Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)

[Legion]

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.

We are on a forum, so we can only discuss what they say can't we. These threads are discussing forum based behaviour.

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.

If I find the free time tomorrow I shall trawl through the forums and find every example of an atheist using the terms" magic sky man/fairy" "delusional" and so on that I can.

Christians will often preach because they honestly believe that if you do not believe in God you will go to hell, they see themselves as saving others. An Atheist has nothing to gain by conversion and nothing to lose by not preaching.

 

[hvitulf]

generally atheists have reached their conclusion logically whereas theist's beliefs are pure faith with no evidence to back it up, atheists try and convert people because they have some basis for not beleiving in god, or at least they feel that their is no reason for belief in god.

Not quite. The big bang theory has nothing other than modern logic to back it up, as opposed to the ancient logic that birthed creationism. Ultimately, a reasonable conclussion could be reached that the big bang is how and God's will is why.

 

[Skeleon]

An Atheist has nothing to gain by conversion and nothing to lose by not preaching.

Actually, many atheists (myself included) think it would be better for people not to waste their time and lives on worship when there are real issues to be dealt with. Those atheists that try to convert people don't believe they're helping save your souls, but improve your lives.

But don't worry, I'd never try to convert anybody. I'm just here to discuss my point of view. I know I could never change somebody's convictions with a few fancy words.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

I'm pretty sure with your last post we just left most of these people completely in the dust. And they said only bad comes from religion threads.

I see what you mean about nerve potentials. I'm not convinced entirely that our brains are strictly digital. Two things against that view:
1) Neurons do not equate to memory locations in a computer
2) I recently read up on how the brain stores memory, and apparently it involves proteins. Not only that, but the process of remembering isn't recalling hard data. When we remember things we are actually, at least to some degree, re-create the event in our heads. This suggests a far more complicated process, with a far more complicated data system, than a machine.

I agree, we are biomechanical machines. I don't accept that as the complete picture, however. Machines are deterministic, even if they fall into the category of 'quantum determinism' (don't ask, that's an entirely different but just as complicated discussion). We do have free will. I realize that's a statement in need of proof. To that end the most I can submit is that a few thousand years of spiritual disciplines have shown us how to harness free will (think in terms of samurai meditation, the real heady stuff.) If we do not have free will, what the hell have all these monks been harnessing?

I don't know where I really stand on AI. That's also an entirely different discussion. To keep it on topic let's look at the following: By AI let's ignore pseudo-intelligent expert systems and the like. I want the machine that not only passes the Turing Test, but one that passes my test: It's an AI if it's sentient and/or self-aware. The biggest hurdle then is to get a brick (a really complicated brick) to achieve one of these two things. Either it's possible, and we will achieve it, or it's not, and we won't, we will just get really close. Assume it can be done. Here's a question: We would not need to program qualia to achieve this, but would an AI have qualia anyway?

One easy and brutal way to isolate your own qualia without amputation: Imagine red apart from any one thing red. Just the color. You have isolated a qualia for yourself. Now to play with the qualia: Hard hallucinogenics. When you can hear red and see rough, your qualia will stand out brutally.

I'm going to go look for a proof that qualia can't be quantified. Wish me luck (after almost completely helping you make your point I'm pretty sure I'm going to need it)

 

[cobra_ky]

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

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

Not trying to win a debate with you. If I was even remotely trying you would get well thought out responses (like the ones I posted to Skeleon). I'm just more than happy to continue to call you a tool. Don't want to be insulted? Don't start it next time...

an i'm more than happy to be called a tool until the thread gets locked. but personally i prefer well thought-out responses.


now then, upon rereading your posts, it seems i misunderstood the sense in which you used the word qualia. i thought you were referring to the non-physical nature of subjective experiences, rather than the experiences themselves. when you referred to "morons" who didn't believe in qualia, i thought you meant physicalists in general, hence the accusation of arrogance, as i thought you were dismissing physicalism out of hand. i retract the statement, true as it may be.

i do not deny that subjective experience exists. what i do deny are your claims that

1. computers will never be able to experience qualia.
2. we will never be able to adequately describe qualia in physical terms.

beyond that, i won't rehash the argument you and skeleon just had.

 

[Legion]

An Atheist has nothing to gain by conversion and nothing to lose by not preaching.

Actually, many atheists (myself included) think it would be better for people not to waste their time and lives on worship when there are real issues to be dealt with. Those atheists that try to convert people don't believe they're helping save your souls, but improve your lives.

But don't worry, I'd never try to convert anybody. I'm just here to discuss my point of view. I know I could never change somebody's convictions with a few fancy words.

Not all religions worship Gods though, that's what pisses me off so much. Most atheists base their entire view on religion based on the models of Christianity,Judaism and Islam.

I am not religious but have at least taken the time to look into religions rather than making a blanket statement based on the religion I come into contact with most often.

What's even more insane is the belief of the atheists with the viewpoint you expressed in your first paragraph: That being religious somehow miraculously changes how somebody lives their life. Most religious people are just like non-religious people except their views on death and the afterlife when it comes down to it.

 

[Booze Zombie]

People will hate what they want, for me, I dislike religion and choose to ignore it.

Obviously, I'm not preaching anything, so your generalisation is more of "why do atheists on the Internet feel the need to be dicks" to which I respond:
The same reason everyone on the Internet is a dick, because it's the Internet.

 

[Mr. Doe]

arguing about religion is stupid your not going to convince an atheist to believe in god and your not going to convince a theist to not believe unless theyre open minded on the subject which all religious conversations have proven never happens*.

*at least on the internet

 

[MagicShroom]

"Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be forced into unbelief."
~Sigmund Freud

Remember this quote...

 

[Alex_P]

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.

Whether you implement Kleene's three-valued logic in hardware or software, you're still "handling" it. That's the point of the whole Turing-machine-inside-a-Turing-machine thing.

If a human being had neurons that basically just fired in "on" and "off" states (e.g. perceptrons) but could still express ideas in terms of ternary logic, wouldn't you still say that the person could "understand" ternary logic despite the peculiarities of neuroscience?

(Side note: there was at least one system built to use trinary logic in hardware -- Setun, used in the 60s by MGU in Moscow.)

-- Alex

 

[ska_tastic425]

I have religious arguments at my job all the time. My one boss is a staunch Creationist/conservative/Republican blahdy blahdy blah. I believe his strong religious beliefs have led him to embrace a narrow view of the world; everything to him is black or white, good or evil, up or down. It really becomes exhausting after a while.

I have three issues... My first issue surrounds Agnosticism. While I believe in grey areas, or places where uncertainty exists, how can there be a grey area when it comes to existing? Something either is or it isn't. Although I'm an Atheist, I give more credit to a Christian who feels absolutely certain about his or her Christianity. I think it depends on your lifestyle. I feel that science better explains many phenomena more adequately than does Creationism, so that works for me. Fear, however, is not a reason to believe in God (which I feel is the case with many people). Besides, if I'm wrong God will forgive me right?

My second issue involves Young-Earth Creationists, who believe that the Earth is no older than 10,000 years old. Really? If this is the case, then years upon years of scientific discoveries would have to be entirely scrapped or revised. I feel that the Occam's Razor principle works well: choose the simpler of two explanations. A mysterious, all-knowing, and all-powerful being creates the universe in six days just 10,000 years (or less) ago and a large body of intellectual thinkers seeks to counter that theory? Or perhaps the universe evolved through natural means over billions of years, according to empirical evidence? Hmmm...

My third issue deals with those who take the Bible so literally, like my boss for example. There are certain inconsistencies with the Bible that proves it, in fact, is not an accurate historical account of what happened in the real world; this isn't enough, though. Again, Occam's Razor: Perhaps the Bible is a sort of moral guideline, written by the elite to keep the people under control and/or fearful of the possible consequences of their actions (for example, the breaking of the Ten Commandments and going to Hell)?

I'm done my tirade. As English writer Douglas Adams puts it, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Amen

 

[Skeleon]

1) Neurons do not equate to memory locations in a computer

Hmmm. How sure can we be of that? It's certainly not the basic folder-hierarchy we know of computers, but at least we can mark certain territories important for the creation of memory, such as the hippocampus, as well as the reliving of memory, such as auditory, visual and what ever other sensory cortices are required for that specific memory.
I'm not saying we can pinpoint their locations, no way, but we can at least specify certain.... checkpoints they have to pass when the person's mind is working on them.

2) I recently read up on how the brain stores memory, and apparently it involves proteins.

Yeah, I heard about that, too. I believe it was mostly about the different expressions of receptor proteins such as NMDAr. I'm not sure how much new info there is on this subject, however. The biomedical knowledge currently advances incredibly fast, it's hard to keep up.

Not only that, but the process of remembering isn't recalling hard data. When we remember things we are actually, at least to some degree, re-create the event in our heads. This suggests a far more complicated process, with a far more complicated data system, than a machine.

*Nods again*
Yes, that, too, I heard of. It was also part of the experiment I mentioned a few posts ago, when they compared fMRI signals of seeing emotionally laden pictures to remembering similarily laden memories. Interestingly, apart from the known memory centers, all the necessary sensory cortices activated as well in similar intensity to the viewing of picture.
So, I fully agree with you on this, the memory is extremely complicated and almost like reliving the situation itself.

However, my point about the basic principles used in neural circuitry still stands. In fact, it makes it more interesting considering such a complex memory system is possible on this comparably simple (and throughout evolution barely altered) basis.

I agree, we are biomechanical machines. I don't accept that as the complete picture, however. Machines are deterministic, even if they fall into the category of 'quantum determinism' (don't ask, that's an entirely different but just as complicated discussion).

Okay, I won't. Heh.

We do have free will.

Oh, I don't dispute that (even though it's heavily influenced by brain chemistry, hormones, drugs, stress and what not).
I'd dispute it when looking at a very low animal, such as an ant being sent through the nest with pheromones like a little mindless robot, but not when looking at humans or similarily complex animals.
However, since my views on AI are very open, to me this is not a conflict.
I see consciousness and free will as part of the evolutionary process. A creature that could think for itself and adapt to new conditions on the spot would obviously have greater chances at surviving a dangerous situation.

Assume it can be done. Here's a question: We would not need to program qualia to achieve this, but would an AI have qualia anyway?

Hmmm, yes. Again, this comes down to the question already posed whether slight physical (and, in this case, software-specific instead of experience-determined) peculiarities could create a subjective experience for this AI on their own. I'd say "yes".

Imagine red apart from any one thing red. Just the color. You have isolated a qualia for yourself.

The question is whether this is even possible considering my mind'd constantly try to associate this thought ("red...red...red...") with something it knows from older experiences.
How do you stop your mind from associating?

Hard hallucinogenics. When you can hear red and see rough, your qualia will stand out brutally.

Never tried anything beyond weed. Considering some folks cut off their own tongue and/or penis, maybe amputation of a few fingers or a foot is the better way to go.

I'm going to go look for a proof that qualia can't be quantified. Wish me luck (after almost completely helping you make your point I'm pretty sure I'm going to need it)

Good luck. I'm going to lean back and wait for technology to solve this problem for me.
Nah, not really.

 

[Skeleon]

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

Not all religions worship Gods though, that's what pisses me off so much. Most atheists base their entire view on religion based on the models of Christianity,Judaism and Islam.

Well, considering Christianity and Islam are the most "vocal", if you will, and affect the daily lives of those around them the most, it's understandable that these are the ones "active atheists" directly respond to.

What's even more insane is the belief of the atheists with the viewpoint you expressed in your first paragraph: That being religious somehow miraculously changes how somebody lives their life. Most religious people are just like non-religious people except their views on death and the afterlife when it comes down to it.

True for the majority, but considering I come from a university town where theology is pretty big, I do notice certain... peculiar aspects about the more devout religious folk.
Just for a small example, they tend to socialize primarily with other religious people, they meet in so-called "house-circles" with other like-minded individuals, they stay abstinent from pre-marital sex and look down upon people who don't.
These are minor things but they certainly affect how they live and with whom they share their lives to no small extent.

Anyway, as I said, I don't try to convert anybody since I see religion as a personal thing.
So if you feel better after praying to your god, why should I try to stop you?
I'm not trying to defend those "atheist missonaries", I'm just trying to explain their motivation.

 

[Captain Blackout]

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

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

Not trying to win a debate with you. If I was even remotely trying you would get well thought out responses (like the ones I posted to Skeleon). I'm just more than happy to continue to call you a tool. Don't want to be insulted? Don't start it next time...

an i'm more than happy to be called a tool until the thread gets locked. but personally i prefer well thought-out responses.


now then, upon rereading your posts, it seems i misunderstood the sense in which you used the word qualia. i thought you were referring to the non-physical nature of subjective experiences, rather than the experiences themselves. when you referred to "morons" who didn't believe in qualia, i thought you meant physicalists in general, hence the accusation of arrogance, as i thought you were dismissing physicalism out of hand. i retract the statement, true as it may be.

i do not deny that subjective experience exists. what i do deny are your claims that

1. computers will never be able to experience qualia.
2. we will never be able to adequately describe qualia in physical terms.

beyond that, i won't rehash the argument you and skeleon just had.

You had this problem in the other thread as well. Furthermore, I said computers don't experience qualia. I'm not certain that's never possible if by computer you extend the meaning to full AI's.
If you're only going to read some of what I write and then comment as if you have the full picture, please leave me alone.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Atheism is in no way the same as antitheism.
And yes, some atheists do feel compelled to go on tirades when a religious person starts to preach.
And eye for an eye. Both are annoying.

 

[Dogstile]

oh, i see, your confusing annoying preachy athiests with us more reserved "just are" athiests

 

[Dr.Sean]

I thought the whole point of religion was to convert someone to your religion.

 

[Captain Blackout]

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.

Whether you implement Kleene's three-valued logic in hardware or software, you're still "handling" it. That's the point of the whole Turing-machine-inside-a-Turing-machine thing.

If a human being had neurons that basically just fired in "on" and "off" states (e.g. perceptrons) but could still express ideas in terms of ternary logic, wouldn't you still say that the person could "understand" ternary logic despite the peculiarities of neuroscience?

(Side note: there was at least one system built to use trinary logic in hardware -- Setun, used in the 60s by MGU in Moscow.)

-- Alex

I just looked up Setun. Crap. I'm not certain it's true ternary logic (i'd need to look at the logic gates) but I'll capitulate for now. I don't think this affects my statement that computer don't apprehend qualia but if I'm wrong then I'm glad they stop using Setun computers. We don't need Skynet up and running any sooner.
As for how we function: See my posts with Skeleon regarding the matter. I'll buy that we're binary when I see the schematic (God, wouldn't that be mind blowing?)

*snip*

Neuronal architecture and motherboard/memory chip/processor architecture are radically different. The process of accessing memory locations would also be different, so I'm feel rather safe in saying neurons and my pc's memory allocation are different. Having said that I realized I may have been too ambiguous: Neuronal architecture means we have options modern computers don't in processing data and those options may give rise to a non-binary system even if the input is strictly binary. Still, I think I'll let this point go since I just went way beyond my understanding of neuroscience.

I had to temporarily give up the search for my proof about the nature of qualia. Unfortunately I ran into an article by Dawkins and made the mistake of reading it. I just learned everything I need to know about Dawkins: He's a subtle but manipulative and un-compassionate prick. Brilliant, but willing to make completely fraudulent and insulting claims to make his point. Sounds like me on my bad days and that's enough for me to deal with on my own.

This has been a challenging discussion. I did a ton of research throughout this and learned a hell of a lot.

I'm still certain qualia will never be expressed mathematically. However, I will say that doesn't deny atheism. It makes the claim that atheism is more logical than theism harder to defend.

Unfortunately this struggle continues in the other direction as well. At least discussing with you has been worth it. Trying to explain my beliefs to a fundamentalist Christian gets me less respect, as I'm usually told I'm going to hell.

And this is the heart of the struggle: For thousands of years theists of many stripes have boot-stomped both science and honest spiritual exploration into the ground. Science came to a point where profit became involved and now it's safe from the soles (pun intended) of the militant fundies. Now honest spiritual exploration has to contend with both fundamentalist theists, anti-theists, Dawkins, hard-core physicalists (like some scientists) and others stomping on it. It happened in early America when Christians converted or killed natives, it happened in China when communists converted or killed Taoists, and it continues today in a world where Pagans, Taoists, Discordians and others are put down by everyone else for being different.

I think there's two threads right here: One on qualia, one on spiritualists. Think we should post our discussion in a new thread and see what others say?

 

[Lukirre]

Fact: You're making a judgment call based off of one person.
Fact: You're making the assessment off of an asshat.

Fiction: You're right!