Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)

[headshotcatcher]

That's not what I asserted at all, I merely asserted, the same feeling of embarassment, shyness, guilt, fear, etc... hits both genders when they've been violated. It's a constant struggle for them to overcome. Some never come forward at all.

However, the Archdiocese tactic of covering up pedophilic priests, and shuttling them to other quiet towns without even a warning to their constituency, makes any article written by them, on the subject, invalid as they've proven they cannot handle this issue in an unbiased manner.

Wasn't it an anti christianity site? It seemed to be?

 

[Skeleon]

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.

But why not? 1s and 0s include all the information we ever need, the question is how to read that information. And that's where the differences in people's brains come into it again. At least that's what I think.

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.

But that's where I disagree. Even the qualia itself, the "subjective impression" if you will, is physical because our brain and indeed the consciousness it produces are also physical in nature. Electric activity, chemical transmitters, receptors, computing and forming a mind as well as its subjective impressions of something.

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.

True, but we can make objective statements about how a thing is in the world thanks to our technology. So we can establish what a thing is, at least when our machine is reliable. The qualia itself is not quantifiable because we lack all the information necessary to take the objective thing and apply differences in bodily functions (such as differnt retinas, nerves and visual cortex) as well as differences in experiences and memories (which further change the impression of the objective thing on an emotional level). If, however, all these influences were known and applied to the objective thing that causes the impression, we could basically come to the same conclusions this subjective mind is coming to.

This is prior to establishing the metaphysical nature of humans.

Not a thing I can say anything about because I don't know much of or really believe in the metaphysical.

Furthermore, if you were right, how would we have completely new experiences? Not just events but the actual apprehension of those events into experiences.

Oh, much of it (especially when it comes to visual input, which is what we're mostly going on about here) is preprogrammed. Of course, society advances us further and we can learn to see more and more difficult or different things. However, the basics are already there.
A child can recognize faces and simple geometrical shapes pretty much right from the start. It's even more obvious in animals (because, to be honest, human babies are pretty slow in their development, at least at first). I daresay that these preprogrammed basics are the templates for the things we learn, they are what we compare everything we encounter to during the first months of our lives.

That qualia do exist, that they can be captured in some language, and that we can even predict them.

Yes, maybe it's bold, but I'm pretty sure it's possible if we had the necessary data. Do you know of biofeedback? fMRIs? Neuroscience is getting to the point where we can recognize not only emotional states but even certain (albeit strong) memory-reactions from the pattern of O2-distribution in the brain. I even partook in one of those experiments, it was fascinating.

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.

Well, I guess it comes down to whether you trust in our technology or not. I think it's pretty clear that light outside our visible spectrum exists not only because of ultraviolet/infrared but because of alpha/beta/gamma rays and the obvious effects they are having. We cannot perceive them but we can tell from the results that they obviously exist and we can classify them as electromagnetical rays by looking at their various behaviour.
And that's similar to what I'm trying to say here: Yes, I will never be able to really see what another person may see, but it may be possible to come to conclusions about it based on the data we gather.

I also think after reading "The Colour from Outer Space" such an experience might be devastating to a human.

Don't know of this book. Can you give me the basic jist?

Also we have a new question: Do colors look the same to other species?

Well, bees can see ultraviolet. We know that based on their behaviour concerning ultraviolet colours in blooms. As for the ones in our visible spectrum? I don't know, I don't have enough information on them.
Considering many humans seem to have a very different subjective perception of objective things, I guess it's fair to assume other species will be different from us as well (and different intraspecies, too). However, since some animals are closer to us than others (you mentioned dogs and gorilla versus spiders), I'd say we can (for now) predict a larger similarity to those closer to us.
I don't have any information on this, but depending on how a spider's eyes work (similarity in the receptors' structure, pigment, innervation and so on), we could possibly make a prediction about those as well.
However, we know even less about those animals' minds than we currently know about the human mind. Some people even doubt lesser animals like bees have such a thing as a consciousness and assume all its behaviour is driven strictly by instinct and genetically preprogrammed behavioural patterns. I'm not sure on this myself, but I believe it's fair to assume there's no "break" between conscious and non-conscious animals but rather a steady decline of instinct and increase of consciousness the more complex an animal is.
What I'm getting at here is that while we may currently have enough data on their eyes and other bodily aspects (nerve system and so on), we don't know in how far consciousness, experiences and memories come into it.

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.

I don't doubt that I can never experience the same qualia the same way you would, but I say we can quantify it, objectify it through the use of technology to create a working model to (albeit incompletely) fill the gap. As I said in a post before, there are many things we can't perceive at all but can draw conclusions on based on effects, results and behaviour.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in everyday life or science?
For everyday life, yes, we rely on other qualias.
But in science we can measure the results of the impressions a person gets when seeing an objective thing. We can. A person might, for example, start to sweat. His pupils might dilate. The hippocampus might flare up in the fMRI, indicating a memory surfacing.
All of these admittedly aren't allowing us to experience a qualia firsthand as the person in question does.
But this data can give us hints as to how, subjectively, this person is experiencing said objective thing (a picture of a loved one, for example, or a horrible accident or people laughing or whatever).

7) Ok, so you believe we can predict qualia?

No, I said I believe we could predict it if we had all the data.
Today's technology only allows us glimpses into the inner workings of a person's mind.
But if we ever had the ability to gather all the necessary data, not just hints at said experiences/memories/feelings, then we could predict them.

Very well here's your task: Make one up and describe it to me completely and unambiguously without referencing other qualia. Good luck.

I know it's impossible for now so obviously I'm not going to try.
But if you have a spare fMRI, I could show you some of those hints and glimpses I mentioned to get my point across a little better.

 

[Joshimodo]

Stop grouping Atheists and anti-theists together.

Agnostics too.

 

[headshotcatcher]

I don't consider that site anti-christian, that site is just against the Christian God...which would mean they believe in God, which, would make them Christian or Catholic albeit, bad ones, however, the survey was done by the "US Conference of Catholic Bishops". Most certainly a religious institution.

Okay well I don't think I have much more to say on the matter, as I can't find any percentages of paedophiles in america. That said the people who are paedophiles, preachers or not are disgusting and should be shot, that said, I never found anything in the bible that said paedophilia was RIGHT so the preachers who do it are most likely just VERY weird

Headshotcatcher signing off

 

[bodyklok]

Stop grouping Atheists and anti-theists together.

Agnostics too.

That happens a lot too, and it's perhaps even worse because they're totally differen't groups. Though you could get Agnostic Anti-Theists, but that's a little weird.

 

[cobra_ky]

And now I'll freely admit your idiocy. We have machines that can taste. I'd say that's a HUGE leap in artificial sensory apparatus.

perhaps i should have been more clear when i used the term "sensory apparatus." of course we can stick a camera, a microphone, pressure sensors and one of these artificial tasters on a robot, and it will have the same range of sensory input as a human. what it won't have is the cognitive architecture necessary to interpret all that input and develop it into a coherent model of the surrounding world the way a human can.

The association between red and warm was in response to your statement that we couldn't talk about red even to the seeing in terms outside of red. The association is documented. Find me someone with a true inverted spectrum and we'll talk. Until then it's a poor and speculative example.

the entire point is that it's impossible to know if someone was born with an inverted spectrum. all the associations we have would be identical, but we have no way of proving that the color you call "red" and the color i call "red" are actually the same.

I know I have experiences and that those experiences have quality and character to them that I can apprehend. What's wrong with your apprehension that you don't see this? You don't have to know a thing about electric charge to understand that lightening and fire are forms of energy different from "solid" matter. We can describe damn near everything in the universe mathematically, and for those things we can't we can see how it might happen with few exceptions. Qualia we can't even describe without referring to other qualia. That's an awfully long way from being able to describe qualia mathematically.

there are plenty of phenomena that science, and therefore mathematics, cannot yet explain. i reiterate, there is absolutely no reason to believe that because we cannot explain them currently, we will never be able to do so.

Any other really stupid statements I can slap down for you?

insulting me until i agree with you is not a winning debate strategy.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Lumping atheists together like some kind of church is insulting to atheists.

Like if say, we started lumping every Christian in the world under "hooting Jesus-freak", every Muslim as "bearded crazed terrorist" and every New Ager as "post-60's stoner". It would be incredibly offensive, and just plain wrong.

But oh-so hilarious.

 

[Nickolas Azieha]

gotta say Im un-apologetic about trying to show people the idea behind atheism. because in the states our biggest problem is the religeous right, and the psychotic muslims (not nearly as big a problem as the RR). i cant think of a single rascist, suicide boming, people murdering, idea repressing, country destroying athesits who was doing all of the above in the name of the atheism.

 

[Caliostro]

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.

I, for one, being an atheist, dislike "evangelical" atheists as much as the next guy...

...THAT SAID... If you bring up a conversation with an atheist regarding religion, you really are just asking for it. For the sake of an example, if you, your brother, and a couple other friends are debating something (the weather in china, chips, Obama's underwear, fatalism...whatever) and someone mentions religion, an "anti-religious" follow up from your brother is as uncalled for as the mention of religion in the first place.


And this is something that pisses me off as well. And people mention religion openly, and either in a conversation directly with me or open to anyone (like in a public forum for instances) then are "surprised" when I reply with an anti-religious remark. It's called asking for it. It's like if you walked outside with the most ghastly and unbearable tshirt in the world, and that would be fine, but then walked into the middle of the street and shouted at everyone "what'ya think?!?!" and then showed apprehension because someone replied with "you look like ass".


In other words, if an atheist walks around handing you fliers, or walks up to you on the street for no reason but to try and convert you out of religions, then you can *****. If you ask people for their opinion and someone happens to disagree with you, then I'm sorry but my sympathy for you is lost.

 

[Doug]

Stop grouping Atheists and anti-theists together.

Amen (no pun intended).

Science damn it!

 

[Spacewolf]

gotta say Im un-apologetic about trying to show people the idea behind atheism. because in the states our biggest problem is the religeous right, and the psychotic muslims (not nearly as big a problem as the RR). i cant think of a single rascist, suicide boming, people murdering, idea repressing, country destroying athesits who was doing all of the above in the name of the atheism.

well Stalinist Russia did most of that except the sucide bombing to quite a few places.

 

[TehCookie]

If someone tells you a ghost story you and your a skeptic or non-believer you try to point out how many things could have cause the "paranormal" event. A believer could show you a photo of a ghost and in reality its just a reflection and I will point it out. I'm not even atheist I'm agnostic but I still like to point out everything unrealistic if someone makes a religious rant. Besides God himself is a hypocrite, "thou shall not kill" unless they're sinful then let's flood the world and kill them all. It's also ok if they're of a different religion or gay. Even if he is real I'm not going to follow something like that.

 

[AvsJoe]

Atheism and Agnosticism are two different things. Most Atheists are actually Agnostics. If they're too lazy to research their own beliefs, then they shouldn't be allowed to influence other people to join their side.

 

[WayOutThere]

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.

I'm an athiest and that is terrible.

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

what?

 

[WayOutThere]

Atheism and Agnosticism are two different things. Most Atheists are actually Agnostics. If they're too lazy to research their own beliefs, then they shouldn't be allowed to influence other people to join their side.

I don't think that's true. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Agnostics don't believe in God. It seems agnostics are just atheists who aren't willing to commit to the social implications of calling themselves that.

 

[Flamezdudes]

[quote="AvsJoe" post="18.134752.3039557"
I don't think that's true. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Agnostics don't believe in God. It seems agnostics are just atheists who aren't willing to commit to the social implications of calling themselves that.

I thought Agnostics were just not sure about there beliefs and never beleived nor didn't beleive in it. Thiests are people who beleive in a God and Athiests just don't beleive in God, not lack of belief.

 

[sumanoskae]

It's all bullshit. Neither party knows shit about what they're talking about. Any belief in god or lack of one is just best guess