Question for the atheist?
- Thread starter badboyyawdie
- Start date
theres a whole lot of scientific data that'll suggest otherwise
from the tiny amount of the universe we've explored or the oceans on this planet
to the biological limitations on human senses and cognitive abilities
i could go on an on
far enough
i should have said who/what, how and why
but the current scientific approach to trying to understand the universe and everything else is flawed, maybe because we havent evolved enough yet
I wont even get into the whole blind belief stuff
Count,
Fair enough. I guess you're saying that at the end of the day we have to be practical. No?
I've been studying cognitive neuroscience and behavioral psychology for a few years came to realize that there's a lot that we think we know about how we think and how the brain works with our nervous system. And we constantly making new discoveries as technology advances. The strides made with functional imaging wrt neurophysiological correlates of fundamental processes like memory and language for example. The prevailing paradigm in neuroscience is a representational (schematic) and attribution model of cognition. We don't have direct access to our pure mental states even though we think we do.
How exactly do you explain abstract emotions scientifically? What's your benchmark? Trust me this issue is hundreds of years deep in debate.
You're aware that no scientific test (organic lab experiments) currently exists to diagnose schizophrenia right? Diagnosis is based on observation and the patients reported experiences. It's mainly treated by psychoanalysis - barely a robust science.
This is the reason I asked the question about judgement of a person with dissociative personality disorder in a previous post. At the end of the day, the diagnosis of insanity is a statistical (Bayesian) one, as is most if not all scientific inferences. There's a lot of so-called sane folks walking around that are crazy as fuck. They're just all in the middle of the median bell curve.
I guess the question come down to what is normal and what isn't. I don't know that I wana get into that.
Last edited:
me too
I understand that humans have limitations sensory wise. However, despite those limitations, history reflects our capacity to get past said limitations. And Voila, we have modernity!
That doesn't mean we DO have the capacity to understand or know at this time. I say that to say, the limitations on either side aren't equal. Science overcomes it's limitations slowly. Religion isn't expected or required to, because it's faith based.
JG
Last edited:
The practice of faith and belief in a supernatural, omniscient being that is responsible for the creation and control of existence. . .
JG
*sigh*
So, why don't you tell me what I'm about to do ....
.....
.....now!?
Your argument basically, as I read it, says that Atheists have to prove there is no silver dollar under the cup, just as Christians would have to prove there IS a silver dollar under the cup.
But the cup will never get lifted. So no one will ever really know.
But you claim that science is steadily lifting the cup? Or don't you?
Why dose there have to be a proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup?
Oh, because silver dollars are "rare".
Did you even think your analogy, allegory, whatever, through?
Scroll up and read my reply to JG. I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. lol. Perhaps you should let Count23 argue his case, unless your his council?
At any rate, you've said nothing here. 'preciatet he paragraph though.
Scroll up and read my reply to JG. I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. lol. Perhaps you should let Count23 argue his case, unless your his council?
At any rate, you've said nothing here. 'preciatet he paragraph though.
plus I forgot to mention that the OP was so far off in the inital question that it aint worth it to mix it up in here. You should start your own thread with your own questions, cuz it looks like you are aligned with ... well
My definition:
re-ligare, i.e. re = "again" and ligare = "to reconnect"
The desire to reconnect with our ultimate origins/purpose of existence. For some it involve the anthropomorphic construction of a demiurge type being and adhering by faith to a whole dogma around that. For me, it's more of an experience furnishes my "reconnection" with my essence.
I really lack the vocab to explain it but what it's not to me is a belief SYSTEM or INSTITUTION founded on a SUPERnatural being.
OK. I'm going to bed now. This was fun.
Panentheism? Holism?
I agree, the OP's initial question was flawed. I said that in my first post.
I actually have a few threads already started that sort of touch on these issues but in a less abrasive way ... I'd hope.
One was started ....but a dud nonetheless so all efforting was redirected to this thread to continue the agenda. Some of us figured it out.
I would say that history reflects our ability to make practical choices that lead to workarounds and minor advancements that helped cover up our limitations but as of yet many of those limitations are still waitin on us to do something about them
but other than that i agree
organized religions for the most part arent gonna get anybody anywhere
but true spirituality is another thing entirely
*sigh*
So, why don't you tell me what I'm about to do ....
.....
.....now!?
Your argument basically, as I read it, says that Atheists have to prove there is no silver dollar under the cup, just as Christians would have to prove there IS a silver dollar under the cup.
But the cup will never get lifted. So no one will ever really know.
But you claim that science is steadily lifting the cup? Or don't you?
Why dose there have to be a proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup?
Oh, because silver dollars are "rare".
Did you even think your analogy, allegory, whatever, through?
You don't get how loose analogies work do you? you really got confused because i threw in a line about silver dollars being rare, and thought that was my argument? REALLY?
Yeah, you still don't get it. More ill-conceived arguments that still presupposes Atheists and agnostics have to prove something.
Don't sweat it. I'll explain one more time.but first: NO, I don't claim that science is steadily lifting the cup. I don't even know where science entered my argument in your hostile little religious head. And NO there doesn't have to be proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, reverend.
If there was proof, we'd all be Christians, wouldn't we?
Lift up that cup and show us the silver dollar and the atheists will say "yes, that's a silver dollar."
Lift up that cup and there's no silver dollar and Christians will say, "It's there, you just don't have the faith to see it."
Ever hear of that word before, "faith"?
What it means is that some people believe without proof. Some people don't believe without significant proof. And some people believe that the lack of proof is proof in itself. Those are atheists.
They don't have "faith" that there is no God. They just believe that there is no God.
And I hope I don't have to explain the difference between believing something and having faith in something...
By the way... lift up the cup and there's a dime under it and agnostics and atheists would say "oh, it's a dime." The Christian would say "no, it must be a new type of silver dollar."
Last edited:
Panentheism? Holism?
I agree, the OP's initial question was flawed. I said that in my first post.
I actually have a few threads already started that sort of touch on these issues but in a less abrasive way ... I'd hope.
looking at some of the responses, I see why you're asking questions. SOme people are drawing false conclusions all over the place
You read this? If so, what are your thoughts (it's not apart of my reply btw I was just wondering)?
Schizophrenia, while as you pointed out may not be determined in the lab right now, is treatable chemically, which at least suggests that it is a biological function that can be studied, at least theoretically right now.
You're right, the arguments about about abstract emotions have been debated for years. However, if they did not arise biologically, then how is it that feelings can be manipulated by chemical usage, or brain damage?
Remember humans have only been able to study the brain at this level since fairly recently in our history.
As far as what is normal, do you mean normal as in cultural norms, or as in the nature of reality? I assuming you meant the latter, but I look at it like this. Reality is subjective. To a point. If reality was completely subjective, then science or even everyday interaction as we know it would be very hard to grasp. What we perceive around us is not the 'complete' real world but a reconstruction perceived by our brains which evolved a certain way. Our brains are incapable of grasping the whole picture, however this does not deny that there is a nature of reality. A human's expeience of the world differs from a dogs' which differs from a fly, which differs from a whale and so on and so forth. However If a person is convinced through personal experience that they are invincible, that belief will not stop them from getting hurt/killed if they are shot.
Why is it, when someone claims personal experience it always has to do with phenomena that cannot be supported by external evidence? There are many phenomena that humans are incapapable of perceiving (light spectrum, germs, the wide range of scent etc) on our own, without the use of our tools, yet nobody ever tries to claim that they can see the full light spectrum, of that their olfactory sense is on par with a bloodhound.
Bruh am I wrong for being skeptical when people can only cite personal experience for something extraordinary, especially if I have an idea how easily our brains are suseptible to illusions?
You don't get how loose analogies work do you? you really got confused because i threw in a line about silver dollars being rare, and thought that was my argument? REALLY?
Yeah, you still don't get it. More ill-conceived arguments that still presupposes Atheists and agnostics have to prove something.
but first: NO, I don't claim that science is steadily lifting the cup. I don't even know where science entered my argument in your hostile little religious head. And NO there doesn't have to be proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, reverend.
If there was proof, we'd all be Christians, wouldn't we?
Lift up that cup and show us the silver dollar and the atheists will say "yes, that's a silver dollar."
Lift up that cup and there's no silver dollar and Christians will say, "It's there, you just don't have the faith to see it."
Ever hear of that word before, "faith"?
What it means is that some people believe without proof. Some people don't believe without significant proof. And some people believe that the lack of proof is proof in itself. Those are atheists.
They don't have "faith" that there is no God. They just believe that there is no God.
And I hope I don't have to explain the difference between believing something and having faith in something...
By the way... lift up the cup and there's a dime under it and agnostics and atheists would say "oh, it's a dime." The Christian would say "no, it must be a new type of silver dollar."
Hostile religious head...
That ad hominem shit is played out man You sound a bit perturbed. Mad even? You're typing all hectic and shit. Relax. Breathe.Do I have to type that i'm not arguing for Christianity in bold caps Arial font size 7 for you to get it? Or you just have a love affair with straw-men?
You: "Atheists say, "there's no silver dollar under that cup. Silver dollars are rare,..."
Me: Right. Rare ...
You: "blah blah blah blah, you're a dumb Christian, blah, blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, ...
Last edited:
And I can state that 1 + 1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1)
= 1 + sqrt[(-1)(-1)]
= 1 + sqrt(-1) x sqrt(-1)
= 1 + [sqrt(-1)]^2
= 1 + (-1)
= 0
now they've resorted to attacking absolutes?
You read this? If so, what are your thoughts (it's not apart of my reply btw I was just wondering)?
It's on my book shelf right now up next after i'm done with this ...
Yes, the neurophysiological outcomes of schizophrenia can be studied. I never denied that. All I was saying was that the neurocognitive deficits associated with it are attended to by psychoanalysis/psychotherapies of the SYMPTOMS.
Of course in combination with physical data from brain imaging one can draw some correlations with brain regions and states.
My whole point is this:
Science doesn't fully understand the underlying cause of schizophrenia but the prevailing BELIEF is that it's a combination of physiological and psychological brain states, the later being far less amenable to the scientific method.
Unless someone solved the Mind/Body problem and I wasn't aware of it.
From your question it appears to me that your philosophy is essentially materialist. Only matter and it's physical interactions exist and immaterial stuff like emotions are epiphenomena at best - the result of chemical interactions. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Again, the mind/body problem.
We can use chemicals to alter our emotional/mental states.
We can explain and understand the physical interactions of these chemicals with the biochemicals in our bodies based on our conventions of chemistry, biology and physics.
We can make correlations to effects.
We can statistics, models and theory to validate.
Now I have a question.
How do you explain self-induced (emotional) cortical neuroplasticity? The 'rewiring' of neural networks in the brain and consequently brain function (behavior, response to physical stimuli etc) without the use of external chemicals? By what mechanism does the mind (thought) achieve this? Sure you can analyze the brain in a lab and observe changes in brain states and detect the release of biochemicals (neurotransmitters, endorphines, etc) but what's the physics of this?
If you have any information (scientific journal article, data, etc) that even begins to scratch the surface of this please share.
If our brains are incapable of the full nature of reality then how can be claim the existence of a complete reality??
Maybe it's just me but this sounds a lot like that dreaded "F" word. Faith. Either that or baseless presumption. Which would actually be the same as faith according to atheists.
You see, its the human ego that makes it so hard for us to accept the notion that reality is in fact subjective. Even when there's actual physical scientific evidence consistent with fundamental theory to support the fact. This is why we have over a dozen different interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and terms like "local hidden variables".
Our perception of an objective world is, for lack of a better word, an illusion.
We don't have direct access to our own mental states what makes us think we understand what other animals experience??
No, you're not wrong.
I completely empathize with your perspective here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't exercise skepticism nor am I suggesting that skepticism is a redundant trait. All I'm saying is that we need to exercise an equal level of prudence when making absolute judgments and assertions and realize that the physical dispositions AS WELL AS emotional and mental states of each and everyone of us play a central role is the description of all of reality.
An extraordinary phenomena is only such because of its statistics.
What most that are coming at me in this thread don't quite get is that i'm not in here arguing sociopolitical implication of religious institution or defending crazy Christian fundamentalists. That's too pedestrian IMO.
now they've resorted to attacking absolutes?
*looks at the name*
Oh wait. never mind. lol.
*looks at the name*
Oh wait. never mind. lol.
don't get mad because you pray to an imaginary omnipotent being who supposedly knows all and sees all according to william shakespeare and any other crackpot over the ages that contributed to this nonsense.....
i'd believe in little bug eyed gray men from the planet x before i believe in an a deity that pacifies the foolish....
Don't post stupid shit without thinking and then post nervous laughter smiley faces when you get owned.
It's on my book shelf right now up next after i'm done with this ...
added to the cartYes, the neurophysiological outcomes of schizophrenia can be studied. I never denied that. All I was saying was that the neurocognitive deficits associated with it are attended to by psychoanalysis/psychotherapies of the SYMPTOMS.
Of course in combination with physical data from brain imaging one can draw some correlations with brain regions and states.
My whole point is this:
Science doesn't fully understand the underlying cause of schizophrenia but the prevailing BELIEF is that it's a combination of physiological and psychological brain states, the later being far less amenable to the scientific method.
Unless someone solved the Mind/Body problem and I wasn't aware of it.
Word. I get that, and as far as I know, the mind/body problem has not be satisfactorily resolved.
nah, sounds like me (although this is not set in stone
) I won't even front on you, I am not aware of any scientific journal that conclusively explains the mechanisms of neuroplasticity. I have a question for you tho. Does this mean that due to the limitations of our understanding neuroplasticity today, that you may ascribe the 'blind spots' of our knowledge to something immaterial like a soul? If so, how is this not the god of the gaps argument all over again?
Hence me saying in my last post 'subjective to a point'
Subjective in the sense that humans cannot see the full light spectrum without the aid of tools. Objective in the sense that if a person made the claim that they can see the full light spectrum without aid, they would be met with high skepticism, until they were able to be otherwise convincing. The study of atoms suggest that they are very much spaced apart at the quantum level when making up matter, yet nobody will make the claim that they can see these spaces un-aided when looking at, say a wall.
Our brains evolved to perceive reality on a certain level like in the examples I mentioned above. Our collective, un-aided subjective reality, is also our collective "objective" reality. I hope I'm being clear here.
we may not (ever) completely understand/empathize with another animal's subjective experience, but we can have an idea. For example, we know that dogs generally posses a sense of smell that puts ours to shame. Wouldn't something like that affect its experience of reality?
Word. I agree. This is also one of the reasons why I believe that skeptical reasoning from as much people as possible can help mitigate personal feelings from clouding the results. Challenging established ideas, usually leads to growth.
No doubt. It's a great read so far. You'll like it.
I won't even front on you, I am not aware of any scientific journal that conclusively explains the mechanisms of neuroplasticity. I have a question for you tho. Does this mean that due to the limitations of our understanding neuroplasticity today, that you may ascribe the 'blind spots' of our knowledge to something immaterial like a soul? If so, how is this not the god of the gaps argument all over again?
Identical twins that have basically the same genetic (physical) make up behave (psychological) differently because of differences in the expression of genes which is in turn due to differences in environmental input.
What actually triggers this gene expression? What's responsible for how DNA 'behaves'? What's between the transition from gene to trait? You can keep asking these questions to the most fundamental "particles" that make up matter.
Fill in the gap with whatever you want but my guess is that you'll continue to infinite regress before you come up with something physical.
Hence me saying in my last post 'subjective to a point'
Subjective in the sense that humans cannot see the full light spectrum without the aid of tools. Objective in the sense that if a person made the claim that they can see the full light spectrum without aid, they would be met with high skepticism, until they were able to be otherwise convincing. The study of atoms suggest that they are very much spaced apart at the quantum level when making up matter, yet nobody will make the claim that they can see these spaces un-aided when looking at, say a wall.
Our brains evolved to perceive reality on a certain level like in the examples I mentioned above. Our collective, un-aided subjective reality, is also our collective "objective" reality. I hope I'm being clear here.
Do you notice how the highlighted above ^^^ ... sound sounds a lot like a religious dictum?
we may not (ever) completely understand/empathize with another animal's subjective experience, but we can have an idea. For example, we know that dogs generally posses a sense of smell that puts ours to shame. Wouldn't something like that affect its experience of reality?
The dogs experience of reality relative to what? (think about your answer for a minute ...)
Word. I agree. This is also one of the reasons why I believe that skeptical reasoning from as much people as possible can help mitigate personal feelings from clouding the results. Challenging established ideas, usually leads to growth.
true.
...
@sean69
1) how about simply saying I don't know, and leave it at that until better information is found?
2) the point is tho, am i wrong? is there any evidence of people seeing the full spectrum of light, or having a dog's sense of smell tho?
3) They experience reality differently relative to humans. Or to a dolphin. Or to a cockroach. Or to a rat.
1) how about simply saying I don't know, and leave it at that until better information is found?
2) the point is tho, am i wrong? is there any evidence of people seeing the full spectrum of light, or having a dog's sense of smell tho?
3) They experience reality differently relative to humans. Or to a dolphin. Or to a cockroach. Or to a rat.
and you still didn't answer my question: The dogs experience of reality relative to what?
Last edited:
1)??
2) I said in a previous post that our reality perceived by our brains as a species is subjective, (constrained) becuz we evoloved a certain way. However within these constraints, it can be argued that there some things that are objective to us. Thats where I brought up the light spectrum and quantum examples.
Subjective reality (species): human beings cannot perceive the full light spectrum that exists without tools.
Objective reality(species): I can more or less say that all human beings cannot perceive the full spectrum of light.
While it can be argued that all of what we perceive is illusion, it can also be argued that this illusion has been hardwired in our brains due to evolution making it on some level "objective". It may not be rigid, but it does have constraints.
3)dawg, I don't know what its like to be born a blind person either, but I can make a safe bet that how they perceive reality, is not the same as how I do. I'm not saying that I can "imagine" how dogs experience reality, I'm just saying that it is reasonable to assume that with different brains, limbs, and maximizing different senses, that they would be experiencing reality a different way from us. How different? I'll never know.
2) I said in a previous post that our reality perceived by our brains as a species is subjective, (constrained) becuz we evoloved a certain way. However within these constraints, it can be argued that there some things that are objective to us. Thats where I brought up the light spectrum and quantum examples.
Subjective reality (species): human beings cannot perceive the full light spectrum that exists without tools.
Objective reality(species): I can more or less say that all human beings cannot perceive the full spectrum of light.
While it can be argued that all of what we perceive is illusion, it can also be argued that this illusion has been hardwired in our brains due to evolution making it on some level "objective". It may not be rigid, but it does have constraints.
3)dawg, I don't know what its like to be born a blind person either, but I can make a safe bet that how they perceive reality, is not the same as how I do. I'm not saying that I can "imagine" how dogs experience reality, I'm just saying that it is reasonable to assume that with different brains, limbs, and maximizing different senses, that they would be experiencing reality a different way from us. How different? I'll never know.
Last edited:
First of all, the word is omniscient, dummy. Secondly, it means no such thing. Your conclusion is laughably preposterous. Learn how to reason logically.
...
1) Oh ok I see. I was referring to gaps in our knowledge when I said "I don't know"
2) It just simply means that we can't cognitively process information in that spectral range. The information is still there we just can't mentally access it.
Saying that human perception is subjective in certain specific ways is itself an objective statement (until shown otherwise) Maybe my wording was bad.
3) Pretty much
4)Maybe how I phrased it was wrong, but going by what you said earlier in your post, you sorta do.
5)Fair enough. I'll check the link
2) It just simply means that we can't cognitively process information in that spectral range. The information is still there we just can't mentally access it.
Saying that human perception is subjective in certain specific ways is itself an objective statement (until shown otherwise) Maybe my wording was bad.
3) Pretty much
4)Maybe how I phrased it was wrong, but going by what you said earlier in your post, you sorta do.
5)Fair enough. I'll check the link
...
Similar threads
