Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)

[THAC0]

Well, i think that atheist aren't really trying to "convert" anyone its more like just pointing out facts.

Once they realize that facts don't convince too many people and that no amount of evidence or logic is going to change people's minds...then the bitterness sets in and it just becomes more productive to just call BS when someone mentions god.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Ugghhh religion thread..

Okay listen, stop grouping Atheists together like its some sort of gathering.

Atheists and theists are NOT two different groups; there is the group of people that believe in god and then everyone else that doesn't.

So here we go with my views on religion (this has been bottled up for too long):

Civilization has truly been achieved without the need for gods.
If there is a God however; that means that he plays no part in people of life as he has given everyone free will. The only way to way to believe someone like that exists is by following ancient scribbles of an outdated age.

Also, every religion has their own God, believing in the one God means that every other religion's God is wrong OR this one God saw fit to create religions that worship different Gods in different ways which can only lead to conflict.
The whole concept is silly and outdated.

Also, to those who say "well you can't prove that he doesn't exist can you!" Just how can you prove that something that doesn't exist; doesn't exist?

So by logic he can?t exist because if he does exist, it must be possible to prove it. On the other hand if he doesn?t exist, it?s impossible to prove. This dispute will go on for some time with no possible winner.

OR you could just believe because it makes you FEEL GOOD instead of always wanting to be right and always wanting to have facts about everything.

Anyway as for religions having different gods the jewish, christian and muslim god are ONE AND THE SAME (christian and jewish gods are in the exact same texts as well, muslim is jewish rewritten) and maybe the other gods are just metaphors for the different sides of 'god' if he/she/it exists.

So god is essentialy a placebo effect? Why even bother then if the extent of your belief is so limited I have to tell you, you have a usless god.

 

[cobra_ky]

*snip*

Nobody has provided any proof that Qualia exist without a physical correlation, though.
For example, the inverted spectrum thought experiment simply states that this inverted spectrum could occur without any physical correlation.
I don't agree that our subjective impressions of the world aren't the result of interpersonal physical differences.

Let's say I'm the only person left alive. Now the differences in our experiences don't matter. Qualia still exist, because I'm still here.

This isn't about differences between you and me. It's about:

1) We experience the universe in a special way, apart from machines. It's not just 1's and 0's, just data. We actually feel the universe with our senses.

this is a baseless assertion. you're not a computer, how can you know anything about how they perceive the universe?

2) Those experiences have a quality and character to them. In order to isolate (or at least denote) the quality and character, we refer to them as qualia.

3) There are arguments against qualia, but every moron who argues against the existence of qualia are still subject to the quality and character of their experiences. It's like arguing against your own existence. Sure, I can't prove you exist, and you can't logically prove it to yourself (cogito ergo sum is a bad argument at best) however denying your own existence is stupid.[/quote]

you're equivocating here. i'm not arguing that i don't experience things, i'm arguing that my experiences are purely of a physical nature. and much, much better philosophers than you or i have argued on both sides of this issue. i wouldn't be so arrogant as to call them "morons".

4) As far as we know qualia don't exist outside of our experience. More to the point they exist inside our heads, grounded in the physicality of our brains. Just as a program is really the arrangement of electrons in the hardware of a computer our experiences are the arrangement of everything in our head. However this doesn't account for qualia completely! A computer can hold a map of the universe in it's memory, it still doesn't see "red" as "red" they way we do, it's just data to the machine.

5) Qualia can't be captured mathematically. Try unambiguously describing red to someone blind since birth. Good luck. Explain an orgasm to an asexually reproducing creature. Without an analogous experience you might be there a while.

again, both of these assertions are unfounded. you're not a machine, you can't know what a machine experiences any more than you can know what a cat, a tree, or an amoeba experiences.

for that matter, try unambiguously describing red to someone who CAN see. at best you can say something akin to "it's the color of fire trucks and traffic lights." you can agree these things are the same color, but for all either of you know they've been living with an inverted spectrum since birth. you have no way of knowing if the color red they see bears any correlation to the color red as you see it.

6) The miracle of experience can't be defined in strictly physical terms. This being the case, what terms do we use?

for centuries we couldn't define lightning in strictly physical terms. now we can. even if qualia can't be explained to your satisfaction now, that may not always be necessarily true.

 

[Captain Blackout]

1) We experience the universe in a special way, apart from machines. It's not just 1's and 0's, just data. We actually feel the universe with our senses.

Yes, but senses acutally are 1s and 0s. Analogue data is transformed by receptor cells into a digital acitiviy potential. This system is also used to store memory in the hippocampus.
These potentials are actually measurable.

2) Those experiences have a quality and character to them. In order to isolate (or at least denote) the quality and character, we refer to them as qualia.

Again, yes. But our impressions are affected by stored memories (i.e. former experiences). An impression is individual to us because we have an individual stock of experiences. It would be difficult (or rather impossible at this point) but one could probably calculate how a person with specific memories and experiences would consider a new impression he or she got.

3) There are arguments against qualia, but every moron who argues against the existence of qualia are still subject to the quality and character of their experiences. It's like arguing against your own existence. Sure, I can't prove you exist, and you can't logically prove it to yourself (cogito ergo sum is a bad argument at best) however denying your own existence is stupid.

I'm not argueing against the existence of Qualia, I'm saying that Qualia do have physical correlates. And I'm not saying experiences don't count, I'm saying that experiences would be part of the calculation if we could somehow take every experience a person has ever had into account. Which is practically impossible, at least for now.

4) As far as we know qualia don't exist outside of our experience. More to the point they exist inside our heads, grounded in the physicality of our brains. Just as a program is really the arrangement of electrons in the hardware of a computer our experiences are the arrangement of everything in our head. However this doesn't account for qualia completely! A computer can hold a map of the universe in it's memory, it still doesn't see "red" as "red" they way we do, it's just data to the machine.

Hmm, the first part sounds like it's actually in support of my point of view. The second part... well, I guess it comes down to what one defines as consciousness (and its origin). If you consider consciousness as something metaphysical, I can see where this position is coming from. If you see consciousness as the logical result of evolution and as a representation of electrical brain activity, we don't get that problem however.

5) Qualia can't be captured mathematically. Try unambiguously describing red to someone blind since birth. Good luck. Explain an orgasm to an asexually reproducing creature. Without an analogous experience you might be there a while.

Yes, but that is not because it's magic, it's because our mind works this way. We constantly compare experiences and impressions to older memories we have. We see geometrical shapes, lines, circles in everything because our brain looks for patterns it recognizes. If there is no such pattern to compare a new impression to, this impression cannot truly be realized by the conscious mind.
I remember this story about a Native American tribe that lived along a beach where the ships of the explorers were drawing nearer. They had never seen anything like those ships, they did not even really perceive them.

6) The miracle of experience can't be defined in strictly physical terms. This being the case, what terms do we use?

This, again, is a difference of perception. Philosophically, I'd agree with you.
But what it boils down to is that experiences and memories are a sequence of electrical discharges. If we ever had the ability to measure them all and take them all into account, we could actually predict a person's reaction to a new impression. Different perceptions of qualia would become calculable.

Holy crap monkeys this is gonna get tangled quick.

1) I didn't say sensory information wasn't 1's and 0's. I said they weren't just 1's and 0's. Furthermore the comment wasn't about discrete vs. analog sensory information. We see red, my computer simply has a number in it corresponding to a light wavelength.

2) I'll get back to this.

3) The point in establishing the existence of qualia was to avoid the obvious counter-argument.

4) While I easily admit we are physical beings I'm making the case that we aren't just physical beings. To refer to point 3), you say that qualia have physical correlates. Of course they do! They are our experience of the physical universe. I'm saying that showing a physical correlation does not fully account for qualia. If you want to show that qualia are physical in and of themselves you need to be able to isolate them from being having them, even if only in a mathematical description. This is prior to establishing the metaphysical nature of humans. There is a metaphysical nature to everything: It's the branch of philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature of reality even if the metaphysical nature is only physical.

5) The natives not seeing the ships sounds specious to me. I'd like to see hard evidence. Even so, it has little bearing on what I'm after unless we can establish why the natives didn't see the ships. Furthermore, if you were right, how would we have completely new experiences? Not just events but the actual apprehension of those events into experiences. This aside you've landed at the Mary's Room argument which has been used both for and against physicalism. Between this point and 2) you've made an incredibly bold statement: That qualia do exist, that they can be captured in some language, and that we can even predict them. No one has ever shown this to be the case. Furthermore, arguments exist against this. Here's one of my favorites: We see a limited spectrum. The six basic colors (the primary and secondary colors) loop back, as if no more could exist outside of the known spectrum. I have to wonder if this is the case. If we were able to see the entire spectrum would we only have six basic colors? I suspect it's like music: We have 7 basic notes which simply repeat in character up and down the scales. However this is only a suspicion. Until we evolve new electromagnetic sensing apparatus we may never know. I suppose someone could wire our brains technologically to see new colors. I also think after reading "The Colour from Outer Space" such an experience might be devastating to a human. Also we have a new question: Do colors look the same to other species? I know dogs see in black and white but not all creatures do. Do we have any way of apprehending the colors a gorilla sees? A lizard? A spider? An extraterrestrial? Like I said, you've made a bold statement that no one has ever been able to prove or even show remotely compelling evidence for. There's no magic needed to show that qualia can not be expressed linguistically, symbolically, or mathematically. Just try doing it. The only way we can communicate qualia is in reference to other qualia.

6) You completely avoided my question: If we can not express qualia in mathematical (and therefore physical terms) what terms do we use? Without those terms physicalism has a big gaping hole and atheism is only faith based or in need of new support. I'm not even arguing against atheism, only showing that it's no more valid than theism in the end.

7) Ok, so you believe we can predict qualia? Very well here's your task: Make one up and describe it to me completely and unambiguously without referencing other qualia. Good luck.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Okay I hate to do this but. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! ENOUGH RELIGION ON THIS SITE(again dreadfully sorry about the caps), every couple of months we get a massive surge of religion threads between the ones about abortion and the ones about cannabis. They all get about four hundred million replies from people who all say roughly the same thing, ether the left wing or right wing response. No one bothers to read the posts before to see how many scores of times their exact sentence has already said.

Apart from the four people who have a massive argument constantly quoting and retorting each other, which no one ever wins eventually a couple of them on one side just decides to stop trying to prove someone they've never met wrong. and goes outside and plays in the sun like a happy person.

I suppose the fascinating discussion of qualia this thread engendered doesn't count for anything. Quit attempting censorship in a thread YOU NEVER NEEDED TO CLICK ON IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

[loremazd]

The only thing I find annoying is the very faulty argument that belief is the result in some sort of lack of intellect or reason. There have been several examples of people touting this viewpoint even in this post, sometimes after claiming they're "not those kinds of people who shove their viewpoint down everyones throat. Seen alot of this:

"I dont insult other people's beliefs, if those morons want to believe in the tooth fairy more power to them."

Stop lying to yourself. You have an agenda, even if it is subconcious. It is a desire to have the last word, to convince yourself you've not gone soft and given the other guys a win by making you bite your tongue in respect.

The basic idea is that many atheists have almost delved into some sort of fantasy regarding their lack of belief. That they are "Enlightened ones", and all others are simply too dumb to realize the one truth. It's actually a sort of Dogma I see prevailent in many of the Dawkins lectures and excerpts from his book. That you shouldn't respect people, that you should belittle and combat them because they are lower than you. The simple truth, people see the world from a different perspective from you, and for some, they feel they have to fight against different perspectives tooth and nail.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Atheists are the new "internet cool".

That's actually an interesting point lol. But what it actually is is that many people are now opening their eyes to the ridiculousness of religion and the internet is the only place where they can safely express their atheist views because atheism is so frowned upon out in the real world

I hear so many people saying that, but I never see Atheism frowned upon on TV or anywhere. I always see people who are religious frowned upon and treated like morons.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

Skeleon is doing far better than you at this so I'll keep this short(er)
It doesn't take much to realize my computer doesn't perceive the universe as I do. A simple understanding of medicine and computer science makes this obvious as hell. Furthermore one of the biggest impediments to a true AI is that the machines we have built so far are only data managers. They have NO apprehension of the world behind the data. If you wish to state otherwise you have an impossible mountain to climb. My claim isn't baseless, did you get your computer science from a cracker-jack box? I've read the arguments against qualia. Every one I've read has holes in it. Given that I can apprehend my qualia I'd say yes, you are a moron for saying qualia don't exist without a better argument than has been previously presented. You can describe red to someone who has enough senses by using references to other senses. We have a natural reaction to warm and cold that correspond to colors. Your example of lightening is weak. I can describe lightening in terms of other physical phenomena. You can't do that with qualia. Finally, if someone else is making your case for you better than you are, being a tool and jumping (possibly weakening their position) is just as arrogant as anything I've done here.

Don't want responses like this? Don't call me arrogant. I'm arrogant as hell but it's not your job to make that judgement given you have no clue how extensive my background is on all the points I've made here.

Or in short, don't be a tool.

 

[cobra_ky]

i got so distracted by all the philosophy of mind talk that i forgot to mention:

i've been arguing that "atheists" and "agnostics" like me should be respectively called "antitheists" and "atheists" for years. glad to see it caught on all of a sudden.

 

[loremazd]

The basic idea is that many atheists have almost delved into some sort of fantasy regarding their lack of belief. That they are "Enlightened ones", and all others are simply too dumb to realize the one truth. It's actually a sort of Dogma I see prevailent in many of the Dawkins lectures and excerpts from his book. That you shouldn't respect people, that you should belittle and combat them because they are lower than you. The simple truth, people see the world from a different perspective from you, and for some, they feel they have to fight against different perspectives tooth and nail.

Dawkinsian philosophy actually gives reasons for why they try to convince people out of religious beliefs and into reasoning. It's not that they are stupid, more that they are irrational and/or illogical, and Dawkinsian people say that this is a bad and dangerous thing for everyone else. Sort of a response to "Why not leave them to believe what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone?", they are saying "But actually, it does hurt people."

Homogenous beliefs are one step below homogenous ideas. It's not something one group has the power to control as they have no perspective on the future tense. They have come to the conclusion that their way is the best way without any sort of real knowledge on what a homogenous belief system would entail. So they choose through their "enlightened senses" that because other perspectives and ideals are a detriment to society, they should be fought against and destroyed. That isn't to say that ideas cannot be challenged, but to go out and say, "I'm right, you are wrong, thus you dont deserve basic human respect, also, you're an idiot." Is just plain... wrong.

That is fundamentalism.It's a fundamentalist intellect, convincing himself that he is smarter and so society should be like him. If the end goal of that philosophy is the idea to try and control and combat belief... well, I think that is detrimental to society.

 

[Captain Blackout]

The basic idea is that many atheists have almost delved into some sort of fantasy regarding their lack of belief. That they are "Enlightened ones", and all others are simply too dumb to realize the one truth. It's actually a sort of Dogma I see prevailent in many of the Dawkins lectures and excerpts from his book. That you shouldn't respect people, that you should belittle and combat them because they are lower than you. The simple truth, people see the world from a different perspective from you, and for some, they feel they have to fight against different perspectives tooth and nail.

Dawkinsian philosophy actually gives reasons for why they try to convince people out of religious beliefs and into reasoning. It's not that they are stupid, more that they are irrational and/or illogical, and Dawkinsian people say that this is a bad and dangerous thing for everyone else. Sort of a response to "Why not leave them to believe what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone?", they are saying "But actually, it does hurt people."

In response, I'd say atheism hurts people. Ask any Taoist monk in pre-communist China.

EDIT: Very well. Regarding qualia I'll give you the same task I gave Skeleon: Make a new qualia and describe in completely and unambiguously without referring to other qualia. If we can create artificial qualia, we can certainly create fictional ones.

 

[Cavouku]

I'm Deist/Christian. I've done long hard thinking on my reasons, and I'm satisfied with it. I don't delude pure bold facts in front of me to retain my belief, my belief coincides with all known facts quite well. I don't argue with Atheists about their beliefs, unless they're being prejudiced. Then I'm there to go against it, as much as I dislike conflicts.

I'm not prejudiced against Atheists. I'm prejudiced against smug people, who think they know how I think. I saw a few people here point out some of the religious people's "arguments", and the ones I saw were... stupid. They were stupid "arguments", they shouldn't even be counted for debate, they're so wishy-washy.

Atheists are fine by me, as long as they aren't smugly assured about it. Hell, being assured about it makes me feel like they're being a bit smug as it is.

The never-say-never rule applies to most of the Atheists I know, but that's not to say all Atheists are like that at all. More power to you, as long as you've thought long and hard about it, and come to terms with it. The same thing I did.

 

[Cavouku]

The basic idea is that many atheists have almost delved into some sort of fantasy regarding their lack of belief. That they are "Enlightened ones", and all others are simply too dumb to realize the one truth. It's actually a sort of Dogma I see prevailent in many of the Dawkins lectures and excerpts from his book. That you shouldn't respect people, that you should belittle and combat them because they are lower than you. The simple truth, people see the world from a different perspective from you, and for some, they feel they have to fight against different perspectives tooth and nail.

Dawkinsian philosophy actually gives reasons for why they try to convince people out of religious beliefs and into reasoning. It's not that they are stupid, more that they are irrational and/or illogical, and Dawkinsian people say that this is a bad and dangerous thing for everyone else. Sort of a response to "Why not leave them to believe what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone?", they are saying "But actually, it does hurt people."

In response, I'd say atheism hurts people. Ask any Taoist monk in pre-communist China.

Oh God, anyone with a different opinion hurts anyone else who does, or doesn't, actually. They just have to be different. Religion is just a backdrop of prejudice to different people.

We all want to be right. Or at least, we all want to understand everything, and are willing to kill people who say they think something differently when you've thought you found the answer.

 

[Casual Shinji]

In response, I'd say atheism hurts people. Ask any Taoist monk in pre-communist China.

Yeah, Mao Zedong was all sense and reason and it got millions of people killed.

 

[loremazd]

Okay first of all as I said in the title, sorry for making a religion thread but I really need to get it off my chest.

You know them, or maybe even are one of them. Atheists. I am not one for one but I don't particularly despise them or any other religions for that matter.

Anyway a particular group of them always whine about how christian people always try to convert everyone and let's take my brother for example. He always says that as well and WHENEVER someone brings up religion he has a speech how all religion is bullshit and that atheism is the only way to go.

This is a trend I recognise on more people and is the irony lost on them?

They complain about how theists try to convert people into believing into the gods, wheras they use that argument to convince someone to be an atheist!

Is it just me or do more people notice this and could someone clear this up for me?


EDIT: If you know what I'm talking about, antitheists as you call them, why do you still desregard EVERYTHING I say?

Well, it could be worse, you could have the Atheists, feeling like they're the one true way, circling the globe and murdering, killing and otherwise stamping out any other religion they don't see as theirs, while destroying all history and knowledge of said religion. You know, sort of like what Christian and Catholic missionaries did to the world.

And guess what, they were -wrong-! And because of it, we're not wishing for it to be repeated!

 

[Cavouku]

Okay first of all as I said in the title, sorry for making a religion thread but I really need to get it off my chest.

You know them, or maybe even are one of them. Atheists. I am not one for one but I don't particularly despise them or any other religions for that matter.

Anyway a particular group of them always whine about how christian people always try to convert everyone and let's take my brother for example. He always says that as well and WHENEVER someone brings up religion he has a speech how all religion is bullshit and that atheism is the only way to go.

This is a trend I recognise on more people and is the irony lost on them?

They complain about how theists try to convert people into believing into the gods, wheras they use that argument to convince someone to be an atheist!

Is it just me or do more people notice this and could someone clear this up for me?


EDIT: If you know what I'm talking about, antitheists as you call them, why do you still desregard EVERYTHING I say?

Well, it could be worse, you could have the Atheists, feeling like they're the one true way, circling the globe and murdering, killing and otherwise stamping out any other religion they don't see as theirs, while destroying all history and knowledge of said religion. You know, sort of like what Christian and Catholic missionaries did to the world.

That'll happen when Cartman freezes himself, and goes... I forget how many years in the future. Hell, the Atheists are killing each other because they have different ideas for names.

Ah well, the missionaries were a bit crazy. That doesn't make the religion crazy, I don't think. Like hating white people for what they did to black people. It's done, it'd be in bad taste to hold different generations accountable.