interaction is very weak. Interaction does not necessarily imply practical provability, especially when one has limited knowledge.




The evidence against (any religious definition of) god is overwhelming, and there is no evidence for such a god. Therefore god is unlikely, and atheism is the most reasonable theory.

There are also some purely logical problems with a theory about god.. and therefore also with agnosticism:

A purely metaphysical god, a thing that is unprovable, is a god that can not interact with reality. If it could interact with reality, it could be proven, and we could have evidence. However, any such (purely metaphysical) thing that can not act as to prove it exists, by any reasonable definition, does not exist at all. Either god exists in reality, and it can be proven. Or it exists in metaphysics only, which means it does not exist in reality, that about as none-existent as anything gets. Saying that god is just metaphysical, is just another way to say that he does not really exist.

So in the end, God (the religious definitions) is not a reasonable theory. Atheism is the more reasonable theory. Agnosticism who say that both require faith (just another word for assumptions), fail to say that one requires lots of faith and the other very little. An agnostic who is not an atheist, unreasonably give both theories equal probability.

Cheers

I think there is a fallacy in the assumption that physical, mechanical reality makes up the whole of reality. When one starts from the assumption that only that which is mechanical is real, one very naturally would come to the conclusion that nothing that is not mechanical exists. For example, consider what your hypothetical evidence for "God" would look like. Presumably you would require such evidence to be recordable, repeatable under particular circumstances, communicable to others, etc. But, any repeatable, recordable, communicable phenomenon would be immediately classified as natural. For example, we observe bizzare quantum mechanical effects; effects that cannot be explained using our current understanding of causality. Are QM effects then considered proof against materialism? Of course not, nor should they be. Your definitions of reality and evidence preclude the existance of God before we even begin.

Science is excellent for the study of natural phenomena. It is an accepted tenet of scientific inquiry that supernatural explainations are inadmissable. This is a resonable requirement, because science is intended for the study of the natural. The problem is when people then suppose that all truth must be scientific. This means that without any reasonable basis, they've a-priori thrown out the spiritual.

The question is not whether it is possible to explain things using only the physical, but whether that is the best explaination for our observations, scientific and otherwise. The nature of man, especially man's consiousness, I believe indicates that the physical is not all there is -- it is of a qualitatively different nature than a purely physical system.

The first question is, is reality purely mechanical (by which I mean, purely material, and governed by deterministic laws and perhaps randomness). If the answer is yes, of course God does not exist. If the answer is no, then we may consider the question of God, starting from that point.

DriftWood
06-03-2008, 01:19 PM
I agree that agnosticism can be at times a bit of a cop out - and the points you make regarding how nearly nothing is truly provable are right on the money. However, I don't think that agnosticism is necessarily unreasonable. One could believe that while God could exist and interact with reality, evidence for or against such interaction is very weak. Interaction does not necessarily imply practical provability, especially when one has limited knowledge.



I think there is a fallacy in the assumption that physical, mechanical reality makes up the whole of reality. When one starts from the assumption that only that which is mechanical is real, one very naturally would come to the conclusion that nothing that is not mechanical exists. For example, consider what your hypothetical evidence for "God" would look like. Presumably you would require such evidence to be recordable, repeatable under particular circumstances, communicable to others, etc. But, any repeatable, recordable, communicable phenomenon would be immediately classified as natural. For example, we observe bizzare quantum mechanical effects; effects that cannot be explained using our current understanding of causality. Are QM effects then considered proof against materialism? Of course not, nor should they be. Your definitions of reality and evidence preclude the existance of God before we even begin.

Science is excellent for the study of natural phenomena. It is an accepted tenet of scientific inquiry that supernatural explainations are inadmissable. This is a resonable requirement, because science is intended for the study of the natural. The problem is when people then suppose that all truth must be scientific. This means that without any reasonable basis, they've a-priori thrown out the spiritual.

The question is not whether it is possible to explain things using only the physical, but whether that is the best explaination for our observations, scientific and otherwise. The nature of man, especially man's consiousness, I believe indicates that the physical is not all there is -- it is of a qualitatively different nature than a purely physical system.

The first question is, is reality purely mechanical (by which I mean, purely material, and governed by deterministic laws and perhaps randomness). If the answer is yes, of course God does not exist. If the answer is no, then we may consider the question of God, starting from that point.

Yes, i am a materialist. I don't see how one could be anything else without making assumptions a priori. So, we know nothing about reality, but we have senses thru witch we can observe. We can think, and we can sense. We notice that these senses are connected to our thought. We start to see patterns.. we form assumptions about these observations. We are able to predict them (when we think, we can raise an arm and hit a wall, which hurts). We call what we can sense, reality. The assumptions that don't fit with what we observe, we modify until they fit. The assumptions we hold about reality, might not be the true reality. But at least they are a ever closer approximation. We have no other way of observing reality than our senses. We can make reasonable assumptions of nothing but the world that we can observe. We know that these assumptions are reasonable because we can test them against reality.

Now there may be more to reality than we can observe today. We may need better instruments to observe these (like those small particles that make up the atom). But the bottom line is, that everything that effects us, is also observable to us. Metaphysics says that there are things that effect us that can not be observed . I think this is a contradiction. Even if the methaphysical thing is itself unobservable, the fact that it can reach out and touch reality means we can see and observe the effects it sets into motion. That simple fact means that its can be observed and it is not methaphysical, its just hard to observe. We can form assumptions about when and how these motions start.

Like a stone falling into water, even if we did not see the stone wee will see the rings in the water, and we can make a reasonable assumptions that it was caused by something falling into the water. (If we live below the surface as a fish or something.. we can start to make reasonable assumptions about there being something above the surface..)

If something invisible keeps giving us a electric shock every now and again, we try and predict when it happens. Maybe it happens every time we think something bad. We would then make a reasonable assumption that someone can hear what we think, and that it does not like us being bad. We could make all kinds of observations and predictions about this being by observing when it chooses to interact with reality. But what if its behavior was not predictable, what if those shocks where completely random? Well then nothing we did would make a difference, and the theory that, a being caused all those shocks would be unreasonable, because the theory would not help us predict reality.

A methaphysical being that sometimes interacts with reality, can be observed thru the consequences of these acts. We can use logics to make predictions about when these acts occur. If the being is not logical, then it is random. a methaphysical being that is random, is really no different from a randomness itself. There is no reason to assume that randomness has any properties, that randomness is a being that can think etc.

So coming back to it.. we can have different definitions on reality. But the only one that seems reasonable is, reality is everything that affects us. Everything that affects us can be observed. Everything that can be observed, can be made predictable. Only things that do not exist, or things that are random can not be predicted.

Broadening the definition of reality to include things that can not affect us.. is pointless. There is no reason to speculate about thinks that don't matter one way or the other. A powerless god is no god at all. A random god is no god at all.

(Oh.. almost forgot, quantum mechanics can be proven and predicted. Its part of reality. There is after all a theory that is testable against reality. As I understand it the weird part about it, is that observing the state of the thing, changes the state of the thing. They have still managed to find a way to test this in a lab, and put it to practical use.)

Cheers

Theocrat
06-03-2008, 01:30 PM
Oh boy, your fantasy knows no bounds. First of all, this movement started centuries before Dr. Paul was born, so claiming he started it is more than a little ridicoulous, but obviously fact has no effect on you. Secondly, if as you state an entire nation were "following" as you so ineptly put it, we wouldn't be getting 10~15 percent.
Going for screw up #3, I don't have "atheist" antics, because I'm not, whatever antics I have are mine, not somebody elses. Lastly, your absolutely clueless about what I can or can not justify, and for you to present otherwise is testamonial of your own absurdity. Far as arrogance goes, not generally, but I'll make an exception in your case.
Even Ron Paul does not like to discuss religion in politics, and nobody's trying to "suppress" you or anybody else, it's just that YOU are trying to pawn off your garbage and claim the movement itself backs your position, which Ron Paul knows better than to do.
Not only do I reject your religion, but I ESPECIALLY reject your unabashed attempt to hijack the movement and put your brand on it. I've been a freedom fighter my entire life, as Ron Paul has, and will defend your individual rights along with any other US citizens. We've had 911 people try to claim this movement is theirs, religious nut bags try it, Israel nut bags try it, along with many others.
Fact of the matter is this movement is about freedom, and your thinking you can impose your brand on it is what deservedly gets you and your type in trouble.
I've only been supporting Ron Paul for about 18 years, and I don't need some mental midget coming along and telling me he sparked something recently and I come up short. Just because some have have been asleep for decades and finally woke up doesn't mean that either Ron or I come up short. Just so you actually do know something for a change, I'm 6'9", and I'd be willing to bet your considerably shorter.

I was referring to this "Ron Paul Movement" that has been taking place in this Presidential race. When I said that Congressman Paul inspired an entire nation, I was speaking hyperbolically. He has caused people from all around the nation to gather together and support him in his quest to restore the Constitution (Just recall the numbers at his rallies, speeches, and other impressive grassroots support.).

I labeled your antics as "atheistic" because of your implication that religious people aren't logical, which is a standard misconception of most "atheists." As one who is a Christian and loves to study logic, I find your assessment to be naive and offensive. I and many other Christians support Congressman Paul for probably the same reasons you or any other "atheist"/agnostic does, and I don't see how either of our religious views in understanding logic necessarily appeals to Dr. Paul's message of liberty and limited government. As a religious man, it has more to do with preserving the God-given rights, which our Founding Fathers acknowledged, from the tyranny of a power-driven government. Thus, I find your statement disingenuous.

I'm not trying to claim this movement as my own, based on my own religious views. As a matter of fact, I agree with you that this movement started way before Congressman Paul, and it started with the Puritans landing here in the 17th Century to escape religious persecution under a tyrannical government in Europe. You may not agree with that (and we can start another thread to discuss it further), but my point is that the fight for freedom in this country has always been propelled by religious people. I don't have to stamp my own "brand of religion" to make this movement legit. I'm simply following in the same paths of those religious people in our country's history who fought for the right to have sane government which would protect and preserve God-given rights. You may reject my religion (Christianity), but without my religion you wouldn't have freedom to fight for anything in the first place, at least here in these United States. That's hard for many people to understand because we live in a postmodern culture where God is being removed from nearly every institution and public arena.

I think it's great you've been supporting Congressman Paul for 18 years, but that doesn't mean that you're correct in stating the religion doesn't influence Dr. Paul. Sure, he may be uncomfortable discussing his Christian beliefs in public, but his religion does have major influences on his policy decisions as well as his political/economic philosophy. I've read many of his writings, too, and the thing I find interesting is that his views match up with many other libertarian Christians who write on similar subjects such as the economy, the nature of rights, national sovereignty, et. al. As a matter of fact, I recall Congressman Paul writing explicitly against secularism pervading our governmental institutions. It seems in those cases he wasn't afraid to attack humanistic dogma, which you probably would subscribe to as being legitimate in forming and reforming how our government functions (correct me if I'm wrong). So, I would say, even for Congressman Paul, religion plays a big part in this movement.

As far as you mentioning your height to me, I'm not quite sure what you're seeking to prove or if you're just trying to intimidate me. If it's a fist fight you want, count me out. I don't fight that way, unless I absolutely have to. The battle I fight is in the arena of worldviews and ideas, and I use the Cornerstone to crush the heads of giants who seek to dethrone God and terrorize His people with their own subjective, arbitrary, inconsistent, naive, and contradictory beliefs. Congressman Paul once said that he prefers to deal with the philosophical beliefs of the issues, and I agree with him. Our country is on the brink of destruction because men and women behave in ways which are influenced by their own philosophical beliefs about government, the family, what life is, and a host of other issues. I believe it is those beliefs and behaviors which need to be discussed and debated on our soapboxes before it becomes too late for us, and then we have to bring out the ammo boxes. So if you want to fight me, "big man," then let's do it with our words and ideas, not with fists and knives, and when the dust settles from our battle, I hope both of us will be on our knees in fellowship before the throne of the God of the universe, praying for Him to save our nation.

AndyWhite
06-03-2008, 07:49 PM
I'm agnostic and remain neutral on religion. I'm going to vote for Chuck Baldwin so that can help illustrate I don't discriminate against religious candidates. But I also believe that religion does not have a monopoly on morality and that you don't have to be religious to recognize there is a battle between good and evil.

WRellim
06-03-2008, 08:15 PM
I'd rather read/listen/learn than join most discussions the past year or two. This forum has linked me to some of the most incredible videos and online websites for study/learning - if I start yapping, I'll miss out on some more learning/research. There's a lotta resources here, too, for off-the-computer stuff and ways to promote the message of Liberty.

It's kinda like a mini university here, if utilized in all the ways possible.


Ah, then, relevant to your "mini university" here is a most excellent "professor" (pun intended) for you to study under:
The Complete Works of Thomas Paine (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/index.htm) (Free and online... good stuff.)


And relevant to the specific topic at hand in this thread, Mr. Paine's final work:
Age Of Reason (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/index.htm)


Side note (from Thom Paine) to the young atheists out there (and to the Christians, Buddists, Agnostics, etc... old people too! From his Age of Reason introduction):


[...] You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE



So be careful you don't "[...] make a slave of yourself to your present opinion."


Because in a few years (or decades), you will realize that you were NOT really as wise, nor as pure, nor as logical as you currently believe yourself to be. (Oh, and you're really NOT immortal or invincible either... but you'll find that out along the way.)

Cheers.

tremendoustie
06-04-2008, 03:31 AM
Quick note to theocrat, and others, before I begin: There's enough room in the movement for Christians, Athiests, Agnostics, those of other religions, etc. I don't understand the motivation to try to convince people that "if you were a REAL supporter of liberty you would also agree with me on xyz". I also don't know what the point of trying to prove one's intellectual heritage to be supperior is, but I don't think it accomplishes anything good.

Now:

Yes, i am a materialist. I don't see how one could be anything else without making assumptions a priori. So, we know nothing about reality, but we have senses thru witch we can observe. We can think, and we can sense. We notice that these senses are connected to our thought. We start to see patterns.. we form assumptions about these observations. We are able to predict them (when we think, we can raise an arm and hit a wall, which hurts). We call what we can sense, reality. The assumptions that don't fit with what we observe, we modify until they fit. The assumptions we hold about reality, might not be the true reality. But at least they are a ever closer approximation. We have no other way of observing reality than our senses. We can make reasonable assumptions of nothing but the world that we can observe. We know that these assumptions are reasonable because we can test them against reality.


Of course, anything sensed through the five senses must be material in nature, since our senses are mechanisms that respond to physical stimuli. I submit that the human mind is not purely material, however.

I think it's actually fairly self-evident, but I'll briefly offer a couple examples of arguments for the non-materiality of human consciousness:

In theory, any purely mechanical or natural thing can be observed, and its existance proven, even if we are not capable of it now. Any such system is completely determined by the position and nature of its particles, because that is all there is. Consciousness is different, because it is by definition impossible to observe, or define based on the position of particles. Suppose one completely duplicated you, exactly replicated the position and nature of every particle in your body. It would be impossible to know for sure whether that being experienced self-awareness or not, despite having full knowledge of its physical nature. It's behavior would be indistiguishable from yours in a mechanical universe -- completely determined by the position and nature of its particles (until differing environments changed you and it, of course). If such a charictaristic exists, which cannot be determined despite perfect physical knowledge, that charictaristic cannot possibly be physical.

Along another line, in order to concieve of something it must either exist or be an extrapolation or conglomeration of things that do exist. There is no possibility, from a naturalistic perspective, of a truely original idea. Try to imagine a fifth dimension. We've got four dimensions to work off of, and it's still impossible. Where is the naturalistic source of value statements about things, statements about meaning, purpose, goodness, beauty, etc? We're hungry, we want food. We're thirsty, we want drink. We'd like to detect dark matter, in order to further our scientific understanding, thereby ensuring the species' survival, we'll use Einstein's gravitational lens effect. This is the extent of the human mind according to the naturalistic model. The fact that some now wish to banish those pesky value judgements from the human consciousness, and conform ourselves to the naturalistic model, does not remove the inconvenient detail that those things shouldn't really have ever been here in the first place.

If one does accept the premise that the human consciousness is indeed not purely mechanical, than the first place one would look for interaction with the non-material would be in the consciousness -- I submit that this is exactly what we find. Thus, our five senses can observe physical reality, while the metaphysical interacts with the conscousness (and perhaps, if one believes in such things, occasionally messes directly with nature as well, in a non-repeatable manner).



Now there may be more to reality than we can observe today. We may need better instruments to observe these (like those small particles that make up the atom). But the bottom line is, that everything that effects us, is also observable to us. Metaphysics says that there are things that effect us that can not be observed . I think this is a contradiction. Even if the methaphysical thing is itself unobservable, the fact that it can reach out and touch reality means we can see and observe the effects it sets into motion. That simple fact means that its can be observed and it is not methaphysical, its just hard to observe. We can form assumptions about when and how these motions start.

Like a stone falling into water, even if we did not see the stone wee will see the rings in the water, and we can make a reasonable assumptions that it was caused by something falling into the water. (If we live below the surface as a fish or something.. we can start to make reasonable assumptions about there being something above the surface..)


QM (with chaos theory) makes backing out physical causality in a deterministic fashion theoretically impossible for systems too sensitive or causal chains going too far into the past. This is just an example of an idea, but one way the consciousness could affect the physical state of the brain is by manipulating the wavefunctions of particles in neurons.



If something invisible keeps giving us a electric shock every now and again, we try and predict when it happens. Maybe it happens every time we think something bad. We would then make a reasonable assumption that someone can hear what we think, and that it does not like us being bad. We could make all kinds of observations and predictions about this being by observing when it chooses to interact with reality. But what if its behavior was not predictable, what if those shocks where completely random? Well then nothing we did would make a difference, and the theory that, a being caused all those shocks would be unreasonable, because the theory would not help us predict reality.

A methaphysical being that sometimes interacts with reality, can be observed thru the consequences of these acts. We can use logics to make predictions about when these acts occur. If the being is not logical, then it is random. a methaphysical being that is random, is really no different from a randomness itself. There is no reason to assume that randomness has any properties, that randomness is a being that can think etc.


I don't think this is true at all. If one experienced electro-shocks every time one lied, the physical source of those shocks would be investigated -- in the mean time theories would be proffered about the mental state of a liar causing the shocks in some way, etc. Finally, if the source was totally unexplained, it would be marked up to the "lying electroshock force" -- the last thing that would happen is that we would assume a non-physical being. The fact is, no physical evidence could really prove the non-physical -- which, as I pointed out, makes the complaint that "no physical repeatable evidence exists" for God rather empty, since evidence meeting these criteria is not possible even in theory (nor is evidence against possible). The evidence for God, if it exists, would be found in the human mind -- more specifically, one's own mental nature.

Of course, if one is not really looking for rigerous proof but merely evidence, and one is not resistant to the idea of the non-physical, some physical observations may be convincing. E.G, excellence of nature -- but such observations will always be explainable to those seeking a purely physical interpretation if at all possible.



So coming back to it.. we can have different definitions on reality. But the only one that seems reasonable is, reality is everything that affects us. Everything that affects us can be observed. Everything that can be observed, can be made predictable. Only things that do not exist, or things that are random can not be predicted.

Broadening the definition of reality to include things that can not affect us.. is pointless. There is no reason to speculate about thinks that don't matter one way or the other. A powerless god is no god at all. A random god is no god at all.

(Oh.. almost forgot, quantum mechanics can be proven and predicted. Its part of reality. There is after all a theory that is testable against reality. As I understand it the weird part about it, is that observing the state of the thing, changes the state of the thing. They have still managed to find a way to test this in a lab, and put it to practical use.)

Cheers

Certainly reality must affect us, and be observable. The question is, should we restrict ourselves to observations that are repeatable, communicable, and come through our five senses, or is one willing to admit evidence related to the nature of one's own mind? It seems to me that we do observe our own mental nature, and state, as well as observing through our senses. For example, according to the senses, humankind could be nothing but automata emulating intelligent behavior -- it is only by the observation of one's own mind that one realizes that is not the case.

And, QM may be understood to some extent, and is certainly observable, but it is fundamentally different in that it is not deterministic. The position and velocity of particles is actually in an undetermined state until observation -- no deterministic rule dictates in what state they will be under observation. This is not a lack of knowledge, but an actual element of randomness.

I didn't touch on this much, but I think we must also consider the definition of physical vs. non-physical. Science never truely explains anything -- it merely recognizes patters, and tries to reduce the number of unexplained phenomena by attributing as large a number of observed behaviors to as few phenomena as possible. Thus, we have a large number of behaviors attributed to "gravity", "electromagnitism", "weak or strong atomic force" etc, but none of these are truely explained. We seek a grand unified theory, so we will have only one unexplained force, but still that force will remain unexplained. Why do we not consider that force "supernatural"? Is the question only one of repeatability? A phenomenon which always occurs is natural, while one which does not always occur is not natural? We have a clearly defined area of unpredictability in QM, perhaps then certain behaviors of subatomic particles are "supernatural"? Or, perhaps we should include randomness in the physical, and reserve only non-random, non deterministic effects to the spiritual. The only non-random, non-deterministic decision making that I can think of is a mind.

So, are we really reduced to the idea that naturalism means there is no such thing as a "mind" in the real sense of the word, that can make real decisions, but only randomness and determinism exists? And conversely, a belief in the nonphysical means a belief in mind? If so, on what basis do we exclude the idea of mind, when we so clearly observe an example of it in our own consciousness? Why is that the odd man out, so to speak, in the pantheon of naturalism?

JaylieWoW
06-04-2008, 09:37 AM
I think a lot of ________ like Ron Paul because even though his Christian faith is strong, he didn't once use it to propel his campaign or try to strengthen his message with it.

/2cents

QFT

DriftWood
06-04-2008, 09:46 AM
Of course, anything sensed through the five senses must be material in nature, since our senses are mechanisms that respond to physical stimuli. I submit that the human mind is not purely material, however.

I think it's actually fairly self-evident, but I'll briefly offer a couple examples of arguments for the non-materiality of human consciousness:

In theory, any purely mechanical or natural thing can be observed, and its existance proven, even if we are not capable of it now. Any such system is completely determined by the position and nature of its particles, because that is all there is. Consciousness is different, because it is by definition impossible to observe, or define based on the position of particles. Suppose one completely duplicated you, exactly replicated the position and nature of every particle in your body. It would be impossible to know for sure whether that being experienced self-awareness or not, despite having full knowledge of its physical nature. It's behavior would be indistiguishable from yours in a mechanical universe -- completely determined by the position and nature of its particles (until differing environments changed you and it, of course). If such a charictaristic exists, which cannot be determined despite perfect physical knowledge, that charictaristic cannot possibly be physical.



Thanks for the reply.. you make some interesting point.. i have a few disagreements though..

You only assume that consciousness is different, that it cant be observed mechanically. CAT type brain scanning, while people do cognitive task, or while they feel feelings, has shown that many aspects about consciousness is observable mechanically. Also the link between "body" and mind has been reproduced to some extent. Impaired people who have gained control of computers. (I bet it feels completely natural for Hawkings to talk thru a computer. The computer voice box probably feels like part of him.) People who lost a limb.. there is this artificial limb that is controlled in much the same way as a real limb. The user just has to think about lifting his arm, and t happens. Pretty amazing stuff.

A perfect "mechanical" duplicate of me.. really is another me. If it behaves as if its alive and human. Then it really is alive and human. There is no reason to assume that something else needs to be added to the mix. Assuming so, is assuming without reason or evidence. If such a duplicate behaves as human as the rest of us. Then how can you assume that the rest of us has something that the duplicate does not have. How do you know that the rest of us has a soul, and that the duplicate does not. And if you don't know that other people have souls either, then how do you know that you have one yourself. The only reason you think you have one, is because you assume you have one. There is nothing contradictory about feelings, wants, personality, values and thought being mechanical. I could very much imagine that in the future there will be instruments (much like a cat scan) that can observe all those things.



If one does accept the premise that the human consciousness is indeed not purely mechanical, than the first place one would look for interaction with the non-material would be in the consciousness -- I submit that this is exactly what we find. Thus, our five senses can observe physical reality, while the metaphysical interacts with the conscousness (and perhaps, if one believes in such things, occasionally messes directly with nature as well, in a non-repeatable manner).


Well, i still don't see any reason why we have to accept that assumption.. there is no reason for it. Of course if we accept the assumption anyway, then we are pretty much free to speculate without boundaries. Anything we want to be true will be true. As we no longer have a away to spot and throw away bad assumptions, any and all assumptions will be as good as the next one. Our assumptions no longer have to correspond with the only reality we can sense. We are just guessing, like a blind and guessing how many fingers are being held up.



I don't think this is true at all. If one experienced electro-shocks every time one lied, the physical source of those shocks would be investigated -- in the mean time theories would be proffered about the mental state of a liar causing the shocks in some way, etc. Finally, if the source was totally unexplained, it would be marked up to the "lying electroshock force" -- the last thing that would happen is that we would assume a non-physical being. The fact is, no physical evidence could really prove the non-physical -- which, as I pointed out, makes the complaint that "no physical repeatable evidence exists" for God rather empty, since evidence meeting these criteria is not possible even in theory (nor is evidence against possible). The evidence for God, if it exists, would be found in the human mind -- more specifically, one's own mental nature.


Okay, i'll agree with that one.. a electro-chock to the brain from a metaphysical being, is really a contradiction. We have no reason to assume that the cause of the shocks are anything but physical. Also metaphysical thing that affects the physical, is really not metaphysical at all. Lots of physical things can not be observed directly, only indirectly. Like the black holes, we only observe them indirectly.. thru the effect their gravity has on other starts. That does not mean that they are metaphysical, it just means that they are hard to observe. Some of the small particles that make up atoms, have very little interaction with any other particles. That means observing them is hard, but they are no metaphysical. Maybe there are particles that have no interaction with other particles. But how is not interacting with reality, any different from not existing? I think its all the same. A particle that does not interact with anything, is no particle at all. There is no point in imagining such particles, as they can make no difference to us or our reality one way or another.




Certainly reality must affect us, and be observable. The question is, should we restrict ourselves to observations that are repeatable, communicable, and come through our five senses, or is one willing to admit evidence related to the nature of one's own mind? It seems to me that we do observe our own mental nature, and state, as well as observing through our senses. For example, according to the senses, humankind could be nothing but automata emulating intelligent behavior -- it is only by the observation of one's own mind that one realizes that is not the case.



Yes, we must restrict ourselves to the observable and repeatable. Anything not observable is speculation. Anything that does not behave in a predictable fashion is random. (It might not be truly random.. in that it could be predicted if we where a bit smarter and had a better theory. But then it really is predictable and not random at all). We don't see our own mechanical mind directly, but with the cat scan experiments and all.. we are beginning to see more of it indirectly. There is less and less room to speculate that the mind is anything but mechanical.



And, QM may be understood to some extent, and is certainly observable, but it is fundamentally different in that it is not deterministic. The position and velocity of particles is actually in an undetermined state until observation -- no deterministic rule dictates in what state they will be under observation. This is not a lack of knowledge, but an actual element of randomness.


I'm no expert on QM, few people are, and i think there is risk of drawing bad conclusions about reality, from misunderstanding it.

As far as i understand.. and i might be wrong.. but the "duality" is a lack of knowledge about the element, not some randomness property of the element itself. The fact that the state of the object will be destroyed when it is observed will mean that we have to assume the object in the beginning is in one of all possible states. Then we have to blindly interact with the object.. we can calculate statistically that some states at this point is more probable than others. And finally we observe the object, and we see what state the object actually is in.. and we can also calculate backwards from there what the state of the object was in the beginning.




I didn't touch on this much, but I think we must also consider the definition of physical vs. non-physical. Science never truely explains anything -- it merely recognizes patters, and tries to reduce the number of unexplained phenomena by attributing as large a number of observed behaviors to as few phenomena as possible. Thus, we have a large number of behaviors attributed to "gravity", "electromagnitism", "weak or strong atomic force" etc, but none of these are truely explained. We seek a grand unified theory, so we will have only one unexplained force, but still that force will remain unexplained. Why do we not consider that force "supernatural"? Is the question only one of repeatability? A phenomenon which always occurs is natural, while one which does not always occur is not natural? We have a clearly defined area of unpredictability in QM, perhaps then certain behaviors of subatomic particles are "supernatural"? Or, perhaps we should include randomness in the physical, and reserve only non-random, non deterministic effects to the spiritual. The only non-random, non-deterministic decision making that I can think of is a mind.

So, are we really reduced to the idea that naturalism means there is no such thing as a "mind" in the real sense of the word, that can make real decisions, but only randomness and determinism exists? And conversely, a belief in the nonphysical means a belief in mind? If so, on what basis do we exclude the idea of mind, when we so clearly observe an example of it in our own consciousness? Why is that the odd man out, so to speak, in the pantheon of naturalism?

Yeah, I think thats a reasonable statement.. there exists predictable things, random things (which might not really be random.. we might just not have come across the right theory that makes the predictable yet), and then there might exist things that do not exist in reality (but it makes no sense speculating about them).

We have such a hard time accepting a materialistic view on reality and determinism simply because we don't what it to be true. We like our romantic fairy tails and happy endings. Reality by comparison seems so cold.

Cheers

jumpyg1258
06-04-2008, 10:07 AM
Religion and politics do not have any buisness being together in this country. I think the USA would be a lot better off if people who did not care about religion where the only ones getting into office. That would probably exclude a good 95% of the population though.

Anti Federalist
06-04-2008, 10:25 AM
not to stir up anything, although I know it probably will, but if my theory is right and God is simply just the principles, then each atheist and agnostic (including those in this thread) believes in God - they just don't know it. It kinda freaks me out.

I think about how many atheists/agnostics in various political ideologies who really, really 'get' the principles of liberty and freedom would literally die to protect those principles... and I got to thinking about it just being logical and even compassionate to want to protect the principles, as without them, life would be unsustainable and would eventually destroy itself.

It's sort of like we're all embracing God, as just a logical set of rules, that would lead us to a pretty awesome life here on planet Earth, if we just followed the logic and compassion of those rules.

It's what every hardcore atheist Libertarian probably will come to terms with... that day it dawns on ya that, all along, you were God's greatest defender. You had more faith in him, more of an understanding of him, and more love for him than some of your 'religious' brothers and sisters. God loves you for it, and he's gonna punk you like he punked me - I'm telling ya. You'll laugh about it, and feel pretty dang humbled by it. God's comical and rock and roll. He probably gets a kick outta watching the different 'traditions' in various churches and sects of religions devoted to him and just keeps hoping they one day really embrace the principles, the core of 'him' - ya know? God must sigh and chuckle a lot. He probably cries a lot, too. And I bet he LOL's and ROFLHAO's, too.

And he does it through us.

God's in each of us - Jesus, too. I think they've been trying to tell us that a lot louder lately. I think the proof is all around us - we better pause to listen.

It's not the God in the Bible - he's inside you, tap into him. Jesus did - sure, it got him crucified, but pretty much all of you who get those principles would die to defend them, too. They can't crucify all of us - heck, if we were around back then, they wouldn't have even achieved the crucifying of Jesus. Jesus really got the shaft with his grassroots.

I hope I don't get banned for saying that, but I sometimes get really angry about how Jesus got killed for just being a peaceful guy trying to explain the principles and help folks out.

Anyways... there's my ramble for the month of June.

Har, they booed Ron Paul at Christian debate when he mentioned the "Prince of Peace".

Oldest story in history, upset the power players and the status quo, you'll be crucified.

There is more to life than the here and now.

There is more to see than what is in front of our eyes.

To miss that concept is to miss an essential core of what makes humanity.

That is God.

tremendoustie
06-04-2008, 03:14 PM
Thanks for the reply.. you make some interesting point.. i have a few disagreements though..

You only assume that consciousness is different, that it cant be observed mechanically. CAT type brain scanning, while people do cognitive task, or while they feel feelings, has shown that many aspects about consciousness is observable mechanically. Also the link between "body" and mind has been reproduced to some extent. Impaired people who have gained control of computers. (I bet it feels completely natural for Hawkings to talk thru a computer. The computer voice box probably feels like part of him.) People who lost a limb.. there is this artificial limb that is controlled in much the same way as a real limb. The user just has to think about lifting his arm, and t happens. Pretty amazing stuff.

Cheers

The fact that consciousness affects brain activity (and perhaps even vice-versa) does not imply that consciousness itself is purely mechanical. And certainly the brain is highly adaptive.



A perfect "mechanical" duplicate of me.. really is another me. If it behaves as if its alive and human. Then it really is alive and human. There is no reason to assume that something else needs to be added to the mix. Assuming so, is assuming without reason or evidence. If such a duplicate behaves as human as the rest of us. Then how can you assume that the rest of us has something that the duplicate does not have. How do you know that the rest of us has a soul, and that the duplicate does not.


Ah, but that is the point. I am saying that it's impossible to determine one way or another. We assume that others are conscious, and you might be reasonable to assume that the duplicate is conscious, but one cannot actually be certain of any consciousness but one's own. This, despite absolutely perfect knowledge of the physical state of the system -- implying that the attribute is not purely physical.

If you knew that one object conducted electricity, for example, and I made a perfect duplicate of that object, you would know for certain that the duplicate would be a conductor as well -- the definition of conductivity is precisely a particular physical attribute, implying a particular physical response to an influx of electrons. That is, "conducting electricity" is defined as the movement of electrons through a material. Although one could make assumptions or guesses about a possible relationship between consciousness and physical brain states, consciousness itself (meaning self awareness) cannot be defined in this way.



And if you don't know that other people have souls either, then how do you know that you have one yourself. The only reason you think you have one, is because you assume you have one.


And yet, you have no problem assuming that your five senses report something akin to reality. Why is this assumption less valid than the recognition of one's own consciousness? In fact, I'd say that consciousness is even more self-evident, and more fundamental than the senses. I can easily concieve of a situation where all of my five senses have been consistantly feeding me garbage since day 1, yet how could one be "tricked" into believing one is conscious? If it's an illusion, and "I" do not exist, then who exactly is falling for the illusion?

And yet, this recognition, according to your criteria, does not qualify as evidence, since it is not observable by the senses, which according to the naturalistic view, are assumed a-priori as the only valid source of truth.



There is nothing contradictory about feelings, wants, personality, values and thought being mechanical. I could very much imagine that in the future there will be instruments (much like a cat scan) that can observe all those things.


Any instrument can only observe physical stimuli. They perhaps could obeserve the physical state of the brain of a person experiencing these emotions, but they could certainly never measure the actual experience - the experience itself is only observable in the person's own consciousness.



Well, i still don't see any reason why we have to accept that assumption.. there is no reason for it. Of course if we accept the assumption anyway, then we are pretty much free to speculate without boundaries. Anything we want to be true will be true. As we no longer have a away to spot and throw away bad assumptions, any and all assumptions will be as good as the next one. Our assumptions no longer have to correspond with the only reality we can sense. We are just guessing, like a blind and guessing how many fingers are being held up.


No, we would observe the nature of the mind, and consider that as well as the senses, in forming our view of reality. Why must we pretend that we are automata for any logic to apply?



Okay, i'll agree with that one.. a electro-chock to the brain from a metaphysical being, is really a contradiction. We have no reason to assume that the cause of the shocks are anything but physical. Also metaphysical thing that affects the physical, is really not metaphysical at all. Lots of physical things can not be observed directly, only indirectly. Like the black holes, we only observe them indirectly.. thru the effect their gravity has on other starts. That does not mean that they are metaphysical, it just means that they are hard to observe. Some of the small particles that make up atoms, have very little interaction with any other particles. That means observing them is hard, but they are no metaphysical.


And yet, the definition of a black hole is a particular physical configuration of particles (very very densely packed ones to be exact), and the various particles have their own physical definitions. No such definition exists for consciousness.



Maybe there are particles that have no interaction with other particles. But how is not interacting with reality, any different from not existing? I think its all the same. A particle that does not interact with anything, is no particle at all. There is no point in imagining such particles, as they can make no difference to us or our reality one way or another.


Of course the non-physical can affect the physical, and vice versa. E.g. your mind observes reality through the senses, and commands the body through the brain.



Yes, we must restrict ourselves to the observable and repeatable. Anything not observable is speculation. Anything that does not behave in a predictable fashion is random. (It might not be truly random.. in that it could be predicted if we where a bit smarter and had a better theory. But then it really is predictable and not random at all).


Do you not see the irony in this? Naturalism defines the only admissible evidence as observable through the senses, which can only sense the physical, and repeatable, which implies deterministic. Then, it complains that no such evidence exists for the non-material, or undeterministic? This would be like me defining the only admissible evidence as red light, and then complaining that you cannot provide any evidence that the world is not purely red.



We don't see our own mechanical mind directly, but with the cat scan experiments and all.. we are beginning to see more of it indirectly. There is less and less room to speculate that the mind is anything but mechanical.

I'm no expert on QM, few people are, and i think there is risk of drawing bad conclusions about reality, from misunderstanding it.

As far as i understand.. and i might be wrong.. but the "duality" is a lack of knowledge about the element, not some randomness property of the element itself. The fact that the state of the object will be destroyed when it is observed will mean that we have to assume the object in the beginning is in one of all possible states. Then we have to blindly interact with the object.. we can calculate statistically that some states at this point is more probable than others. And finally we observe the object, and we see what state the object actually is in.. and we can also calculate backwards from there what the state of the object was in the beginning.


No, it's much more interesting than this :). Check out the quantum eraser experiment for an idea, for example, at: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/. When the photons' states are determined, the wavefront collapses, and the double slit experiment no longer produces diffraction. And, it is shown that it is not the method of observation that changes the results, but merely the act of collapsing the wave functions.

The particles really are in entangled, undetermined states, not just unknown to us, but truely undetermined. These particles behave differently when their wave functions are collapsed early, than they do when a system is run with the states still entangled. (This is how quantum computers work).



Yeah, I think thats a reasonable statement.. there exists predictable things, random things (which might not really be random.. we might just not have come across the right theory that makes the predictable yet), and then there might exist things that do not exist in reality (but it makes no sense speculating about them).
Cheers

Or, there might exist in reality things which are not predictable or random ;). Like, uh, you.



We have such a hard time accepting a materialistic view on reality and determinism simply because we don't what it to be true. We like our romantic fairy tails and happy endings. Reality by comparison seems so cold.

Cheers

Or, we have such a hard time accepting a materialistic view because it runs counter to what we know to be true about our own natures ... just sayin' ;)

Oh, and I'm curious as to your thoughts on the other argument, which I think you may have missed, I'll quote it here for reference:

"Along another line, in order to concieve of something it must either exist or be an extrapolation or conglomeration of things that do exist. There is no possibility, from a naturalistic perspective, of a truely original idea. Try to imagine a fifth dimension. We've got four dimensions to work off of, and it's still impossible. Where is the naturalistic source of value statements about things, statements about meaning, purpose, goodness, beauty, etc? We're hungry, we want food. We're thirsty, we want drink. We'd like to detect dark matter, in order to further our scientific understanding, thereby ensuring the species' survival, we'll use Einstein's gravitational lens effect. This is the extent of the human mind according to the naturalistic model. The fact that some now wish to banish those pesky value judgements from the human consciousness, and conform ourselves to the naturalistic model, does not remove the inconvenient detail that those things shouldn't really have ever been here in the first place."

Best Regards

kpitcher
06-04-2008, 09:47 PM
3. Without atheism, Communism could never have arisen to murder millions, and without atheism this country and our Constitution could never be subsumed by an emerging godless world government.



I'd contest that without athiesm this county wouldn't exist. Some of our most revered founding fathers were athiests.



"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme
being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable
of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-- Thomas Jefferson
(letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)


Or at the very least a deist.


"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point
of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there
were no religion in it!"
- President John Adams


Also I disagree that an agnostic is a cop-out of an athiest. Shall we look at the very definition?



Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of
which lies in the vigorous application of a single
principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed
as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far
as it can take you without other considerations. And
negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend
that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or
demonstrable.
-- "Agnosticism", 1889


While the formal definition doesn't match the general definition of 'not able to comprehend the face of god' it does lead to that conclusion.

Personally, following reason is usually straight forward enough, until you hit upon something that defies known reason, but you personally experienced. In my life I have experienced events that go beyond an engineering education to rationally explain. I could possibly jump to conclusions, subscribing it to a god, or I could say 'well my logic is not perfected so I leave the possibility of something beyond my ken to exist'. Recognizing one's limits is not a copout.

I find that Einstein had some very interesting thoughts on the subject. He was a true genius in so many ways.



I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being.
-- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949



However one thing I have found to be true in the Ron Paul camp is that usually it does not matter what religion, gender, race, misc demographic - Patriotism comes from all corners. Asking why it appeals to one section may be educational, but it can lead to divisiveness pretty easily. What it boils down to is the simple question of
"Why do we all like Ron Paul?" We as the Ron Paul grassroots, his supporters. I think the answer to that would cross all classifications, something along the line of - Ron Paul's Honesty, Integrity, and following something that is dear to us all (The Constitution) makes Ron Paul a natural choice.

badmedia
06-05-2008, 03:17 AM
kpitcher. You do realize that Jefferson actually wrote his own version of the bible? Which pretty much stuck to the philosophies, and not so much the mysticism.

Thomas Jefferson believed almost exactly as I do. I also even use to consider myself a deist.



Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.

This presentation of The Jefferson Bible offers the text as selected and arranged by Jefferson in two separate editions: one edition uses a revised King James Version of the biblical texts, corrected in accordance with the findings of modern scholarship; the second edition uses the original unrevised KJV. The actual verses of the Bible used for both editions are those chosen by Jefferson. Visitors should find the revised KJV text much easier to read and understand. Those seeking the precise English version Mr. Jefferson used when making his compilation can click on "Unrevised KJV text."

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

DriftWood
06-05-2008, 03:27 AM
The fact that consciousness affects brain activity (and perhaps even vice-versa) does not imply that consciousness itself is purely mechanical. And certainly the brain is highly adaptive.



Ah, but that is the point. I am saying that it's impossible to determine one way or another. We assume that others are conscious, and you might be reasonable to assume that the duplicate is conscious, but one cannot actually be certain of any consciousness but one's own. This, despite absolutely perfect knowledge of the physical state of the system -- implying that the attribute is not purely physical.

If you knew that one object conducted electricity, for example, and I made a perfect duplicate of that object, you would know for certain that the duplicate would be a conductor as well -- the definition of conductivity is precisely a particular physical attribute, implying a particular physical response to an influx of electrons. That is, "conducting electricity" is defined as the movement of electrons through a material. Although one could make assumptions or guesses about a possible relationship between consciousness and physical brain states, consciousness itself (meaning self awareness) cannot be defined in this way.



And yet, you have no problem assuming that your five senses report something akin to reality. Why is this assumption less valid than the recognition of one's own consciousness? In fact, I'd say that consciousness is even more self-evident, and more fundamental than the senses. I can easily concieve of a situation where all of my five senses have been consistantly feeding me garbage since day 1, yet how could one be "tricked" into believing one is conscious? If it's an illusion, and "I" do not exist, then who exactly is falling for the illusion?

And yet, this recognition, according to your criteria, does not qualify as evidence, since it is not observable by the senses, which according to the naturalistic view, are assumed a-priori as the only valid source of truth.



Any instrument can only observe physical stimuli. They perhaps could obeserve the physical state of the brain of a person experiencing these emotions, but they could certainly never measure the actual experience - the experience itself is only observable in the person's own consciousness.



No, we would observe the nature of the mind, and consider that as well as the senses, in forming our view of reality. Why must we pretend that we are automata for any logic to apply?



And yet, the definition of a black hole is a particular physical configuration of particles (very very densely packed ones to be exact), and the various particles have their own physical definitions. No such definition exists for consciousness.



Of course the non-physical can affect the physical, and vice versa. E.g. your mind observes reality through the senses, and commands the body through the brain.



Do you not see the irony in this? Naturalism defines the only admissible evidence as observable through the senses, which can only sense the physical, and repeatable, which implies deterministic. Then, it complains that no such evidence exists for the non-material, or undeterministic? This would be like me defining the only admissible evidence as red light, and then complaining that you cannot provide any evidence that the world is not purely red.



No, it's much more interesting than this :). Check out the quantum eraser experiment for an idea, for example, at: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/. When the photons' states are determined, the wavefront collapses, and the double slit experiment no longer produces diffraction. And, it is shown that it is not the method of observation that changes the results, but merely the act of collapsing the wave functions.

The particles really are in entangled, undetermined states, not just unknown to us, but truely undetermined. These particles behave differently when their wave functions are collapsed early, than they do when a system is run with the states still entangled. (This is how quantum computers work).



Or, there might exist in reality things which are not predictable or random ;). Like, uh, you.



Or, we have such a hard time accepting a materialistic view because it runs counter to what we know to be true about our own natures ... just sayin' ;)

Oh, and I'm curious as to your thoughts on the other argument, which I think you may have missed, I'll quote it here for reference:

"Along another line, in order to conceive of something it must either exist or be an extrapolation or conglomeration of things that do exist. There is no possibility, from a naturalistic perspective, of a truely original idea. Try to imagine a fifth dimension. We've got four dimensions to work off of, and it's still impossible. Where is the naturalistic source of value statements about things, statements about meaning, purpose, goodness, beauty, etc? We're hungry, we want food. We're thirsty, we want drink. We'd like to detect dark matter, in order to further our scientific understanding, thereby ensuring the species' survival, we'll use Einstein's gravitational lens effect. This is the extent of the human mind according to the naturalistic model. The fact that some now wish to banish those pesky value judgments from the human consciousness, and conform ourselves to the naturalistic model, does not remove the inconvenient detail that those things shouldn't really have ever been here in the first place."

Best Regards


We know our senses are not garbage.. because we can predict them. We know that whatever we can observe with our senses in some sense exists (whether they are really sensing from outside our body or not). When we see something falling into our hand, we expect it to make a sound and hurt a bit when it hits. Our observations match, they do not contradict eachother. We know that our different senses whatever reality they are sensing it is different perspectives of the same reality.

We also know that our thoughts can effect the same reality that our senses can observe. When we think about hitting a wall, we sense our hand move, and we sense the pain (and hear the sound) when it hits the wall. Clearly cause and effect at least work in one direction. From mind to the physical world. But does it work the other way around as well. This is really where the disagreement between spiritualist and materialist lay. Materialists say its a two way street and spiritualist say its a one way street. We can test if it the physical world can affect our mind.. by some simple experiments. We can run headfirst into a wall. We will probably bee knocked out, and we will not be able to think coherently for a while. When we get drunk or take drugs, we cant think coherently for a while, and we feel all sorts of feelings. Clearly the physical world can effect our mind and our thoughts. If we get a lobotomy, it changes our mind and our thoughts. The mind affects physical things and it gets affected by physical things. That enough evidence for me that the mind is physical, not spiritual (or supernatural, or metaphysical).

imagine a industrial robot, one of those arm things that make cars.. imagine someone makes AI software for it. Software that can change its own code. Imagine this robot trying to make sense of the world. It sees that it can control the arm by "thinking". It senses "pain" when it crashes its arm into a wall. Imagine trying to explain to this robot that it mind is just a bunch of electrons running around in a chip. You could point to other robots, and point out how similarly they behave to itself. You could show the robot the electrons running around in their CPU when they move their arm. The robot might not be convinced that it worked the same way. You could show the robot his own CPU and the electrons running around there when it moves its arm or feels pain. It might tell you that those electrons are just the effect of thinking, not the cause of it. You could zap its CPU with a battery, and the robot would not have any control over its own arm, or thoughts. The robot would probably tell you to stop messing with its mind. It might tell you that the idea of software being physical is impossible and ridiculous. You might show it the code, and explain how that software runs on the CPU. It might jus tell you that it knows its mind is not just some electrons running around in a CPU. A CPU cant feel anything. Such a thing could not have a minds free will, and the robot knows it can decide to do anything it wants to. You explain how the code works again, how the software can change its own software. How on nothing more than a random whim, the software can change some of its own code, and thereby what the software is and its purpose changes. The robot might just tell you to shut up, that its no robot because it just knows it.

I think people are much like that robot, they just cant accept the materialistic concept regardless of how much evidence there is. The concept being that the mind is just electrons and chemicals running and floating around in our brain.

On some details in your reply..

I'll check out those QM links.. thanks..

And about "There is no possibility, from a naturalistic perspective, of a truly original idea. Try to imagine a fifth dimension."

Well, i think thats alot like imagining a particle that does not interact with our reality. If that particle or that fifth dimension really cant interact with our reality then it makes no sense to think about, it will not help us understand anything about how our reality works. However if that particle and 5th dimension can effect/interact with our reality then it really is part of our reality and we can start to indirectly observe and predict its nature.

And about "where is the naturalistic source of value statements about things, statements about meaning, purpose, goodness, beauty, etc?"

Well, I think all those things are electrons running along neuron configurations in your brain. When you change your mind about something, when you change your values, some of those neurons change connections. And the next time those electrons go on a loop thru your brain, you will think different thoughts because the connections have changed abit since last loop. That how i think, brains think deeper about stuff.

Cheers

DriftWood
06-05-2008, 04:18 AM
Also I disagree that an agnostic is a cop-out of an athiest. Shall we look at the very definition?



Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of
which lies in the vigorous application of a single
principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed
as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far
as it can take you without other considerations. And
negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend
that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or
demonstrable.
-- "Agnosticism", 1889


While the formal definition doesn't match the general definition of 'not able to comprehend the face of god' it does lead to that conclusion.

Personally, following reason is usually straight forward enough, until you hit upon something that defies known reason, but you personally experienced. In my life I have experienced events that go beyond an engineering education to rationally explain. I could possibly jump to conclusions, subscribing it to a god, or I could say 'well my logic is not perfected so I leave the possibility of something beyond my ken to exist'. Recognizing one's limits is not a copout.



Yes, following logic as far as it will take you, and following evidence and demonstrability where logic alone can not take you.. is a very good method for finding out truth (or probable truths) about reality.

However, I don't think that will leave us at a point where we just have to say, god exists or does not exists, we can say nothing more about it. It leaves us at a point where we can say something about the probability. It is more probable that the christian god (or any other definition) does not exists. This is because the god definitions are not a single asuumtion, but many. For every assumption or guess you make the probability of you being right becomes smaller. So a definition of God, something along the lines of: God was the first movement (the big bang). Here only a single (or few) assumption is made about god, god was an explosion. For this definition there might be equal probability to both sides.. but as you broaden the definition of god to something that religious people would accept, asumtions like being a being, having consciousness, still being alive, intervening in reality, being good, granting afterlife, caring specially about people and people who believe in him, or care specially about some members of some sect that live in a certain country.. etc the more you assume the less likely it is.

So a religious god definition is not probable.. a more probable definition of god is the none religious ones.. the one that some scientist (like Einstein) sometimes hint at.. however these are very basic definitions, stuff like god was the first movement. No religious person would be content if that was all that god meant. There would be no reason to pray to such a thing. It would not make a difference, as it would already have happened, so that "god" was already dead.

The things we do not know for certain, we can still know to a reasonable degree. There are lots of things in life that we don't know for certain. Like gravity, sunrise etc.. saying that you cant say if the run will rise tomorrow or if the apple will fall to the ground when you drop it is just unreasonable. The same goes for saying that you don't know to reasonable degree whether the Christian god exists.

Cheers

SteveMartin
06-05-2008, 05:05 AM
Originally Posted by SteveMartin View Post
3. Without atheism, Communism could never have arisen to murder millions, and without atheism this country and our Constitution could never be subsumed by an emerging godless world government.

I stand by this statement.



I'd contest that without athiesm this county wouldn't exist. Some of our most revered founding fathers were athiests.

None were atheists.

tremendoustie
06-05-2008, 07:38 AM
Thanks for your response :) (and willingness to think and discuss ideas). I think a point by point response might work better, though -- I don't see anything in your response really addressing my argument that consciousness itself has no materialistic definition, and yet is something we clearly experience.


We know our senses are not garbage.. because we can predict them. We know that whatever we can observe with our senses in some sense exists (whether they are really sensing from outside our body or not). When we see something falling into our hand, we expect it to make a sound and hurt a bit when it hits. Our observations match, they do not contradict eachother. We know that our different senses whatever reality they are sensing it is different perspectives of the same reality.
Cheers

Perhaps they are consistent with each other, but that does not imply that they as a whole are consistent with reality. I agree, by the way, that the accuracy of our senses is a very reasonable assumption (one necessarily must make some assumptions in order to have a basis from which to reason). My point is only that the recognition that one is self-aware is at least as fundamental, and certainly more self-evident, than the assumption of the veracity of our senses.



We also know that our thoughts can effect the same reality that our senses can observe. When we think about hitting a wall, we sense our hand move, and we sense the pain (and hear the sound) when it hits the wall. Clearly cause and effect at least work in one direction. From mind to the physical world. But does it work the other way around as well. This is really where the disagreement between spiritualist and materialist lay. Materialists say its a two way street and spiritualist say its a one way street. We can test if it the physical world can affect our mind.. by some simple experiments. We can run headfirst into a wall. We will probably bee knocked out, and we will not be able to think coherently for a while. When we get drunk or take drugs, we cant think coherently for a while, and we feel all sorts of feelings. Clearly the physical world can effect our mind and our thoughts. If we get a lobotomy, it changes our mind and our thoughts. The mind affects physical things and it gets affected by physical things.


Whoa! "From the mind to the physical world" kind of implies that the mind is not purely physical, does it not? I certainly agree that it works both ways -- the physical affects the mind, as well as vice-versa. It's fairly clear, I think, for the very reasons you state.



That enough evidence for me that the mind is physical, not spiritual (or supernatural, or metaphysical).

So, if X affects Y, and Y affects X, then Y=X? I'm not sure I follow this logic ...



imagine a industrial robot, one of those arm things that make cars.. imagine someone makes AI software for it. Software that can change its own code. Imagine this robot trying to make sense of the world. It sees that it can control the arm by "thinking". It senses "pain" when it crashes its arm into a wall.


Hold it! How could you possibly know the robot actually has a self awareness that experiences these things? Is this not an unfounded assumption?



Imagine trying to explain to this robot that it mind is just a bunch of electrons running around in a chip. You could point to other robots, and point out how similarly they behave to itself. You could show the robot the electrons running around in their CPU when they move their arm. The robot might not be convinced that it worked the same way. You could show the robot his own CPU and the electrons running around there when it moves its arm or feels pain. It might tell you that those electrons are just the effect of thinking, not the cause of it. You could zap its CPU with a battery, and the robot would not have any control over its own arm, or thoughts. The robot would probably tell you to stop messing with its mind. It might tell you that the idea of software being physical is impossible and ridiculous. You might show it the code, and explain how that software runs on the CPU. It might jus tell you that it knows its mind is not just some electrons running around in a CPU. A CPU cant feel anything. Such a thing could not have a minds free will, and the robot knows it can decide to do anything it wants to. You explain how the code works again, how the software can change its own software. How on nothing more than a random whim, the software can change some of its own code, and thereby what the software is and its purpose changes. The robot might just tell you to shut up, that its no robot because it just knows it.

I think people are much like that robot, they just cant accept the materialistic concept regardless of how much evidence there is. The concept being that the mind is just electrons and chemicals running and floating around in our brain.


And yet, I would say that the robot would never experience self-awareness at all (despite whatever behaviors you may have programmed it to emulate). And, you could never know that it did or did not experience self-awareness, despite perfect physical knowledge of the system (you could not know, without "being" the robot). This implies that the attribute of self awareness is not defined in terms of the purely physical.

In a broader sense, the description you provide explains your viewpoint well, but really does not prove anything, since you start by assuming what you're trying to show (that is, the very point we are discussing is whether humans are indeed robots). Suppose I believed A does not equal A, and you were disagreeing with me. I could say, "Suppose A did not equal A. You could argue with me all day that it does, but you would be wrong". This would not do anything to show that my thesis is correct.



On some details in your reply..

I'll check out those QM links.. thanks..

And about "There is no possibility, from a naturalistic perspective, of a truly original idea. Try to imagine a fifth dimension."

Well, i think thats alot like imagining a particle that does not interact with our reality. If that particle or that fifth dimension really cant interact with our reality then it makes no sense to think about, it will not help us understand anything about how our reality works. However if that particle and 5th dimension can effect/interact with our reality then it really is part of our reality and we can start to indirectly observe and predict its nature.


No, I think we could very easily imagine a particle that does not interact with our reality, because we can observe particles that do interact with our reality, and simply apply, in our minds, the attribute of "non interactivity" to such a particle.

What I mean is, we cannot imagine anything which is not based on a distortion, or extrapolation of our experiences. Try to come up with a totally original idea regarding the physical, for example, and I'll show you how it's based on a distortion of reality. All mythological creatures consist of conglomerations of other animals, and perhaps other shapes, etc. We cannot visualize a fifth dimension, for the very reason that it cannot be reached by the distortion or extrapolation of our actual experiences.

My point is that the ideas of "purpose" or "morality" cannot be arrived at by the manipulation of physical ideas, implying that there is something in our experiences outside of materialism.

For example, you can imagine, given only the language of mathematics, that 3=5. I doubt, however, that you could produce the statement "birds are green". If my mathematically cloistered student said this, I would begin to suspect that someone had snuck something other than math into the curriculum.




And about "where is the naturalistic source of value statements about things, statements about meaning, purpose, goodness, beauty, etc?"

Well, I think all those things are electrons running along neuron configurations in your brain. When you change your mind about something, when you change your values, some of those neurons change connections. And the next time those electrons go on a loop thru your brain, you will think different thoughts because the connections have changed abit since last loop. That how i think, brains think deeper about stuff.

Cheers

Right, but if we are purely physical beings, our minds, as any calculating device, can only operate on the inputs given. If an idea cannot be arrived at by the manipulation of inputs (from the senses), it should not be concievable to us. In a universe without light, no one wishes for it; in fact, the term "light" has no meaning at all.

~~~~~~

Regarding causality, what I'm saying is, we accept the idea of deterministic causes, that have no natural explanation (e.g. gravity or the unified force). As we discussed, there is no explanation of why or how these forces exist -- we simply believe they exist because we observe their effects. Likewise, we accept random causality with no natural explanation. These forces are not "inside" nature, in the sense that they are not explainable by nature, but rather they dictate behavior to nature.

Now, we recognize our own consciousness, which also appears to not be explainable by nature. Moreover, it appears that our consciousness does have the ability to affect nature (I command my arm to raise, and it does). Would not the most reasonable conclusion be that there is a third force, in causality by the mind, which is perhaps more obvious, and which we observe more initimately than either of the others? There is no reasonable basis for the exclusion of this form of causality.

Best Regards

Atheist73
06-05-2008, 09:00 AM
To the original poster, here is just one simple way that atheism and liberty can be congruent; a constitutionalist respects the rule of law. The rule of law relies upon factual evidence. Atheists tend to prefer factual evidence in lieu of folklore and "faith"...

DriftWood
06-05-2008, 10:29 AM
Thanks for your response :) (and willingness to think and discuss ideas). I think a point by point response might work better, though -- I don't see anything in your response really addressing my argument that consciousness itself has no materialistic definition, and yet is something we clearly experience.



Perhaps they are consistent with each other, but that does not imply that they as a whole are consistent with reality. I agree, by the way, that the accuracy of our senses is a very reasonable assumption (one necessarily must make some assumptions in order to have a basis from which to reason). My point is only that the recognition that one is self-aware is at least as fundamental, and certainly more self-evident, than the assumption of the veracity of our senses.



Whoa! "From the mind to the physical world" kind of implies that the mind is not purely physical, does it not? I certainly agree that it works both ways -- the physical affects the mind, as well as vice-versa. It's fairly clear, I think, for the very reasons you state.


So, if X affects Y, and Y affects X, then Y=X? I'm not sure I follow this logic ...



Hold it! How could you possibly know the robot actually has a self awareness that experiences these things? Is this not an unfounded assumption?



And yet, I would say that the robot would never experience self-awareness at all (despite whatever behaviors you may have programmed it to emulate). And, you could never know that it did or did not experience self-awareness, despite perfect physical knowledge of the system (you could not know, without "being" the robot). This implies that the attribute of self awareness is not defined in terms of the purely physical.

In a broader sense, the description you provide explains your viewpoint well, but really does not prove anything, since you start by assuming what you're trying to show (that is, the very point we are discussing is whether humans are indeed robots). Suppose I believed A does not equal A, and you were disagreeing with me. I could say, "Suppose A did not equal A. You could argue with me all day that it does, but you would be wrong". This would not do anything to show that my thesis is correct.



No, I think we could very easily imagine a particle that does not interact with our reality, because we can observe particles that do interact with our reality, and simply apply, in our minds, the attribute of "non interactivity" to such a particle.

What I mean is, we cannot imagine anything which is not based on a distortion, or extrapolation of our experiences. Try to come up with a totally original idea regarding the physical, for example, and I'll show you how it's based on a distortion of reality. All mythological creatures consist of conglomerations of other animals, and perhaps other shapes, etc. We cannot visualize a fifth dimension, for the very reason that it cannot be reached by the distortion or extrapolation of our actual experiences.

My point is that the ideas of "purpose" or "morality" cannot be arrived at by the manipulation of physical ideas, implying that there is something in our experiences outside of materialism.

For example, you can imagine, given only the language of mathematics, that 3=5. I doubt, however, that you could produce the statement "birds are green". If my mathematically cloistered student said this, I would begin to suspect that someone had snuck something other than math into the curriculum.



Right, but if we are purely physical beings, our minds, as any calculating device, can only operate on the inputs given. If an idea cannot be arrived at by the manipulation of inputs (from the senses), it should not be concievable to us. In a universe without light, no one wishes for it; in fact, the term "light" has no meaning at all.

~~~~~~

Regarding causality, what I'm saying is, we accept the idea of deterministic causes, that have no natural explanation (e.g. gravity or the unified force). As we discussed, there is no explanation of why or how these forces exist -- we simply believe they exist because we observe their effects. Likewise, we accept random causality with no natural explanation. These forces are not "inside" nature, in the sense that they are not explainable by nature, but rather they dictate behavior to nature.

Now, we recognize our own consciousness, which also appears to not be explainable by nature. Moreover, it appears that our consciousness does have the ability to affect nature (I command my arm to raise, and it does). Would not the most reasonable conclusion be that there is a third force, in causality by the mind, which is perhaps more obvious, and which we observe more initimately than either of the others? There is no reasonable basis for the exclusion of this form of causality.

Best Regards

Yeah, it might seem like a paradox. How a physical brain could think. Just like information it seems to not be a physical thing. Take the computer, the computer can do solve complicated math problems, by mechanical means. Yet the information that is created, the solution, does not seem to be physical.

A particle that does not interact with reality.. is a particle without properties. And what is existance other than something having properties. Sure we can imagine that the thing interacts with particles of a different reality.. and we can imagine that its a whole other universe there. But it will just be speculation and it will not have any consequences for our own reality. We can imagine that a heaven exists in another disconnected reality.. but we have no way to get there because if we could it would not be disconnected. And it has to be disconnected because otherwice it would be part of our reality and we could observe and interact with it.

And truly original ideas.. yeah i think there are a finite amount of possible ideas, but all possible ideas are not true. Some of these untrue ideas may be original. They are untrue because they do not correspond with reality. If reality was different they might be true.. but this is the reality we got so we better just get used to it. You are correct, we do not know why we got this reality and not some different one. Why we got the force of gravity instead of some other force. Maybe there are possible things in other realities that we can not imagine (but it makes little sense for us to be able to imagine such things as they can not affect our reality).

Anyways i'll stop thinking about this now.. as it hurts my head. I think the best argument i could come up with was that cause and effect works both ways between mind and reality.. meaning mind is really part of this reality, and not part of some other reality.

Cheers

tremendoustie
06-06-2008, 02:39 PM
Yeah, it might seem like a paradox. How a physical brain could think. Just like information it seems to not be a physical thing. Take the computer, the computer can do solve complicated math problems, by mechanical means. Yet the information that is created, the solution, does not seem to be physical.


If by "Information" you mean that the physical state of a system (e.g. a computer) could affect the physical state of another system (e.g. a brain), then information is very understandable in a materialistic context. If you mean that there is a self-aware person interpreting the results of the computer, and making abstract conclusions about mathematics, than it is not explainable.

From a naturalistic perspective, all that exists is the physical state of particles, so any "meaning" or "information" or "purpose" would only be a meaningful concept to the extent that they describe the physical state of a system.




A particle that does not interact with reality.. is a particle without properties. And what is existance other than something having properties. Sure we can imagine that the thing interacts with particles of a different reality.. and we can imagine that its a whole other universe there. But it will just be speculation and it will not have any consequences for our own reality. We can imagine that a heaven exists in another disconnected reality.. but we have no way to get there because if we could it would not be disconnected. And it has to be disconnected because otherwice it would be part of our reality and we could observe and interact with it.


Of course it would only be speculation, and we can certainly speculate about non-existant things. My point was, some non-existant concepts can be arrived at by the manipulation of concepts in nature. For example, I can imagine a sphinx, because I have seen a lion and a man, and simply combine the two ideas. Indeed, look at every legend that we have regarding the physical, and we see that they are all based on a distortion of reality in some way.

What do you do when you describe a new concept to a person? You describe it in terms of concepts the person is familar with. I might say to a person unfamiliar with a giraffe, that it has a neck like a tree trunk, a tail something like an elephant's, etc. This is the way we aquire new ideas, from others or in our own imagninations.

My point is, there are concepts that we could never arrive at by the observation of nature. I gave the example that if one lived in a lightless universe, the very concept of light would be meaningless, and could not exist even in legend. Or, for example, we cannot fully visualize what a fourth spatial dimension could look like. Yet, we observe concepts in our own minds like "meaning", "purpose", "beauty" etc, which could not possibly be arrived at by the observation of a mechanical universe -- a universe purely defined by the position and state of particles. This suggests that the position and state of particles does not fully define our reality.

(If we had not already realized this for other reasons)



And truly original ideas.. yeah i think there are a finite amount of possible ideas, but all possible ideas are not true. Some of these untrue ideas may be original. They are untrue because they do not correspond with reality. If reality was different they might be true.. but this is the reality we got so we better just get used to it. You are correct, we do not know why we got this reality and not some different one. Why we got the force of gravity instead of some other force. Maybe there are possible things in other realities that we can not imagine (but it makes little sense for us to be able to imagine such things as they can not affect our reality).


Certainly not all possible ideas are true, I think you misunderstood my point.



Anyways i'll stop thinking about this now.. as it hurts my head. I think the best argument i could come up with was that cause and effect works both ways between mind and reality.. meaning mind is really part of this reality, and not part of some other reality.

Cheers

I agree that the mind is part of reality, of course! I am arguing that our reality is not purely physical, as you are supposing it to be. The fact that we interact with the physical and the physical interacts with us does not imply that we are purely physical, any more than the fact that you interact with your hamburger and your hamburger interacts with you implies you are a hamburger.

I understand if you want to stop talking for now :). Thanks for making such an effort and being interested -- it's a shame these days that so many aren't interested in thinking. But of course, there are fewer of those on these boards ;). The one thing I'd encourage you to consider is the possibilty that we should accept the nature of the mind, as well as the observations of our senses, as a source of valid information from which to reason. It seems that in rejecting the mind, we have rejected a large portion of our humanity. It is no suprise that if we accept only that aspect of ourselves that observes the mechanical, that we begin to conclude we ourselves are only mechanical.

Best Regards

P.S. Is there someone here that would be interested in picking up for Driftwood? It would be helpful also if they would be willing to go back through the discussion and pick out some of the arguments that may have been dropped.

Ozwest
06-06-2008, 02:45 PM
Ron Paul strongly believed in the separation of church and state, although he is a religious man.

As an atheist, I respect that.

m72mc
06-06-2008, 03:18 PM
don't care about any god fantasy.

I do care about how we humans act. That has nothing to do with a god.

Ron Paul advocates common sense, how to act to your fellow man here on earth.

That is all that matters.

If someone believes in a god or not matters not, but how he act.

DriftWood
06-07-2008, 05:48 AM
I'll have another go. Cant not let it bee.


If by "Information" you mean that the physical state of a system (e.g. a computer) could affect the physical state of another system (e.g. a brain), then information is very understandable in a materialistic context. If you mean that there is a self-aware person interpreting the results of the computer, and making abstract conclusions about mathematics, than it is not explainable.


Okay, you are right, information does not exist without someone self-aware person interpreting it. But what is self awareness and cant it be physical? Self awareness, what is that other than a system that can use its own output as input. And that output changes the system itself. Software like this can be made. Software like that can evolve into something completely different, something very different and much more complex from the initial design. This could be related to the biological evolution.. where the initial design was very simple. It was a couple of molecules, that self replicated. But that simple software, self replication, caused imperfect replicas which had a bit more behavior, it became a system that effected its own self replication system. And the system grew more and more complex. The bad systems died. And the complex ones that where good at surviving.. evolved.. into complicated self feedback systems like seen in the brain of insects(?), animals, monkeys, humans. If you accept evolution worked like this, that a simple self unaware bacteria evolved into a monkey.. you have to accept that the mind is physical.



From a naturalistic perspective, all that exists is the physical state of particles, so any "meaning" or "information" or "purpose" would only be a meaningful concept to the extent that they describe the physical state of a system.





Of course it would only be speculation, and we can certainly speculate about non-existant things. My point was, some non-existant concepts can be arrived at by the manipulation of concepts in nature. For example, I can imagine a sphinx, because I have seen a lion and a man, and simply combine the two ideas. Indeed, look at every legend that we have regarding the physical, and we see that they are all based on a distortion of reality in some way.

What do you do when you describe a new concept to a person? You describe it in terms of concepts the person is familar with. I might say to a person unfamiliar with a giraffe, that it has a neck like a tree trunk, a tail something like an elephant's, etc. This is the way we aquire new ideas, from others or in our own imagninations.

My point is, there are concepts that we could never arrive at by the observation of nature. I gave the example that if one lived in a lightless universe, the very concept of light would be meaningless, and could not exist even in legend. Or, for example, we cannot fully visualize what a fourth spatial dimension could look like. Yet, we observe concepts in our own minds like "meaning", "purpose", "beauty" etc, which could not possibly be arrived at by the observation of a mechanical universe -- a universe purely defined by the position and state of particles. This suggests that the position and state of particles does not fully define our reality.



I agree and disagree.. Concepts are formed by combining smaller concepts. So in that sense there is nothing truly revolutionary or "out of this world" concept.

Complicated and abstract concepts can be formed by combining simpler concepts. I dont see it as an impossibility, that abstract and complicated concepts like "meaning" and "purpose" can form from simpler concepts, by mechanical means. I think these complicated concept comes from simple ones like the physical and mechanical concept of survival. From the concept, that self replicating systems that are not good at surviving do not survive to replicate. Systems that are bad at surviving to replicate, will be competed out of existence by better systems, that are better at getting at the limited resources that allow them to survive and replicate. Self aware systems with a sense of purpose, like love and family.. that are drawn to "beautiful" things and concepts are better at surviving. The human mind has made lots of animals extinct because humans ate better at getting at the limited resources that self replicating things need in order to replicate.



I agree that the mind is part of reality, of course! I am arguing that our reality is not purely physical, as you are supposing it to be. The fact that we interact with the physical and the physical interacts with us does not imply that we are purely physical, any more than the fact that you interact with your hamburger and your hamburger interacts with you implies you are a hamburger.


You are using a vague definition of reality.. the definition i have been using that everything that can interact with each other is part of the same reality. Physical means things that can interact. All interacting things can be observed (directly or indirectly), the interactions can be understood and predicted. The force behind these these interactions, the nature of the causing thing can be understood, predicted and proved.

Saying that the mind is not physical is saying that it can not interact with the physical. Or saying that it can interact with the physical and that it can be affected by the physical but is still not itself physical.. is saying something impossible.. its saying that a thing interacts and does not interact with the physical. If you do not agree with my definition of physical or reality or the method I used to get to it. You need to show me where i make false assumptions. You need to show me how something can interact with reality, yet can not be observed or proven. It is an assumption statement that is just arrived at without method.

About the fact that you can eat a hamburger.. No, it does not prove that you are a hamburger. What it proves is that the hamburger is physical, and that the thing that ate it is physical. It simply proves that they can interact, that they are part of the same reality. If either the hamburger or the thing that tried to eat it could not interact they would not be part of the same reality. The only reality we know that exist is the physical. The hamburger can not be part of this reality and another one at the same time. The hamburger can not be physical, and spiritual at the same time. If it was part of two realities at the same time.. that would be a bridge between two realities. We could use the hamburger to look and interact with that other world. That other reality would merge into our own reality. Remember reality just means all the things in the world that interact, all the things that interact can be observed, all the things that can be observed (their properties), can be predicted (possibly there are random things.. i doubt it though). Things that do not interact, can not be observed (they have no properties), they do not exist (in our reality).




I understand if you want to stop talking for now :). Thanks for making such an effort and being interested -- it's a shame these days that so many aren't interested in thinking. But of course, there are fewer of those on these boards ;). The one thing I'd encourage you to consider is the possibilty that we should accept the nature of the mind, as well as the observations of our senses, as a source of valid information from which to reason. It seems that in rejecting the mind, we have rejected a large portion of our humanity. It is no suprise that if we accept only that aspect of ourselves that observes the mechanical, that we begin to conclude we ourselves are only mechanical.

Best Regards

P.S. Is there someone here that would be interested in picking up for Driftwood? It would be helpful also if they would be willing to go back through the discussion and pick out some of the arguments that may have been dropped.

The nature of the mind.. yes its a wonderful thing.. love, feelings, thinking.. etc. I don't think it gets any less wonderful or special just because its a physical thing. When we think, we do it effortlessly... we dont have to think about sending electrons from one neuron to another, but thats what happens. We do not observe directly that we are sending these electrons around our brain, but that is what we do when we think or feel feelings. We probably dont observe it directly because, being able to sense those electrons wizzing around in our head, would not do us any good, it does not help us survival and therefore we dont need such a sense. We can observe it indirectly though.. and thats good enough for me.

Cheers

tremendoustie
06-10-2008, 01:57 AM
I'll have another go. Cant not let it bee.



Okay, you are right, information does not exist without someone self-aware person interpreting it. But what is self awareness and cant it be physical? Self awareness, what is that other than a system that can use its own output as input. And that output changes the system itself. Software like this can be made. Software like that can evolve into something completely different, something very different and much more complex from the initial design. This could be related to the biological evolution.. where the initial design was very simple. It was a couple of molecules, that self replicated. But that simple software, self replication, caused imperfect replicas which had a bit more behavior, it became a system that effected its own self replication system. And the system grew more and more complex. The bad systems died. And the complex ones that where good at surviving.. evolved.. into complicated self feedback systems like seen in the brain of insects(?), animals, monkeys, humans. If you accept evolution worked like this, that a simple self unaware bacteria evolved into a monkey.. you have to accept that the mind is physical.


What you describe is simply a simply physical system becoming more complex. It implies nothing about the development of mind, and there is no reason to believe physical feedback has anything to do with self-awareness.

As I tried to point out, any attribute of a physical system must be defined completely by the position and state of its particles. If I say a physical system is conducting electricity, or is reflecting blue light, I am saying that the system has a particular physical state -- electrons are flowing through it, or photons are incident with all frequencies being absorbed other than blue. There should be no attribute that is not defined in these terms -- yet self awareness clearly is not. You may simply assume, because you wish to, that self awareness corresponds to some physical state, but the fact is, the definition of self-awareness is not in those terms at all, but rather concerns what it is like to "be" the mind.

One can further see that the mind is not purely physical by realising that it would be absolutely impossible to prove that any physical system other than one's own experienced self-awareness, without just assuming that it corresponded to a physical state. The attribute itself is unprovable, despite even perfect physical knowledge (one would have to "be" the mind, to prove it to be self aware).

Logically as well, if individual physical particles are not self aware, no complex combination of them can make them so -- just as one cannot combine any number of shapes in a two dimensional plane to somehow reach the third dimension. The concept of "Self consciousness" is of an entirely different nature than attributes like "mass" or "charge" (which are observable through the senses), and while complex physical systems may cause complex physical behavior, attributes with no physical definition cannot magically jump into existance for a bunch of inanimate particles.

You repeatedly state that our minds are only a collection of particles, with no evidence or logical basis, apparently because you wish it to be true -- you wish the universe to be reduced to the sensually percievable, because you have assumed that is all that exists. With a little thought it is apparent that our own minds are of a different nature, yet naturalism wishes us to ignore the elephant in the living room and simply assume that minds must be physical -- for no better reason than so that it will fit into its preconcieved notions of reality.

What is the basis for making this assumption about reality, that what we can observe physically comprises all that exists? You are pretending that what is a rather arbitrary assumption about the universe is somehow based on evidence or reason, when the assumption is made far before evidence is observed or reason is applied. I see no reason to not accept both what we observe through the senses and what we percieve about the mind as legitimate evidence.

I can only speak for myself, but I percieve myself to be a self-aware mind able to cause changes in nature (e.g. I can move my body at will). I think a reasonable conclusion is that "mind" should be accepted as a cause or force of nature in certain cases, along with deterministic causes like gravity, and random ones as in QM. Please show how this conclusion is unreasonable, without starting from the assumption that the physical is all that exists (or at least show a reasonable basis for your assumption).

I reject the idea that what I percieve through the senses is somehow legit, but what I percieve about my own mind is totally inadmissable.




I agree and disagree.. Concepts are formed by combining smaller concepts. So in that sense there is nothing truly revolutionary or "out of this world" concept.

Complicated and abstract concepts can be formed by combining simpler concepts. I dont see it as an impossibility, that abstract and complicated concepts like "meaning" and "purpose" can form from simpler concepts, by mechanical means. I think these complicated concept comes from simple ones like the physical and mechanical concept of survival. From the concept, that self replicating systems that are not good at surviving do not survive to replicate. Systems that are bad at surviving to replicate, will be competed out of existence by better systems, that are better at getting at the limited resources that allow them to survive and replicate. Self aware systems with a sense of purpose, like love and family.. that are drawn to "beautiful" things and concepts are better at surviving. The human mind has made lots of animals extinct because humans ate better at getting at the limited resources that self replicating things need in order to replicate.



The motivation to survival and reproduction would be ideal for survival and reproduction -- there is no clear reason why muddling concepts like "beauty" would assist in survival. That is, one would expect that optimal survival in nature would be achieved by concepts in nature (and indeed, some ideas about sacrifice or nobility would be more likely to hinder survival than help).

However, I am not trying to show that these concepts could not be adventagous. My point is, these concepts could never have arisen. What I am saying is that we develop ideas in one way: Observation, and distortion and extrapolation from that observation. Name for me one concept about a physical universe that does not fit this definition (since the non-physical is what is under discussion). Or, since you state that you believe ideas like "purpose" and "beauty" could be arrived at by concepts derived from the physical observation of nature, please describe for me what physical concepts could be combined to produce these ideas.

In a physical universe, all our ideas would concern the physical, since we would have no experience or perception on which to base anything else. The fact that non-physical ideas exist -- and indeed are among the most descriptive of and important to our nature, suggests that our experience or observations are not purely physical.




You are using a vague definition of reality.. the definition i have been using that everything that can interact with each other is part of the same reality. Physical means things that can interact. All interacting things can be observed (directly or indirectly), the interactions can be understood and predicted. The force behind these these interactions, the nature of the causing thing can be understood, predicted and proved.



Sure, I agree with your definition that everything that can interact with each other is part of the same reality, I've been using this same definition.

You then state, "physical means things that can interact". I do not agree with this definition. Mirriam Webster defines physical as: "of or relating to natural science b (1): of or relating to physics (2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics". This is the definition I assume that we are using. I am arguing that there are things that interact with our reality which are not defined or characterized by the operations of physics (e.g. you), and therefore are not physical.

You then state, "All interacting things can be observed (directly or indirectly), the interactions can be understood and predicted". Firstly, only things that interact with you are observable by you. I am arguing that we observe interactions with our minds, as well as our senses, and that there are some things that are observable with our minds that are not observable through our senses. Secondly, it is not true that everything that can be observed can be predicted. Let alone the mind, what about even random QM effects? We observe the collapsing of a wavefunction, but cannot predict in any way what the position and velocity of the particle will be. Clearly this second part of your statement is not true.

Again, you state "The force behind these these interactions, the nature of the causing thing can be understood, predicted and proved." There is no reason this must be true, indeed we know we cannot predict certain things. And, what do you mean by "proved" exactly? All we can do is observe, and theorize as to the explanation for what we observe. What we observe may fit our explanation, but that does not constitute a proof. Morover, "causes" really are never explained anyway. "Gravity" just means we observe that masses tend to attract each other -- no explanation is given as to why this is, only a label. QM says particles tend to exhibit particular kinds of random behavior, but again, only a label, no explanation. Why can I not say that my body tends to behave according to the dictates of my mind? Imaginary forces to explain what we observe are ok, but recognizing the mind as a cause (which we actually observe directly, unlike natural forces) is somehow unacceptable?




Saying that the mind is not physical is saying that it can not interact with the physical. Or saying that it can interact with the physical and that it can be affected by the physical but is still not itself physical.. is saying something impossible..

Care to provide any logic or evidence to support this, rather than just saying it's impossible? This is rather the point of the discussion. I'd prefer not to get bogged down in semantics, but what I'm saying is that we theorize deterministic forces which are not explained (e.g. gravity), and random forces which are not explained (QM), and I am arguing that there is a third force, of the mind, which I myself do observe, and which obviously interacts with the physical since I am currently able to type this message ...

Please show me where the contradiction is here, without starting from your assumption that only the deterministic or random exists. Why could the fundamental particles in my brain not be effected by the mind as well as by QM and deterministic forces?




If you do not agree with my definition of physical or reality or the method I used to get to it. You need to show me where i make false assumptions. You need to show me how something can interact with reality, yet can not be observed or proven. It is an assumption statement that is just arrived at without method.



The effects of gravity are observed, but gravity itself is not observable through the senses. Similarly, the effects of the mind are observed, but the mind is not observable directly through the senses. The only difference is, I am a mind, and can observe myself directly, not through the senses.

Your mistake comes when you assume that observation can only occur through the senses. You are self aware, and you know what you're thinking about. Please tell me which of the five senses told you this? None did -- thus, something observed, but not through the senses.




About the fact that you can eat a hamburger.. No, it does not prove that you are a hamburger. What it proves is that the hamburger is physical, and that the thing that ate it is physical.


No, all it proves is that they can interact. How on earth does this prove that they operate according to physics?



It simply proves that they can interact, that they are part of the same reality. If either the hamburger or the thing that tried to eat it could not interact they would not be part of the same reality.


There ya got it, I'm with you again :). Definitely part of the same reality.



The only reality we know that exist is the physical.


I disagree, as I've stated -- I'm saying reality is made up of the physical and the non-physical.



The hamburger can not be part of this reality and another one at the same time.
The hamburger can not be physical, and spiritual at the same time. If it was part of two realities at the same time.. that would be a bridge between two realities.


I am saying the physical and "spiritual" if you like, are part of the same reality.



We could use the hamburger to look and interact with that other world. That other reality would merge into our own reality.


Yep! All part of the same reality :)



Remember reality just means all the things in the world that interact, all the things that interact can be observed, all the things that can be observed (their properties), can be predicted (possibly there are random things.. i doubt it though).


Yep, the non-physical can be observed, but not through the senses. The effects of the non-physical can however be observed through the senses (although it is easy to write them off to randomness or determinism). You then state that all things that can be observed can be predicted, which we know not to be true -- seriously, study your QM, it will blow your mind ;) (specifically for this case, the double slit experiment with electrons sent one at a time). In any case, the assumption that everything is predictable is unfounded, and is only based on the earlier baseless assumption that everything must necessarily be physical and deterministic. You can't start by assuming that what you're trying to show is true.



Things that do not interact, can not be observed (they have no properties), they do not exist (in our reality).


Agreed :). We're definitely sticking with things that interact with what we observe (through the senses or otherwise). And if you still think that that we can only observe through the senses, I'm looking forward to you explaining to me which sense enables you to observe your current thoughts.



The nature of the mind.. yes its a wonderful thing.. love, feelings, thinking.. etc. I don't think it gets any less wonderful or special just because its a physical thing. When we think, we do it effortlessly... we dont have to think about sending electrons from one neuron to another, but thats what happens. We do not observe directly that we are sending these electrons around our brain, but that is what we do when we think or feel feelings. We probably dont observe it directly because, being able to sense those electrons wizzing around in our head, would not do us any good, it does not help us survival and therefore we dont need such a sense. We can observe it indirectly though.. and thats good enough for me.

Cheers

But, you're just re-stating what you have assumed, that the mind is purely physical, which apparently you take on blind faith. Apparently you have just assumed a-priori that all that could possibly exist is the physical, and therefore concluded your mind must fit into that box. How about examining your reasons for making the assumption that everything must be physical, or observable through the senses in the first place?

Oh, and you should be careful of your wording, I am pretty sure you don't believe we "send" electrons around -- rather, you are saying you believe that all of the activities of our brain are dictated by physical effects -- that electron did not get sent by any imaginary "you" but merely because a particular photon hit your retina in just the right way. (I'm the one that believes your mind "sent" the electron in some sense).

Mark
06-10-2008, 09:19 AM
The notion of religion and the notion of government are currently dying. The new generation consists of mostly atheists. There is no daddy up in the sky and there is no daddy government that is going to take care of you. Freewill is why us atheists are attracted to the RP campaign.

Atheism is a religion.

It's a belief system same as any other.

Unless you can prove there is no God, then, to be honest, you must admit that you are believing it.

Therefore your religious beliefs encompass that no God exists. Your religious tenets state that there is no God.

You are a religious person. Your religion is Atheism. Not Buddhism, not Taoism, not even Christianity, but Atheism.

When a person feels the need to disrespect and attack others to prop themselves up,
it reinforces that the bully has a lack of self-confidence in themselves.

And on these boards, like you just did in your post with the sarcastic phrase "daddy up in the sky",
some believers in your religion have a tendency to show a lack of confidence in their beliefs
because they tend to often feel it's necessary to insert passages that are disrespectful of other people's religion.

SnappleLlama
06-10-2008, 09:22 AM
Like Cher, I believe in life after love.

Kade
06-10-2008, 09:24 AM
Atheism is a religion.

It's a belief system same as any other.

Unless you can prove there is no God, then, to be honest, you must admit that you are believing it.

Therefore your religious beliefs encompass that no God exists. Your religious tenets state that there is no God.

You are a religious person. Your religion is Atheism. Not Buddhism, not Taoism, not even Christianity, but Atheism.

When a person feels the need to disrespect and attack others to prop themselves up,
it reinforces that the bully has a lack of self-confidence in themselves.

And on these boards, like you just did in your post with the sarcastic phrase "daddy up in the sky",
some believers in your religion have a tendency to show a lack of confidence in their beliefs
because they tend to often feel it's necessary to insert passages that are disrespectful of other people's religion.


Is Amonsterism a religion too?

How about AUnicornism?

Awizardry?

SLSteven
06-10-2008, 09:26 AM
What you describe is simply a simply physical system becoming more complex. It implies nothing about the development of mind, and there is no reason to believe physical feedback has anything to do with self-awareness.

As I tried to point out, any attribute of a physical system must be defined completely by the position and state of its particles. If I say a physical system is conducting electricity, or is reflecting blue light, I am saying that the system has a particular physical state -- electrons are flowing through it, or photons are incident with all frequencies being absorbed other than blue. There should be no attribute that is not defined in these terms -- yet self awareness clearly is not. You may simply assume, because you wish to, that self awareness corresponds to some physical state, but the fact is, the definition of self-awareness is not in those terms at all, but rather concerns what it is like to "be" the mind.

One can further see that the mind is not purely physical by realising that it would be absolutely impossible to prove that any physical system other than one's own experienced self-awareness, without just assuming that it corresponded to a physical state. The attribute itself is unprovable, despite even perfect physical knowledge (one would have to "be" the mind, to prove it to be self aware).

Logically as well, if individual physical particles are not self aware, no complex combination of them can make them so -- just as one cannot combine any number of shapes in a two dimensional plane to somehow reach the third dimension. The concept of "Self consciousness" is of an entirely different nature than attributes like "mass" or "charge" (which are observable through the senses), and while complex physical systems may cause complex physical behavior, attributes with no physical definition cannot magically jump into existance for a bunch of inanimate particles.

You repeatedly state that our minds are only a collection of particles, with no evidence or logical basis, apparently because you wish it to be true -- you wish the universe to be reduced to the sensually percievable, because you have assumed that is all that exists. With a little thought it is apparent that our own minds are of a different nature, yet naturalism wishes us to ignore the elephant in the living room and simply assume that minds must be physical -- for no better reason than so that it will fit into its preconcieved notions of reality.

What is the basis for making this assumption about reality, that what we can observe physically comprises all that exists? You are pretending that what is a rather arbitrary assumption about the universe is somehow based on evidence or reason, when the assumption is made far before evidence is observed or reason is applied. I see no reason to not accept both what we observe through the senses and what we percieve about the mind as legitimate evidence.

I can only speak for myself, but I percieve myself to be a self-aware mind able to cause changes in nature (e.g. I can move my body at will). I think a reasonable conclusion is that "mind" should be accepted as a cause or force of nature in certain cases, along with deterministic causes like gravity, and random ones as in QM. Please show how this conclusion is unreasonable, without starting from the assumption that the physical is all that exists (or at least show a reasonable basis for your assumption).

I reject the idea that what I percieve through the senses is somehow legit, but what I percieve about my own mind is totally inadmissable.



The motivation to survival and reproduction would be ideal for survival and reproduction -- there is no clear reason why muddling concepts like "beauty" would assist in survival. That is, one would expect that optimal survival in nature would be achieved by concepts in nature (and indeed, some ideas about sacrifice or nobility would be more likely to hinder survival than help).

However, I am not trying to show that these concepts could not be adventagous. My point is, these concepts could never have arisen. What I am saying is that we develop ideas in one way: Observation, and distortion and extrapolation from that observation. Name for me one concept about a physical universe that does not fit this definition (since the non-physical is what is under discussion). Or, since you state that you believe ideas like "purpose" and "beauty" could be arrived at by concepts derived from the physical observation of nature, please describe for me what physical concepts could be combined to produce these ideas.

In a physical universe, all our ideas would concern the physical, since we would have no experience or perception on which to base anything else. The fact that non-physical ideas exist -- and indeed are among the most descriptive of and important to our nature, suggests that our experience or observations are not purely physical.



Sure, I agree with your definition that everything that can interact with each other is part of the same reality, I've been using this same definition.

You then state, "physical means things that can interact". I do not agree with this definition. Mirriam Webster defines physical as: "of or relating to natural science b (1): of or relating to physics (2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics". This is the definition I assume that we are using. I am arguing that there are things that interact with our reality which are not defined or characterized by the operations of physics (e.g. you), and therefore are not physical.

You then state, "All interacting things can be observed (directly or indirectly), the interactions can be understood and predicted". Firstly, only things that interact with you are observable by you. I am arguing that we observe interactions with our minds, as well as our senses, and that there are some things that are observable with our minds that are not observable through our senses. Secondly, it is not true that everything that can be observed can be predicted. Let alone the mind, what about even random QM effects? We observe the collapsing of a wavefunction, but cannot predict in any way what the position and velocity of the particle will be. Clearly this second part of your statement is not true.

Again, you state "The force behind these these interactions, the nature of the causing thing can be understood, predicted and proved." There is no reason this must be true, indeed we know we cannot predict certain things. And, what do you mean by "proved" exactly? All we can do is observe, and theorize as to the explanation for what we observe. What we observe may fit our explanation, but that does not constitute a proof. Morover, "causes" really are never explained anyway. "Gravity" just means we observe that masses tend to attract each other -- no explanation is given as to why this is, only a label. QM says particles tend to exhibit particular kinds of random behavior, but again, only a label, no explanation. Why can I not say that my body tends to behave according to the dictates of my mind? Imaginary forces to explain what we observe are ok, but recognizing the mind as a cause (which we actually observe directly, unlike natural forces) is somehow unacceptable?



Care to provide any logic or evidence to support this, rather than just saying it's impossible? This is rather the point of the discussion. I'd prefer not to get bogged down in semantics, but what I'm saying is that we theorize deterministic forces which are not explained (e.g. gravity), and random forces which are not explained (QM), and I am arguing that there is a third force, of the mind, which I myself do observe, and which obviously interacts with the physical since I am currently able to type this message ...

Please show me where the contradiction is here, without starting from your assumption that only the deterministic or random exists. Why could the fundamental particles in my brain not be effected by the mind as well as by QM and deterministic forces?




The effects of gravity are observed, but gravity itself is not observable through the senses. Similarly, the effects of the mind are observed, but the mind is not observable directly through the senses. The only difference is, I am a mind, and can observe myself directly, not through the senses.

Your mistake comes when you assume that observation can only occur through the senses. You are self aware, and you know what you're thinking about. Please tell me which of the five senses told you this? None did -- thus, something observed, but not through the senses.




No, all it proves is that they can interact. How on earth does this prove that they operate according to physics?



There ya got it, I'm with you again :). Definitely part of the same reality.



I disagree, as I've stated -- I'm saying reality is made up of the physical and the non-physical.



I am saying the physical and "spiritual" if you like, are part of the same reality.



Yep! All part of the same reality :)



Yep, the non-physical can be observed, but not through the senses. The effects of the non-physical can however be observed through the senses (although it is easy to write them off to randomness or determinism). You then state that all things that can be observed can be predicted, which we know not to be true -- seriously, study your QM, it will blow your mind ;) (specifically for this case, the double slit experiment with electrons sent one at a time). In any case, the assumption that everything is predictable is unfounded, and is only based on the earlier baseless assumption that everything must necessarily be physical and deterministic. You can't start by assuming that what you're trying to show is true.



Agreed :). We're definitely sticking with things that interact with what we observe (through the senses or otherwise). And if you still think that that we can only observe through the senses, I'm looking forward to you explaining to me which sense enables you to observe your current thoughts.



But, you're just re-stating what you have assumed, that the mind is purely physical, which apparently you take on blind faith. Apparently you have just assumed a-priori that all that could possibly exist is the physical, and therefore concluded your mind must fit into that box. How about examining your reasons for making the assumption that everything must be physical, or observable through the senses in the first place?

Oh, and you should be careful of your wording, I am pretty sure you don't believe we "send" electrons around -- rather, you are saying you believe that all of the activities of our brain are dictated by physical effects -- that electron did not get sent by any imaginary "you" but merely because a particular photon hit your retina in just the right way. (I'm the one that believes your mind "sent" the electron in some sense).

So, you're saying we should definitely support Ron Paul...;)

tremendoustie
06-10-2008, 09:35 AM
So, you're saying we should definitely support Ron Paul...;)

Definitely!! :D

But what's the fun in discussing something we agree on, lol? And total props to Driftwood for being willing to think and discuss ideas ;).

SLSteven
06-10-2008, 09:40 AM
Just wanted to make sure...my mind is not always in the physical at 8am.

Mark
06-10-2008, 09:54 AM
Mr. B.O. Eyebrows--

Thoughtful post, I see where you're coming from. Atheists, as you might see in the response to your post, are generally much more hardline about the notion of God. Agnostics, like myself, are a bit more fluid and possibly have a shred of optimism that there might be god in some inconceivable form and are, therefore, more open to some metaphysical possibilities like the one that you espouse.

I'm glad that you found something that works for you. I have simply accepted that it's something I'll never know and that works for me.



Not trying to play "word games" here, but if you believe that God is "inconceivable" or "something that you'll never know" then it is something that you believe, therefore a belief system, therefore a religion. Therefore your form of Agnosticism is a religion.

Now, if you also included, for example, that God could indeed be a distinct Being, as humans are distinct beings, then you are more along the lines of someone who is just unsure. Which would not necessarily be religious in nature.

But as soon as a declarative statement like "god is inconceivable in form" is introduced, it becomes a belief.


Point being, do you also think that perhaps there is a God who is a distinct being, whose nature is conceivable to some extent by humans?

If not, then you've left out a distinct possibility.

And if you believe that is not possible, then your parameters concerning the possibility of God are limited, and consist of your beliefs,
not all of the available options.

Which, again, would make your viewpoints a belief system, thus a form of religion.


If you are unsure if a God exists, please don't limit your thoughts as to the ways God could exist.

Including being a distinct being, conceivable, and someone you will someday know, for sure. ;)

How you doin' btw? I've been quite busy myself. :) Gone but not forgettin'.

crazyfingers
06-10-2008, 09:56 AM
atheism is a religion in the same way being bald is a hair color

SLSteven
06-10-2008, 10:02 AM
If there is no God....who sent Ron Paul?

Mark
06-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Is Amonsterism a religion too?

How about AUnicornism?

Awizardry?

In terms of a parody I would say no, if someone truly believes it, yes.

BTW, trying to keep this on an intellectual level somewhat.

Mark
06-10-2008, 10:11 AM
atheism is a religion in the same way being bald is a hair color

One doesn't believe hair is on their head, they know whether it is or not.

But one does believe in the existence or non-existence of God. Or, they're just not sure one way or the other.

The definition of an Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God. It's obviously a belief system.

And if the definition of "religion" is a belief system, then by definition the belief system of Atheism is a religion.

In other words, it's incorrect to define belief in God as a "religious belief", unless you also include non-belief in God as a "religious belief".

DriftWood
06-11-2008, 02:41 AM
What you describe is simply a simply physical system becoming more complex. It implies nothing about the development of mind, and there is no reason to believe physical feedback has anything to do with self-awareness.

As I tried to point out, any attribute of a physical system must be defined completely by the position and state of its particles. If I say a physical system is conducting electricity, or is reflecting blue light, I am saying that the system has a particular physical state -- electrons are flowing through it, or photons are incident with all frequencies being absorbed other than blue. There should be no attribute that is not defined in these terms -- yet self awareness clearly is not. You may simply assume, because you wish to, that self awareness corresponds to some physical state, but the fact is, the definition of self-awareness is not in those terms at all, but rather concerns what it is like to "be" the mind.

One can further see that the mind is not purely physical by realising that it would be absolutely impossible to prove that any physical system other than one's own experienced self-awareness, without just assuming that it corresponded to a physical state. The attribute itself is unprovable, despite even perfect physical knowledge (one would have to "be" the mind, to prove it to be self aware).

Logically as well, if individual physical particles are not self aware, no complex combination of them can make them so -- just as one cannot combine any number of shapes in a two dimensional plane to somehow reach the third dimension. The concept of "Self consciousness" is of an entirely different nature than attributes like "mass" or "charge" (which are observable through the senses), and while complex physical systems may cause complex physical behavior, attributes with no physical definition cannot magically jump into existance for a bunch of inanimate particles.

You repeatedly state that our minds are only a collection of particles, with no evidence or logical basis, apparently because you wish it to be true -- you wish the universe to be reduced to the sensually percievable, because you have assumed that is all that exists. With a little thought it is apparent that our own minds are of a different nature, yet naturalism wishes us to ignore the elephant in the living room and simply assume that minds must be physical -- for no better reason than so that it will fit into its preconcieved notions of reality.

What is the basis for making this assumption about reality, that what we can observe physically comprises all that exists? You are pretending that what is a rather arbitrary assumption about the universe is somehow based on evidence or reason, when the assumption is made far before evidence is observed or reason is applied. I see no reason to not accept both what we observe through the senses and what we percieve about the mind as legitimate evidence.

I can only speak for myself, but I percieve myself to be a self-aware mind able to cause changes in nature (e.g. I can move my body at will). I think a reasonable conclusion is that "mind" should be accepted as a cause or force of nature in certain cases, along with deterministic causes like gravity, and random ones as in QM. Please show how this conclusion is unreasonable, without starting from the assumption that the physical is all that exists (or at least show a reasonable basis for your assumption).

I reject the idea that what I percieve through the senses is somehow legit, but what I percieve about my own mind is totally inadmissable.



The motivation to survival and reproduction would be ideal for survival and reproduction -- there is no clear reason why muddling concepts like "beauty" would assist in survival. That is, one would expect that optimal survival in nature would be achieved by concepts in nature (and indeed, some ideas about sacrifice or nobility would be more likely to hinder survival than help).

However, I am not trying to show that these concepts could not be adventagous. My point is, these concepts could never have arisen. What I am saying is that we develop ideas in one way: Observation, and distortion and extrapolation from that observation. Name for me one concept about a physical universe that does not fit this definition (since the non-physical is what is under discussion). Or, since you state that you believe ideas like "purpose" and "beauty" could be arrived at by concepts derived from the physical observation of nature, please describe for me what physical concepts could be combined to produce these ideas.

In a physical universe, all our ideas would concern the physical, since we would have no experience or perception on which to base anything else. The fact that non-physical ideas exist -- and indeed are among the most descriptive of and important to our nature, suggests that our experience or observations are not purely physical.



Sure, I agree with your definition that everything that can interact with each other is part of the same reality, I've been using this same definition.

You then state, "physical means things that can interact". I do not agree with this definition. Mirriam Webster defines physical as: "of or relating to natural science b (1): of or relating to physics (2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics". This is the definition I assume that we are using. I am arguing that there are things that interact with our reality which are not defined or characterized by the operations of physics (e.g. you), and therefore are not physical.

You then state, "All interacting things can be observed (directly or indirectly), the interactions can be understood and predicted". Firstly, only things that interact with you are observable by you. I am arguing that we observe interactions with our minds, as well as our senses, and that there are some things that are observable with our minds that are not observable through our senses. Secondly, it is not true that everything that can be observed can be predicted. Let alone the mind, what about even random QM effects? We observe the collapsing of a wavefunction, but cannot predict in any way what the position and velocity of the particle will be. Clearly this second part of your statement is not true.

Again, you state "The force behind these these interactions, the nature of the causing thing can be understood, predicted and proved." There is no reason this must be true, indeed we know we cannot predict certain things. And, what do you mean by "proved" exactly? All we can do is observe, and theorize as to the explanation for what we observe. What we observe may fit our explanation, but that does not constitute a proof. Morover, "causes" really are never explained anyway. "Gravity" just means we observe that masses tend to attract each other -- no explanation is given as to why this is, only a label. QM says particles tend to exhibit particular kinds of random behavior, but again, only a label, no explanation. Why can I not say that my body tends to behave according to the dictates of my mind? Imaginary forces to explain what we observe are ok, but recognizing the mind as a cause (which we actually observe directly, unlike natural forces) is somehow unacceptable?



Care to provide any logic or evidence to support this, rather than just saying it's impossible? This is rather the point of the discussion. I'd prefer not to get bogged down in semantics, but what I'm saying is that we theorize deterministic forces which are not explained (e.g. gravity), and random forces which are not explained (QM), and I am arguing that there is a third force, of the mind, which I myself do observe, and which obviously interacts with the physical since I am currently able to type this message ...

Please show me where the contradiction is here, without starting from your assumption that only the deterministic or random exists. Why could the fundamental particles in my brain not be effected by the mind as well as by QM and deterministic forces?




The effects of gravity are observed, but gravity itself is not observable through the senses. Similarly, the effects of the mind are observed, but the mind is not observable directly through the senses. The only difference is, I am a mind, and can observe myself directly, not through the senses.

Your mistake comes when you assume that observation can only occur through the senses. You are self aware, and you know what you're thinking about. Please tell me which of the five senses told you this? None did -- thus, something observed, but not through the senses.




No, all it proves is that they can interact. How on earth does this prove that they operate according to physics?



There ya got it, I'm with you again :). Definitely part of the same reality.



I disagree, as I've stated -- I'm saying reality is made up of the physical and the non-physical.



I am saying the physical and "spiritual" if you like, are part of the same reality.



Yep! All part of the same reality :)



Yep, the non-physical can be observed, but not through the senses. The effects of the non-physical can however be observed through the senses (although it is easy to write them off to randomness or determinism). You then state that all things that can be observed can be predicted, which we know not to be true -- seriously, study your QM, it will blow your mind ;) (specifically for this case, the double slit experiment with electrons sent one at a time). In any case, the assumption that everything is predictable is unfounded, and is only based on the earlier baseless assumption that everything must necessarily be physical and deterministic. You can't start by assuming that what you're trying to show is true.



Agreed :). We're definitely sticking with things that interact with what we observe (through the senses or otherwise). And if you still think that that we can only observe through the senses, I'm looking forward to you explaining to me which sense enables you to observe your current thoughts.



But, you're just re-stating what you have assumed, that the mind is purely physical, which apparently you take on blind faith. Apparently you have just assumed a-priori that all that could possibly exist is the physical, and therefore concluded your mind must fit into that box. How about examining your reasons for making the assumption that everything must be physical, or observable through the senses in the first place?

Oh, and you should be careful of your wording, I am pretty sure you don't believe we "send" electrons around -- rather, you are saying you believe that all of the activities of our brain are dictated by physical effects -- that electron did not get sent by any imaginary "you" but merely because a particular photon hit your retina in just the right way. (I'm the one that believes your mind "sent" the electron in some sense).

I'll write a quick one (i lost a longer post i wrote)

The assumption that the mind is anything more than physical does not help us predict anything that the assumption that the mind is just physical. So adding the extra assumption of the unphysical to the theory of reality, just complicates the theory without explaining anything more. (The way one proves that one understands something about reality, is by predicting reality). Thats why that extra assumption is "useless".

We know that our self consciousness behavior is caused by our self consciousness. We therefore assume that other things that have self consciousness behavior, also have self consciousness of the same type we have. This is not an baseless assumption. Its based on inference. We know not of any other way that self consciousness behavior could exist. We do not know how it could be "faked".

Also if something behaves as a apple its an apple. Behavior is property. Behavior is the whole thing, what else is there? A thing is its behavior. So if something acts as if it is self conscious, then it is self conscious.

We and some other animal have self conscious behavior because it helps us solve problems and survive. Survival is a very physical thing. Our mind and it urges, and concept are biased to things that help us survive. That is no accident. We dont like the taste of poison, we don't find sickly people beautiful, we seek happiness in reproduction and family building, we usually don't seek happiness under a train. Concepts that hurt our survival simply do not survive in nature.. thats why our mind has a bias for survival. There is a physical driving force that limits and stears the "design" of our mind. That physical driving force is survival and reproduction.

Okay, our senses are passive but our thinking is not. Its something else. It cas the capacity to affect itself. This does not mean its not physical, or [not] deterministic. It just means its a self feedback system. You just give it one initiual input and it can spin around on its own forever. The initial input of the universe could be said to be the big bang. That everything (natural laws, and physcial configurations) just followed from that. That nothing could be different from how things are now. If there are random things then things could be different, but thats another story. Some people might see the face of god in randomness. I think its just more of the same, seeing god in the gaps. The more we see patterns in the random, the more we can explain away and need for a god as an explanation. Also if there is randomness, it does not do much good for religion. Imagine a praying to a random force of nature, much like gravity. It does no good.

Some people accept determinism but say that god plan can be seen in the big bang. That he designed the explosion so that things would turn out as they did, automatically threw mechanical means. That is not a very satisfactory explanation for the big bang, or the first movement because that is explaining something simple with something more complicated. Thats pretty much the opposite of an explanation.

Saying that the mind is something more than physcial is saying that the mind is a connection between the physical reality and some other reality (call it the methaphysical). There is a bridge there that makes interaction between the two realities possible. If things interact this interaction can be observed. This interaction means that one reality can be observed and changed from the other. So this methaphysical reality can be observed and changed thru the physical reality by purely physical means. If there are gods and souls in this other reality.. and they affect our physical world. Then we should also be able to affect the gods by shooting bullets at them.. or by throwing pizzas at them or something. Interaction does not just work in one direction (i mentioned that in some previous post)

Well thats what i have this time.. sorry if i missed some of your points. But i think I'd just be repleting myself answering those.

I guess my key point is that the assumption that our thinking is anything else than physical is a useless assumption because it does not help us predict anything (that we can observe) about reality.

Cheers

Kade
06-11-2008, 09:26 AM
In terms of a parody I would say no, if someone truly believes it, yes.

BTW, trying to keep this on an intellectual level somewhat.

It is.

I truly believe their are no monsters, which would be the definition of Amonsterism.

Does that make Amonsterism a religion?

AzNsOuLjAh27
06-11-2008, 09:29 AM
I support him for the freedom, my religion plays no part in my voting. Because my religion is not followed by every american and thats there right.

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 09:32 AM
It is.

I truly believe their are no monsters, which would be the definition of Amonsterism.

Does that make Amonsterism a religion?

I guess it depends on whether or not you know anyone who worships monsters. I, just for the record, do not.

Kade
06-11-2008, 09:38 AM
I guess it depends on whether or not you know anyone who worships monsters. I, just for the record, do not.

So, you are defining atheism as a religion, as long as other people worship a god?

That makes no sense...

The non-belief of something is not a religion.

This is a simple concept, one that is easily illustrated by our previous understanding of Awizardry and the like...
*******************************************

I do not believe in wizards, also called Awizardry.

Johnson worships wizards.

Awizardry is a religion.

Not valid.

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 09:42 AM
So, you are defining atheism as a religion, as long as other people worship a god?

That makes no sense...

The non-belief of something is not a religion.


The obvious difference between awizardry and athiesm is the difference between wizardry and theism.

And as far as I am concerned, agnosticism is non-belief and athiesm is serious belief in non-existence.

Kade
06-11-2008, 09:47 AM
The obvious difference between awizardry and athiesm is the difference between wizardry and theism.

And as far as I am concerned, agnosticism is non-belief and athiesm is serious belief in non-existence.

No.

Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism.

I am an agnostic atheism.

I do not believe in god, but I do not know with 100% certainty.

The more defined "god" becomes, the more of purist I become.

If for instance, we are talking about a male "son of god" named Jesus, then I am 100% Strong Atheist.

If you are talking about the "god of the gaps", most atheists are also agnostic.

This is very simple, and it is called Tea Pot Agnosticism, or Russell's Teapot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

It is not a religion.

acptulsa
06-11-2008, 09:49 AM
No.

Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism.

I am an agnostic atheism.

Pleased to meet you. I'm a human.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your definitions. I lack faith in them, you see.

Kade
06-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Pleased to meet you. I'm a human.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your definitions. I lack faith in them, you see.

No problem. Whatever gets you through your day man...

tremendoustie
06-11-2008, 10:26 AM
I'll write a quick one (i lost a longer post i wrote)

The assumption that the mind is anything more than physical does not help us predict anything that the assumption that the mind is just physical. So adding the extra assumption of the unphysical to the theory of reality, just complicates the theory without explaining anything more. (The way one proves that one understands something about reality, is by predicting reality). Thats why that extra assumption is "useless".


Gah! I hate it when I lose posts! Sorry bout that.

I am not suggesting that the mind being non-physical should be assumed because of it's usefulness at predicting physical behaviors, I am saying that what we observe about our own consciousness shows it to not be purely physical. I am saying that we need to accept all of our observations as evidence, both through the senses and otherwise (there is no rational basis for excluding, as evidence, our own experience of self-awareness). While naturalism can do a decent job at explaining evidence gathered through the senses (as it would be expected to, since the senses observe only the physical), it cannot explain what we observe about our own minds, for reasons which I outlined, and just by common sense. The deterministic interaction of inanimate particles is of an entirely different nature than self-awareness, which is clearly a nonphysical attribute. Again, all attributes in a physical universe should describe the physical configuration of a system, and self-awareness cannot be defined in these terms.




We know that our self consciousness behavior is caused by our self consciousness. We therefore assume that other things that have self consciousness behavior, also have self consciousness of the same type we have. This is not an baseless assumption. Its based on inference. We know not of any other way that self consciousness behavior could exist. We do not know how it could be "faked".


While this assumption may be useful, it is still an assumption. There is no way to observe behavior from outside, and conclusively prove that a being is experiencing self awareness. If an attribute cannot be conclusively proved despite perfect physical knowledge, it is not a physical attribute.



Also if something behaves as a apple its an apple. Behavior is property. Behavior is the whole thing, what else is there? A thing is its behavior. So if something acts as if it is self conscious, then it is self conscious.


You assume physical behavior is all that exists, because you have decided that you will only accept what the senses observe as legitimate evidence, and they can only sense physical behavior.

What of your own self-awareness? This is not a physical behavior, in itself. Are you going to pretend that you and I do not experience this? Are you honestly going to tell me that as humans, our experience is solely defined by our behaviors? It seems to me you wish to ignore a significant portion of the human experience simply because it is not convenient to your theory.



We and some other animal have self conscious behavior because it helps us solve problems and survive. Survival is a very physical thing. Our mind and it urges, and concept are biased to things that help us survive. That is no accident. We dont like the taste of poison, we don't find sickly people beautiful, we seek happiness in reproduction and family building, we usually don't seek happiness under a train. Concepts that hurt our survival simply do not survive in nature.. thats why our mind has a bias for survival. There is a physical driving force that limits and stears the "design" of our mind. That physical driving force is survival and reproduction.


Do you mean only "self consciousness behavior" (whatever that means) or actual "self consciousness"? The one is the observable behavior of an animal or person, the other is only defined in terms of the actual experience of that being. All of these behaviors you descrive could reasonably be ascribed to evolution, but self-awareness itself has no definition in physical terms.




Okay, our senses are passive but our thinking is not. Its something else. It cas the capacity to affect itself. This does not mean its not physical, or deterministic. It just means its a self feedback system.


My chair has the capacity to affect itself, when the ball bearings scrape against each other. This trivializes the definition of consciousness, and comes nowhere close to expressing what we experience.



You just give it one initiual input and it can spin around on its own forever. The initial input of the universe could be said to be the big bang. That everything (natural laws, and physcial configurations) just followed from that. That nothing could be different from how things are now. If there are random things then things could be different, but thats another story.


I think I'm pretty aware of what naturalism supposes. ;)



Some people might see the face of god in randomness. I think its just more of the same, seeing god in the gaps. The more we see patterns in the random, the more we can explain away and need for a god as an explanation. Also if there is randomness, it does not do much good for religion. Imagine a praying to a random force of nature, much like gravity. It does no good.


Well, of course if you pre-suppose that all there is is determinism and randomness, the idea of God doesn't make much sense ;).

We have deterministic forces, which are not explainable by nature, but dictate how nature will behave. Likewise, we have QM, which also determines the behavior of natural systems. I wonder why the resistance to the inclusion of the mind as a causal force, when we observe it more directly than anything else.

And it's funny, you seem to think that people are seeing patterns in randomness. I would say the acceptance of the mind, along with deterministic and random forces more closely mirrors our own experiences -- to me it seems that it is naturalists who are trying to jam the whole of human experience and self-awareness into the box of naturalism and determinism, when it doesn't really fit.





Some people accept determinism but say that god plan can be seen in the big bang. That he designed the explosion so that things would turn out as they did, automatically threw mechanical means. That is not a very satisfactory explanation for the big bang, or the first movement because that is explaining something simple with something more complicated. Thats pretty much the opposite of an explanation.



I think that those people have concluded that God exists for other reasons, and given that they have already made that conclusion, explain the big bang in those terms. Relativity is an unnecessarily complicated description of how an apple drops, but it is reasonable, because we have already accepted the idea of relativity based on other evidence.



Saying that the mind is something more than physcial is saying that the mind is a connection between the physical reality and some other reality (call it the methaphysical). There is a bridge there that makes interaction between the two realities possible. If things interact this interaction can be observed. This interaction means that one reality can be observed and changed from the other. So this methaphysical reality can be observed and changed thru the physical reality by purely physical means. If there are gods and souls in this other reality.. and they affect our physical world. Then we should also be able to affect the gods by shooting bullets at them.. or by throwing pizzas at them or something. Interaction does not just work in one direction (i mentioned that in some previous post)


Of course interaction does not just go one way. I'm not sure why you think this means bullets or pizzas are the means of interaction -- but sure, in a way. If you get shot or hit with a pizza, it will surely affect your mental state.



Well thats what i have this time.. sorry if i missed some of your points. But i think I'd just be repleting myself answering those.

I guess my key point is that the assumption that our thinking is anything else than physical is a useless assumption because it does not help us predict anything (that we can observe) about reality.

Cheers

The idea that the mind is not purely physical is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the evidence of what we observe about ourselves. I observe myself to be self-concsious, which is not a physical attribute, and observe my internal workings to be unsatisfactorily explained by materialism -- indeed, unexplainable.

I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks, but please consider the following points, which I still haven't heard back on:

1. The attribute of self awareness does not describe the physical state of particles, but rather a mind's perception. Without being a person, you could not say conclusively that the person experiences self awareness or does not -- despite perfect physical knowledge. This implies that self-awareness is not a physical attribute.

2. We gain new ideas by distorting or extrapolating recurrent experiences. In a physical universe, all our experiences must necessarily regard the purely physical. Yet, we have persistant ideas which cannot be arrived at by the distortion or extrapolation of physical ideas (meaning, purpose, beauty, etc.). Please give an example of an untrue physical idea which cannot be achieved by distortion or extrapolation from any number of true physical ideas. Or show how ideas like "ultimate meaning" could be achieved based on the extrapolation or distortion of physical observations.

3. Justify the a-priori assumption that our physical senses can be trusted, but observations regarding the nature of one's own mind should not qualify as valid evidence (i.e. the assumption that evidence must be observable through the senses, repeatable, etc., to be admissible). Also, show how this does not a-priori exclude from possiblity any idea but those of deterministic, natural processes (since repeatable implies deterministic, and the senses can only observe the physical). If you cannot show this, admit that demands for "evidence" are faulty -- something akin to deciding to accept only blue light as evidence and then demanding a proof that the world is not purely blue.

Mark
06-11-2008, 02:58 PM
So, you are defining atheism as a religion, as long as other people worship a god?

That makes no sense...

The non-belief of something is not a religion.

This is a simple concept, one that is easily illustrated by our previous understanding of Awizardry and the like...
*******************************************

I do not believe in wizards, also called Awizardry.

Johnson worships wizards.

Awizardry is a religion.

Not valid.

I'm talking about a "bigger picture" - the nature of the Universe.

Specifically about whether God exists, and if believing such is "religion".

Do you define believing in God as religion?

If someone believes the Universe was created, is that "religious"?

Religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,...
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...Again, you can't prove God doesn't exist, so you can only believe it.
You have a "set of beliefs" concerning God and the nature of the universe.

Some Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power.

They can do whatever they want because once they die it's all over - no accountability. That's what they believe.

And some people believe that there are consequences, good and bad, for our actions after we die, because we are more than just our bodies, we have a spiritual side to our existence, more than just our flesh. And some add that there is a Creator, or God, who on purpose brought us and the Universe into existence.

And if you call someone who believes in a God, and their set of beliefs concerning that "religious", then you have to call someone who doesn't believe in a God and their set of beliefs concerning such "religious" too.


I'm fine if you don't want to call your belief system regarding the existence of God, Atheism, a religion,
but then you shouldn't call my belief system regarding the existence of God, Christianity, a religion.

Paulitical Correctness
06-11-2008, 04:01 PM
Admitting to yourself, "Hey, maybe I haven't got all the answers", is quite possibly the single most important thing you can do in regards to becoming a more open-minded person, which will ultimately allow you to better coexist with your fellow man.

Nothing wrong with faith and conviction, or lack thereof. But remember they are your beliefs.

"U lyke liberteez? Hay, me 2!"

Broadlighter
06-11-2008, 04:22 PM
You want to make God laugh, just tell him your plans.

sophocles07
06-11-2008, 05:47 PM
Again, you can't prove God doesn't exist, so you can only believe it.
You have a "set of beliefs" concerning God and the nature of the universe.

Negative Proof fallacy?

Can you really consider it a “set of beliefs” when you are simply saying “I see no evidence for this, therefore I don’t believe in this, if you present me with some evidence, I guess I’ll believe in it”? It’s like saying I have a “set of beliefs” when I know that I am typing on a computer right now but see no evidence for the proposition that I am typing on an elephant’s asswrinkles. One is factual, the other ridiculous; it’s not a “religion.”


Some Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power.

Yeah, and some Catholics molest children. What’s your point?


They can do whatever they want because once they die it's all over - no accountability. That's what they believe.

You’re very simple.


And some people believe that there are consequences, good and bad, for our actions after we die, because we are more than just our bodies, we have a spiritual side to our existence, more than just our flesh. And some add that there is a Creator, or God, who on purpose brought us and the Universe into existence.

Question:

is it more morally honorable to do good, behave well on earth for reward, avoid evil because you will be punished; or to do good and avoid evil because you know it will help everyone out and make the world better?

If the first choice does not strike you like an enlarged cosmological version of parent-child relations, you are overthinking this thing.


And if you call someone who believes in a God, and their set of beliefs concerning that "religious", then you have to call someone who doesn't believe in a God and their set of beliefs concerning such "religious" too.

No, you don’t; for reasons above.

I'm also not aware of any ritual based in the idea of "no god," or of any of these needed "tenets" of the faith.

Kade
06-12-2008, 08:09 AM
I'm fine if you don't want to call your belief system regarding the existence of God, Atheism, a religion,
but then you shouldn't call my belief system regarding the existence of God, Christianity, a religion.

This is, quit possibly, the most idiotic utterance I've heard on these forums yet, and that is difficult, as you are competing with the forces of Theocrat and Truth Warrior.

You are so utterly mistaken in your understanding of Atheism and atheists in general, that you have actually clarified a problem I had been witnessing.

You see, you attempted to define us as a group, because you understand what a religion is... you say things like:

"Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power."

Nonsense. Atheists live as if this life matters greatly, seeing as it is the only one we have. I cannot make sweeping generalizations about atheists, even though I am one, because as a "group" we do not have a constant set of beliefs or practices.

Here are some easy generalizations about atheists that can be made that contradict the very definition of a religion:

Atheists do not make supernatural claims about reality.
Atheists do not have a set of beliefs and/or practices.
Atheists do not have a codified set of rules, rituals, or prayers.
Atheists do not have cultural traditions, or a shared mythology.
Atheists do not even have much of a community.

The most important distinction that can be made as well in this batshit nonsense you are spewing, is one question...

If Atheism is a religion, what form of belief or non-belief is a non-religion?

Theocrat
06-12-2008, 08:20 AM
This is, quit possibly, the most idiotic utterance I've heard on these forums yet, and that is difficult, as you are competing with the forces of Theocrat and Truth Warrior.

You are so utterly mistaken in your understanding of Atheism and atheists in general, that you have actually clarified a problem I had been witnessing.

You see, you attempted to define us as a group, because you understand what a religion is... you say things like:

"Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power."

Nonsense. Atheists live as if this life matters greatly, seeing as it is the only one we have. I cannot make sweeping generalizations about atheists, even though I am one, because as a "group" we do not have a constant set of beliefs or practices.

Here are some easy generalizations about atheists that can be made that contradict the very definition of a religion:

Atheists do not make supernatural claims about reality.
Atheists do not have a set of beliefs and/or practices.
Atheists do not have a codified set of rules, rituals, or prayers.
Atheists do not have cultural traditions, or a shared mythology.
Atheists do not even have much of a community.

The most important distinction that can be made as well in this batshit nonsense you are spewing, is one question...

If Atheism is a religion, what form of belief or non-belief is a non-religion?

"Atheists" are religious humanists. See here (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html), here (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html), and here (http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php) for more details about that. You are not in a position of religious neutrality. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and philosophically naive.

Kade
06-12-2008, 08:24 AM
"Atheists" are religious humanists. See here (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html), here (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html), and here (http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php) for more details about that. You are not in a position of religious neutrality. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and philosophically naive.

Unless you ask what every atheist in the world believes, the only thing you are qualified to say is based on the very definition of the word.

We do not believe in gods.

Some atheists are humanists, but not all. Humanism is a religion. Atheism is not.

You are the only one being intellectually dishonest here Theocrat.

acptulsa
06-12-2008, 08:26 AM
not[/B] in a position of religious neutrality. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and philosophically naive.

Just because you have no one to sing hymns to doesn't mean atheism (as opposed to agnosticism and using the simplest, most straightforward definitions) isn't a belief structure concerning the truth about dieties.

And what is the word we use for belief structures concerning dieties?

FindLiberty
06-12-2008, 08:26 AM
Thanks for sharing all these interesting points of view.

Isn't it grand how Freedom and Liberty allow all of this here... all within the same big tent as long as coercion and force doesn't enter into the exchange of these ideas!

I respect those of faith, those who don't, and those who have not made up their minds, and those who don't even care. (hope that about covers it)

Have a great day!

Kade
06-12-2008, 08:28 AM
Thanks for sharing all these interesting points of view.

Isn't it grand how Freedom and Liberty allow all of this here... all within the same big tent as long as coercion and force doesn't enter into the exchange of these ideas!

I respect those of faith, those who don't, and those who have not made up their minds, and those who don't even care. (hope that about covers it)

Have a great day!

If Theocrat and a few others have their way, we won't be able to do this much longer.

Yes, it is great. Which is why it's worth arguing about.

I am not going to be forced to pay money to a Christian Theocracy, ever.

acptulsa
06-12-2008, 08:28 AM
Thanks for sharing all these interesting points of view.

Isn't it grand how Freedom and Liberty allow all of this here... all within the same big tent as long as coercion and force doesn't enter into the exchange of these ideas!

I respect those of faith, those who don't, and those who have not made up their minds, and those who don't even care. (hope that about covers it)

Have a great day!

Yes, it is grand. It is also why we're here fighting, and what we have in common. Freedom and liberty are grand, indeed.

You have a great day, too, my friend.

Theocrat
06-12-2008, 08:36 AM
Unless you ask what every atheist in the world believes, the only thing you are qualified to say is based on the very definition of the word.

We do not believe in gods.

Some atheists are humanists, but not all. Humanism is a religion. Atheism is not.

You are the only one being intellectually dishonest here Theocrat.

I'll make it real simple for you, as Mark as tried to explain to you. You believe there is no God, but since you don't have absolute knowledge of the universe, you cannot know with certainty that there is no God. Thus, your belief in the nonexistence of God forces you to act religiously towards the worship of something else, whether it's natural science, reason, Obama, or anything else. Whatever you put first in your life is your god, and you can't help that because it is in all of our natures as humans to worship something.

acptulsa
06-12-2008, 08:40 AM
Thus, your belief in the nonexistence of God forces you to act religiously towards the worship of something else, whether it's natural science, reason, Obama, or anything else. Whatever you put first in your life is your god, and you can't help that because it is in all of our natures as humans to worship something.

Maybe a bit of a stretch, here. We are all different. And I, for one, am grateful for this--especially when I see someone doing a necessary job that I know I could not or would not do. That is why freedom is popular, it is why we're here (if we weren't all different, why would we worry about one size fits all laws?) and, I'm afraid, it's the hole in your theory.

Theocrat, the problem with theocracies is they don't give God credit for being able (like a good parent) to meet each of us on our own terms. Arguably they do Him as much harm as us...

Theocrat
06-12-2008, 08:42 AM
If Theocrat and a few others have their way, we won't be able to do this much longer.

Yes, it is great. Which is why it's worth arguing about.

I am not going to be forced to pay money to a Christian Theocracy, ever.

Neither am I going to be forced to pay to spread your religion of doubt to the masses via the school systems, government institutions, or scientific establishments.

Secular governments, like communism and socialism, never work, and they only result in social genocide and political/economic suicide.

Theocrat
06-12-2008, 08:48 AM
Maybe a bit of a stretch, here. We are all different. And I, for one, am grateful for this--especially when I see someone doing a necessary job that I know I could not or would not do. That is why freedom is popular, it is why we're here (if we weren't all different, why would we worry about one size fits all laws?) and, I'm afraid, it's the hole in your theory.

Theocrat, the problem with theocracies is they don't give God credit for being able (like a good parent) to meet each of us on our own terms. Arguably they do Him as much harm as us...

I don't think you understand rightly what a theocracy is, and that's understandable because most people today in our post-modern culture equate a "theocracy" with an "ecclesiocracy" (rule of the Church). I don't advocate that.

acptulsa
06-12-2008, 09:08 AM
I don't think you understand rightly what a theocracy is, and that's understandable because most people today in our post-modern culture equate a "theocracy" with an "ecclesiocracy" (rule of the Church). I don't advocate that.

7 results for: theocracy

the·oc·ra·cy Audio Help /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-ok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1615–25; < Gk theokratía. See theo-, -cracy]

—Related forms
the·o·crat·ic Audio Help /ˌθiəˈkrætɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-krat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, the·o·crat·i·cal, adjective
the·o·crat·i·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
theocracy

To learn more about theocracy visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This the·oc·ra·cy Audio Help (thē-ŏk'rə-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
theocracy

1622, "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as that of Israel before the rise of kings), from Gk. theokratia "the rule of God" (Josephus), from theos "god" (of unknown origin, perhaps a non-I.E. word) + kratos "a rule, regime, strength" (see -cracy). Meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This theocracy

noun
1. a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
2. the belief in government by divine guidance

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
theocracy [(thee-ok-ruh-see)]


A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. (See Islam.)


[Chapter:] World Politics


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Theocracy

The*oc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.]

1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.

2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

You and Kade certainly have in common a desire to stretch the labels you use. And, as we have seen during this campaign, people tend to flame what they don't understand. Maybe part of the heat you both seem to generate is simply misunderstandings over vague terms...

Theocrat
06-12-2008, 09:44 AM
7 results for: theocracy

the·oc·ra·cy Audio Help /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-ok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1615–25; < Gk theokratía. See theo-, -cracy]

—Related forms
the·o·crat·ic Audio Help /ˌθiəˈkrætɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-krat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, the·o·crat·i·cal, adjective
the·o·crat·i·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
theocracy

To learn more about theocracy visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This the·oc·ra·cy Audio Help (thē-ŏk'rə-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
theocracy

1622, "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as that of Israel before the rise of kings), from Gk. theokratia "the rule of God" (Josephus), from theos "god" (of unknown origin, perhaps a non-I.E. word) + kratos "a rule, regime, strength" (see -cracy). Meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This theocracy

noun
1. a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
2. the belief in government by divine guidance

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
theocracy [(thee-ok-ruh-see)]


A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. (See Islam.)


[Chapter:] World Politics


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Theocracy

The*oc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.]

1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.

2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Some of those definitions I can agree with as a proper meaning of a theocracy. I feel the others are just subjective extrapolations based on present social stigmas and variations of unguided knowledge, lacking Biblical precedent of terms.


You and Kade certainly have in common a desire to stretch the labels you use. And, as we have seen during this campaign, people tend to flame what they don't understand. Maybe part of the heat you both seem to generate is simply misunderstandings over vague terms...

Perhaps there's some truth to have you've said here, but fundamentally, Kade and I have two worldviews which are diametrically opposed to one another. He hates God (though he won't admit that), and I trust in God, but both of us are religious in our beliefs towards His nonexistence and existence, respectively.

sophocles07
06-12-2008, 04:25 PM
I'll make it real simple for you, as Mark as tried to explain to you. You believe there is no God, but since you don't have absolute knowledge of the universe, you cannot know with certainty that there is no God. Thus, your belief in the nonexistence of God forces you to act religiously towards the worship of something else, whether it's natural science, reason, Obama, or anything else. Whatever you put first in your life is your god, and you can't help that because it is in all of our natures as humans to worship something.

Is it a "religion" to believe that a giant pink elephant controls the universe? We don't "have all the facts." Is it a religion to not believe in things there is no proof for (I mean empircal, testable proof)?

This atheism=religion thing is FUCKING STUPID.