Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)

[Antlers]

atheist and anti-theists are so different, it's not even funny.

Atheists simply do not believe in a divine or demonic presence.
Anti-theists believe that, but also actively campaign against religion.
People who follow FTS do not care about religion (or anything controversial and annoying) Join today!

Also every atheist is different, every Christian/Catholic is different, seriously stop generalizing or else I will beat the person closest to me with a stick. Maybe a cane. Kids these days... no respect.

When you say campaign against religion... Well the Atheist Society of Ireland campaign to make Ireland a secular state. Is that really a bad thing?

Secular does not necessarily mean against religion. Well, I'm not Irish anyway.

Separation of church and state sort of doesn't mean anything anymore.

Yeah but... What DO you mean campaigning against religion? Separation of church and state sure as hell means something here.

 

[Alex_P]

Data to a computer is all 1's and 0's. We are capable of apprehending more than that. Computers are limited to a binary logic, humans can work with uncertainty and use a more complicated data set. Instead of simply on/off, we can handle on/off/both/neither. Given this, while the input may be in the form of 1's and 0's (which I suspect is not the case with all senses) the qualia formed from the input need not be.

Computers use binary representations of data. This no more implies being limited to binary logic than using base-ten representations for numbers implies the use of a special ten-valued logic.

-- Alex

 

[Antlers]

Separation of church and state sure as hell means something here.

Agreed, separation of Church and State is most important. The Church does not speak for the entirety of the populace as the populace is diverse and made up of a great many 'Churches'.

Well yes, and also no churches at all.

I think Ireland would really shock a lot of you...

 

[CAPPINJACK]

If you're sorry about making the thread, then why did you bother to fucking make it in the first place? Moron.

 

[WayOutThere]

No one that I saw, I just felt a need to point that out. Why dissect that part if it doesn't affect anything?

what?

And your link is a bit shallow, seeing as how he's going by a Christianity based view.

so what?

Regardless, you seemingly didn't read it, as this is clearly in it.Here is the OED's definition of 'agnostic':

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Being Atheist is not believing in a higher power.

Being Agnostic is admitting you have no clue on the matter.

I did say "agnostics don't believe in God". I also said, "that comment was perhaps unfair". When people call themselves "agnostics" they *usually* are actually athiests. They *usually* are agnostic atheists.

 

[ArcWinter]

When you say campaign against religion... Well the Atheist Society of Ireland campaign to make Ireland a secular state. Is that really a bad thing?

Secular does not necessarily mean against religion. Well, I'm not Irish anyway.

Separation of church and state sort of doesn't mean anything anymore.

Yeah but... What DO you mean campaigning against religion? Separation of church and state sure as hell means something here.

I meant being against religion. And I wouldn't know, I was talking about America.

 

[ShakyFiend]

Do not be sorry for making a religion thread. Just do not do it in the first place. Especially as the hypocrisy of atheists has been brought up a few times in the last couple weeks alone. Not to mention this has practically zero discussion value.

Over 60 comments on a 'no discussion value topic' wow that was one massive oversight. Anyways I find fervant atheists and fervant theists annoying, which probably means im flawed as an individual and am afraid of commitment. (shrugs)

 

[Antlers]

When you say campaign against religion... Well the Atheist Society of Ireland campaign to make Ireland a secular state. Is that really a bad thing?

Secular does not necessarily mean against religion. Well, I'm not Irish anyway.

Separation of church and state sort of doesn't mean anything anymore.

Yeah but... What DO you mean campaigning against religion? Separation of church and state sure as hell means something here.

I meant being against religion. And I wouldn't know, I was talking about America.

Give me an example of what they do that it 'against religion'. I only gave Ireland as an example of what they do to campaign against religion. And didn't understand why you thought the only thing I can think of is a bad thing. I completely don't get why your not living in Ireland is in any way relevant.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I used to be an atheist but I'm agnostic now. Even I find myself trying to convince people that agnosticism is the only way to go.
It's hard to resist I guess, we all want to be right.

Agnosticism is about knowing.
Athiesm is about believing.


Do you KNOW if there's a god? Absolutely not, no one knows. Every sane person is an agnostic.
Now the question about belief...do you BELIEVE there is a god? That determines if you are a theist or atheist.


Yes, I am an anti-theist. I'm glad god doesn't exist.

 

[ArcWinter]

Yeah but... What DO you mean campaigning against religion? Separation of church and state sure as hell means something here.

I meant being against religion. And I wouldn't know, I was talking about America.

Give me an example of what they do that it 'against religion'. I only gave Ireland as an example of what they do to campaign against religion. And didn't understand why you thought the only thing I can think of is a bad thing. I completely don't get why your not living in Ireland is in any way relevant.

1. I didn't say they do anything. I said that they do not like organized religion, not that it prompts them to action.
2. Think what is a bad thing? Your example? No, it was a good example, it's just that I don't really care, because democratic/republic countries are supposed to be secular, and religious hierarchies are supposed to be theocratic.
3. Also since I do not live in Ireland, that means I have no idea what you are talking about. But I got it now.

 

[Skeleon]

I suspect what you're getting at with this is the following: We can see the physical underpinnings of qualia by closely examining brain function.

Exactly!

The two are not the same. However it would interesting to note that the process you describe works both ways. If I see red, you can see the "red" neurons light up in my head. If I imagine "red" you'd see the same thing. Essentially qualia and brain function affect each other.

Yes, they aren't the same, but they correlate and we can draw conclusions from one to the other (that's what I meant with things we can't perceive but see the results of them anyway).
And this technique is rather recent, it's only been in general use for about two decades!
By the way, memory activation was a part of the experiment I mentioned, too.

If we look beyond just our own experience as humans the problem becomes significantly more challenging.

Yes, I agree with you there. That's what I meant with all this talk about differences in receptors and various levels of consciousness we attribute to different animals...
I guess we can assume that it'd be easier with animals that more closely resemble us, if we're trying to see the whole picture.

Your contention is that we will eventually be able to, based on a belief that all processes can (eventually) be quantified.

*Nods*
Looking back at just the last 50 years of technological development, I believe that there's a lot in store for us.

I believe (eventually) someone will discover a proof as to why qualia can't be quantified and furthermore that proof will not rely on the supernatural or proof of a mind/body dualism. We will simply understand qualia well enough to say "of course they can't be quantified, that's how qualia work."

Hm, while I doubt it, I guess it's possible.
Obviously we can't know yet; but do you have any theory as to why it could be their nature to never be quantifiable?

(layman's term for things outside of physics)

Looks like it, yeah.

Data to a computer is all 1's and 0's. We are capable of apprehending more than that. Computers are limited to a binary logic, humans can work with uncertainty and use a more complicated data set. Instead of simply on/off, we can handle on/off/both/neither. Given this, while the input may be in the form of 1's and 0's (which I suspect is not the case with all senses) the qualia formed from the input need not be.

Well, you could probably tell this was coming a mile away, but...
While our mind is a lot more complex, the very basic principles are the same. So, to me, it's quite conceivable to have real (i.e. conscious) AI one day.

The actual neuronal networking really works in a sequential form of binary. There is off ("resting potential"). And there is on ("action potential"). And information really is coded in sequences of on/off. There is no middleground between on and off in our neural circuitry. It's called the all-or-none law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_none_law] which states that, if a cell's potential is changed enough, it'll send out an action potential. If, however, the threshold is not reached, none of the signal information (for example, a change of potential through receptor activation) is transmitted to the brain. This "weak", analogue information is lost, whereas "strong" information is transformed into digital information, a series of signals (with the action potentials' frequency based on the strength and duration of the potential-change).
Our receptor cells work based on analogue information whereas our nerve cells transmit information digitally.

If we accept this first, maybe we can also accept that lifeforms are really biomechanical machines that have, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, developed from simple automatons to conscious beings, able to contemplate their own existence.
It's all quite fascinating to me.
What computers today lack, is the ability to change and adapt themselves over time. If we get past that, the rest'll fall into place automatically.

How do we explore the nature of qualia without relying on neuroscience, so as to know that we are dealing with qualia and not the physical precursor processes?

Hm, I have to admit that the differentiation is still difficult for me.

If we abandon neuroscience for a moment, it really does come down to philosophy I guess.
Not my strongest side.

We can try to go along using thought experiments, but truly experiencing a qualia seems impossible to me, unless we are willing to do damage to ourselves.
How do I mean that?
Well, we know that sometimes amputees still "feel" their lost limbs (a phantom limb), specifically if they weren't properly anesthetized during the procedure. These limbs experience pains or throbbing or itching or any kind of strange and impossible sensation (because the representation of the limb in the brain has not been properly deleted).

I guess one willing to go through a similar damaging procedure themselves could experience the change in perspective and experience what is the core of these thought experiments firsthand. This could also be applied to other areas, such as willfully damaging your own retinas to change your visual perception.

Of course, neither of these are fit for scientific experimentation, so the next best thing'd probably be to question people who suffered such fates through accident about changes in perspective. I wonder if such a study exists?
And, considering the adaptability of the brain, I wonder if such a study would even yield any conclusive results?
You'd need people who can clearly remember and differentiate between the two states before and after the accident. And memory isn't the most reliable source of information...
Furthermore, while these people may experience a change of perception, we get back to the crux of the matter: We can question them. But can they answer properly?
With technology, we'd get objective data, patterns of brain activation or whatever.
But with a questionnaire we'd - sigh, again - rely on language.

Maybe I'm just thinking too scientifically but I can't really think of any other way to approach this problem.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I'm athiest, and I tend not to whine. I'll only wheel out the arguments if the religious person or agnostic begins first, which pretty much never happens outside the internet.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Data to a computer is all 1's and 0's. We are capable of apprehending more than that. Computers are limited to a binary logic, humans can work with uncertainty and use a more complicated data set. Instead of simply on/off, we can handle on/off/both/neither. Given this, while the input may be in the form of 1's and 0's (which I suspect is not the case with all senses) the qualia formed from the input need not be.

Computers use binary representations of data. This no more implies being limited to binary logic than using base-ten representations for numbers implies the use of a special ten-valued logic.

-- Alex

At the bottom level all data is handled as a one or a zero. All logic gates are boolean i.e. binary. No computer I know of uses trinary or more complicated systems (the on/off/neither/both) short of a higher level (and often complicated) program. Said program would only be an implementation, however, based on the same boolean logic the machine is literally built with.

 

[terraNivium]

I guess I could claim to be an anti-theist, and I understand what you are trying to say but its a very invalid argument.
You are basically saying that because someone you know said that Christians try to convert, all atheists say this, a bit of a generalization really.
Not to sound offensive, but a Christian accusing something of being hypocritical is laughable, I mean, have you ever compared the god in the old testament to the one in the new?

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

I have been something along those lines on every thread where atheism crops up. The religious people on this site are for more polite (in general) than the majority of atheists.

Prove it.

And, it's not the same, when someone gets into a discussion about religion then an Atheist will put forward their view, a lot of Christians will preach Christianity to anyone regardless of the situation. For example....

A man once came up to me in the street and did a magic trick, I acted semi impressed, his next words were, well that's nothing compared to the miracles of God.

Tell me, has an Atheist ever done anything similar to you?

Me neither.

 

[Antlers]

1. I didn't say they do anything. I said that they do not like organized religion, not that it prompts them to action.
2. Think what is a bad thing? Your example? No, it was a good example, it's just that I don't really care, because democratic/republic countries are supposed to be secular, and religious hierarchies are supposed to be theocratic.
3. Also since I do not live in Ireland, that means I have no idea what you are talking about. But I got it now.

1. OK... I'm not sure if you were pointing out that it was a problem or not now.

2. SUPPOSED to be secular yes, but religion still has a lot of influence. Even, I do believe, in America.

3. Well... I didn't mean for it to imply I was speaking from personal experience. I was only giving an example and the best example I could think of was one I knew about because I live in Ireland...

Anyway, I don't think we're even arguing anything. But I just wanted it to be clear.

 

[Antlers]

Everyone who's not in a personal row seems to get ignored but I will ask... What is it that these 'anti-theists' DO that's so bad? Not what do they say. Forget etiquette. What do they DO? That's what I simply do not get about this argument.