| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2008 03:48:52 PM · #1501 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I didn't know I had homework. |
Next you'll tell us that your dog ate it... |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 03:50:16 PM · #1502 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I didn't know I had homework. |
Man, you were poised for utter victory. I was going to concede the whole argument about Dawkins to you if you could provide a quote where he espouses a virtue of religion. You were on the one yard line and then you drop the ball! ;)
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 03:52:32 PM · #1503 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...how can we trust anything our senses tell us? |
How can you trust what you see when your sight is dictated by photons striking your retina , chemical reactions causing neurons to fire along your optic nerve, and other chemical reactions allowing your brain to perceive an image. Isn't that what actually happens? You trust what you see because experience tells you it's real. Some people CAN'T trust their senses (schizophrenia). |
I'm not as worried about the photon hitting the eye part as to what happens next. If our brain tricks us into feeling like we have the option to do choice A or choice B when this is not the reality, then how do we completely trust our brain to get everything else right?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 03:53:15 PM · #1504 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Next you'll tell us that your dog ate it... |
Great, now Spaz is attributing unknown events to dog. :-( |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:12:30 PM · #1505 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If our brain tricks us into feeling like we have the option to do choice A or choice B when this is not the reality, then how do we completely trust our brain to get everything else right? |
You really shouldn't. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:15:19 PM · #1506 |
| By the way, in the spirit of the guy who made that beautiful atheistic paean "The God Who Wasn't There," I now know how wrong I've been. Just like him, I've been saved. There is a God, Jesus is real. I'm a convert. Your arguments are all just too strong... I can't resist them any longer. Thank you so much for trying, you've succeeded. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:31:44 PM · #1507 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If our brain tricks us into feeling like we have the option to do choice A or choice B when this is not the reality, then how do we completely trust our brain to get everything else right? |
Your perception of choice is the very real result of sensory inputs and processing. Just as a chess computer can make a decision based on analysis of the situation, your "DNA computer" can analyze many possible outcomes of each decision and select a course of action. Even for something as mundane as participating in this thread, you'll analyze the situation with influences from past experience and knowledge, your developed personality, mood, maybe even ambient music, and decide how (or if) to respond. While a chess computer focuses on only the moves, your response might be a little different after a day, a night's sleep, a beer or any number of factors. Is that really a trick or just the complex interaction of many variables? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:33:31 PM · #1508 |
Originally posted by Louis:
By the way, in the spirit of the guy who made that beautiful atheistic paean "The God Who Wasn't There," I now know how wrong I've been. Just like him, I've been saved. There is a God, Jesus is real. I'm a convert. Your arguments are all just too strong... I can't resist them any longer. Thank you so much for trying, you've succeeded. |
Welcome to the fold! Church is at 9:30 or 11:15.
So now you just resort to sarcasm when you need to concede a point? Do you guys really feel that to give in on any point means all is lost? Would simply admitting that Dawkins is actually pretty negative when it comes to religion (and thus not "balanced" with regard to being personally open to the opposition) be such a bad thing?
I would say this is the crux of why it is so frustrating to talk to you guys. I think you are all quite intelligent, but you just can't civilly say "you are right" on any point no matter how big or small. Would it really destroy atheism as we know it to understand that Richard Dawkins doesn't like religion?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:37:01 PM · #1509 |
| It's the role of the moderator of the debate to be "balanced" -- not either of the proponents. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:39:01 PM · #1510 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If our brain tricks us into feeling like we have the option to do choice A or choice B when this is not the reality, then how do we completely trust our brain to get everything else right? |
Your perception of choice is the very real result of sensory inputs and processing. Just as a chess computer can make a decision based on analysis of the situation, your "DNA computer" can analyze many possible outcomes of each decision and select a course of action. Even for something as mundane as participating in this thread, you'll analyze the situation with influences from past experience and knowledge, your developed personality, mood, maybe even ambient music, and decide how (or if) to respond. While a chess computer focuses on only the moves, your response might be a little different after a day, a night's sleep, a beer or any number of factors. Is that really a trick or just the complex interaction of many variables? |
Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? It's possible this is the truth and within materialism it is necessarily the truth (what other option is available?). The problem is my brain tells me I really do have choice. While I certainly can be externally influenced, I am able to overcome influences if I so choose. This, I believe because this is what I experience. IF I accept that then I accept there is something beyond materialism (because this makes no sense under that system). IF I do not accept it, then I am denying something my brain fundamentally tells me to be true and I must then begin to question everything my brain tells me (note it doesn't mean that everything else is necessarily false, but one must ask those questions).
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 16:42:23.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:40:52 PM · #1511 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It's the role of the moderator of the debate to be "balanced" -- not either of the proponents. |
Quite agreed. Although a balanced proponent is probably worth his/her weight in gold.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:41:36 PM · #1512 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
By the way, in the spirit of the guy who made that beautiful atheistic paean "The God Who Wasn't There," I now know how wrong I've been. Just like him, I've been saved. There is a God, Jesus is real. I'm a convert. Your arguments are all just too strong... I can't resist them any longer. Thank you so much for trying, you've succeeded. |
So now you just resort to sarcasm when you need to concede a point? |
Erm... check today's date. :-/ Wow, what a spectacular failure at an attempt at levity. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:43:05 PM · #1513 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
By the way, in the spirit of the guy who made that beautiful atheistic paean "The God Who Wasn't There," I now know how wrong I've been. Just like him, I've been saved. There is a God, Jesus is real. I'm a convert. Your arguments are all just too strong... I can't resist them any longer. Thank you so much for trying, you've succeeded. |
So now you just resort to sarcasm when you need to concede a point? |
Erm... check today's date. :-/ Wow, what a spectacular failure at an attempt at levity. |
LOL, sorry Louis. Friggin April 1st... :)
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:45:32 PM · #1514 |
| Heh.. it was lame anyway. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 05:07:32 PM · #1515 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, some of the people written about in the bible may have been alive. Some of the places that existed and were written about may well have been as described. Some of the normal events described may have happened.
|
So what do you personally make about the whole Jesus character Gordon? |
I think there probably was a prophet called Jesus, much like there probably was a prophet called Muhammad. I think it is probable that a great deal of the stories are partially true or mythologised or elaborated and enlarged by the retelling, massaged by political expediency, misunderstood by translation, evolved by Kings to re-enforce their own glory, raised to godhood by Nicene decree and tuned to meet a variety of earthly concerns.
None of that has much to do with if he was the son of God, one of God's prophets or just a man with good intentions.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 05:13:45 PM · #1516 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I certainly can be externally influenced, I am able to overcome influences if I so choose. This, I believe because this is what I experience. IF I accept that then I accept there is something beyond materialism (because this makes no sense under that system). |
WHY does it not make sense that this can still be purely a matter of physical electrochemistry? Because the variables are so complex? You don't "overcome" a given choice without a reason to do so (ie- you're still making a decision based on your knowledge, experience, etc.). If a rat can override a choice to eat food to spare a companion's pain and a capuchin can override a desire for treats to protest an unfair situation, then what's the big deal about your ability to make a conscious choice?
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 17:44:33. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 05:16:11 PM · #1517 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Would it really destroy atheism as we know it to understand that Richard Dawkins doesn't like religion? |
Dawkins doesn't like religion. I've heard him say it himself, though he did say he'd prefer it if he was considered as being a friend of the truth, rather than an enemy of religion. He also is quite sarcastic and sharp on the topic, in a particularly British way that maybe doesn't do him many favours.
A part of the God Delusion explores why religion should be considered so above reproach or critical analysis - why do we get to insult and trade barbs back and forth on political issues, but religious beliefs are supposed to be respected, above question, even if we consider them less than fully formed. I don't know that I've ever heard a good response to that issue from someone with a religious perspective - anyone care to opine ? It certainly seems to be the case - people can get so very offended if those illogical beliefs ever get poked at in any depth. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 05:55:20 PM · #1518 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I certainly can be externally influenced, I am able to overcome influences if I so choose. This, I believe because this is what I experience. IF I accept that then I accept there is something beyond materialism (because this makes no sense under that system). |
WHY does it not make sense that this can still be purely a matter of physical electrochemistry? Because the variables are so complex? If a rat can override a choice to eat food to spare a companion's pain and a capuchin can override a desire for treats to protest an unfair situation, then what's the big deal about your ability to make a conscious choice? |
Maybe we aren't communicating with each other. Take an oversimplified example of the following program (sorry, I only know BASIC):
10 Input A
20 If A="A" Print "Atheist"
30 If A="C" Print "Christian"
Ok, I actually don't even know BASIC anymore. :) But you get the point. From this program the computer has 2 options; to print "atheist" or "christian" (ignore the fact that nothing would occur if something other than A or C were inputted, you get my point). Because the system is dictated and controlled by the program the computer cannot print "Flying Spaghetti Monster". It has no choice in what it prints; it can only follow the program.
Now, increase the complexity slowly. We slowly add more options and more inputs. The computer now can respond with more things to print and we can input more letters which will get a response. Still, the computer is completely controlled by the program. It cannot print something not specified by the program.
Now, increase the complexity to the level of the human brain. Materialism will dictate that our actions are completely dictated by our "program". Yes, there are a myriad of inputs and a myriad of responses, but if you were to start with the exact same set of inputs you would always get the same response. So when you say a rat can "override" a choice you really mean a different bit of the program takes over and causes a different result than would normally occur if it had not taken over. That is just complexity. When I say "override" I mean that something outside the physical world dictates what is to be done regardless of the physical input. This makes absolutely no sense if you only accept a materialist worldview. However, it is also what we have all come to believe about ourselves. We believe we control our own destiny. The future is uncertain. Not because it's just too complex to calculate, but because we have the agency to change it by changing our actions. I would have to say I just couldn't believe that I am merely an illusion of control trapped in a fatalistic system. That, my friend, is quite depressing and is probably so antithetical to what seems to be true it is likely a large reason why many who think about it would reject materialism.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:06:01 PM · #1519 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
I didn't know I had homework. |
Man, you were poised for utter victory. I was going to concede the whole argument about Dawkins to you if you could provide a quote where he espouses a virtue of religion. You were on the one yard line and then you drop the ball! ;) |
"He admires Bach's "St. Matthew Passion," but told me, 'I really do feel what Bach might have done with some really decent inspiration, considering what he achieved with what he had.'"
The New Yorker
milo655321, FTW!!! |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:06:47 PM · #1520 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, some of the people written about in the bible may have been alive. Some of the places that existed and were written about may well have been as described. Some of the normal events described may have happened.
|
So what do you personally make about the whole Jesus character Gordon? |
I think there probably was a prophet called Jesus, much like there probably was a prophet called Muhammad. I think it is probable that a great deal of the stories are partially true or mythologised or elaborated and enlarged by the retelling, massaged by political expediency, misunderstood by translation, evolved by Kings to re-enforce their own glory, raised to godhood by Nicene decree and tuned to meet a variety of earthly concerns.
None of that has much to do with if he was the son of God, one of God's prophets or just a man with good intentions. |
Well, at least you didn't deny he existed. :) I can understand what you think, although I'll obviously disagree and feel there are arguments which can be made about lots of that. An example would be the resurrection claim. Among prophets of all religions I'm aware of only Jesus is claimed to have risen from the dead. This claim arose very very early in the history of the Jesus movement which makes it unlikely to have been merely fabricated out of thin air as an accolade to increase his credibility. (What I'm saying is that there is likely evidence that Christians even a decade after Jesus' death believed he was resurrected. Had his body not at the very least been missing it would have been easy for detractors to say "what are you talking about, here are his bones right here.")
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:11:04 PM · #1521 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I say "override" I mean that something outside the physical world dictates what is to be done regardless of the physical input. |
You're introducing magic where none is necessary. The only thing dictating your actions is that organ between your ears. You have a complex brain, therefore you can think. You think, therefore you are (even if you sometimes change your mind). |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:19:12 PM · #1522 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Among prophets of all religions I'm aware of only Jesus is claimed to have risen from the dead. |
Resurrection was a common theme of religion long before Christianity. Good ol' Wikipedia: "Centuries before the time of Jesus Christ the nations annually celebrated the death and resurrection of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra, and other gods. A cyclic dying-and-rising god motif was prevalent throughout ancient Mesopotamian and classical literature and practice (eg in Syrian and Greek worship of Adonis; Egyptian worship of Osiris; the Babylonian story of Tammuz; rural religious belief in the Corn King). |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:22:39 PM · #1523 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Among prophets of all religions I'm aware of only Jesus is claimed to have risen from the dead. This claim arose very very early in the history of the Jesus movement which makes it unlikely to have been merely fabricated out of thin air as an accolade to increase his credibility. |
Boy do YOU ever need to watch "The God Who Wasn't There", or at least read a little. Even wiki acknowledges the many life-death-rebirth deities. Jesus' resurrection is hardly unique, and is only the latest in a venerable lineage of resurrected gods. I suppose you could say that he is one of the few (but not the only) "prophets" to be resurrected, but that hardly matters, as it is merely a label affixed to this entity. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:23:37 PM · #1524 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Among prophets of all religions I'm aware of only Jesus is claimed to have risen from the dead. |
Resurrection was a common theme of religion long before Christianity. Good ol' Wikipedia: "Centuries before the time of Jesus Christ the nations annually celebrated the death and resurrection of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra, and other gods. A cyclic dying-and-rising god motif was prevalent throughout ancient Mesopotamian and classical literature and practice (eg in Syrian and Greek worship of Adonis; Egyptian worship of Osiris; the Babylonian story of Tammuz; rural religious belief in the Corn King). |
I'm pretty sure Osiris, Tammuz and the rest were not "prophets". You didn't read my sentence.
EDIT: Louis was typing while I did. I do think it's important to consider that Jesus was felt to be a human. This does make him unique (until you can show me otherwise) among most religions. I'd say it is also unique because there is evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure. I don't think Osiris or Baldr or Odin qualify there.
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 18:26:29.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 06:31:09 PM · #1525 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I say "override" I mean that something outside the physical world dictates what is to be done regardless of the physical input. |
You're introducing magic where none is necessary. The only thing dictating your actions is that organ between your ears. You have a complex brain, therefore you can think. You think, therefore you are (even if you sometimes change your mind). |
Frankly, to have true Free Agency "magic" (ie. something outside materialism) is necessary. You keep saying it isn't necessary, but you either claim an illusory free will or don't bother to explain how you the complex "program" of mice or monkeys or man could arive at two different results from the same inputs.
|
|
