|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2004 : 09:54:42 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, if you think the evidence goes against them, then you can say, "The bulk of the evidence doesn't support this." Which is different from, "What you believe is a delusion." I'm just weary of seeing (here and everywhere) people invalidate others' experiences. It's arrogant and disrespectful (and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too).
There is no absolute truth, Ricky, only personal truths. There are facts (verifable) and the rest is perception, opinion, interpretation, etc.
I believe the evidence is against Christian doctrine; don't get me wrong. But whether or not God exists is a mystery, and will always BE a mystery. We have no way of knowing for sure. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 10:13:56 [Permalink]
|
| Are you saying that there is any chance that Jehovah, the Tribal War God exists? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 10:45:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky, if you think the evidence goes against them, then you can say, "The bulk of the evidence doesn't support this." Which is different from, "What you believe is a delusion." I'm just weary of seeing (here and everywhere) people invalidate others' experiences. It's arrogant and disrespectful (and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too).
Yes, which is why you talk about the evidence, not just the fact that they are wrong.
quote:
There is no absolute truth, Ricky, only personal truths. There are facts (verifable) and the rest is perception, opinion, interpretation, etc.
I'm pretty convinced that there is no such thing as personal truth, let alone absolute. And you are very right, the facts are left up to interpretation, which is where critical thinking (looks around for Coberst) comes in.
quote:
I believe the evidence is against Christian doctrine; don't get me wrong. But whether or not God exists is a mystery, and will always BE a mystery. We have no way of knowing for sure.
There are ways to deal with situations where no evidence exists and no evidence can ever be found, the most popular is Occam's Razor.
quote:
Are you saying that there is any chance that Jehovah, the Tribal War God exists?
I think I'm nit-picking this, but that word "chance" is just bothering me. There is a chance for anything to be true, but most of the stuff is extremely improbable. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 11:16:06 [Permalink]
|
Well, the statement was made that it is a mystery and that we have no way of knowing for sure. If you're saying that whether or not gravity exists is a mystery and that we have no waying of knowing for sure if it exists is the same kind of statement, then we'll have a disagreement.
If you want me to revise my statement, there is no reasonable chance that Jehovah, the tribal war god exists, just like there is no reasonable chance that gravity is non-existent. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 15:46:20 [Permalink]
|
Bah... I had a nice LONG post typed up.... but for some reason wasn't logged in! bye-bye 20 minutes worth of typing and mental sweat!
So... let me see if I can condense the lost novella post into something shorter and more readable...
quote:
posted by Dave W:Screw it, I'll do it again:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------posted by Dude:
My point, from the beginning, is that any statement we can currently make (except to recognize our lack of knowledge) regarding human consciousness after the death of the body is an assertion unsupported by evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by Dave W:
The exact same thing can be said about the existence of god, yet you have stated that you reject the god hypothesis for the exact same reasons that I tentatively reject the idea that consciousness continues after death.
Who's conflating?
The topic of god has no bearing on the topic of consciousness. You guys just won't relenquish your iron grip on the conflation of these to different topics.
Yes Dave_W, I understand your tentative position, so I'm not directing a portion of this specifically at you.... however,
you throw god up as a straw-man, state the reasons that support atheism and the lack of neccessity for god, and then state that your conclusion about consciousness is somehow the correct one because your argument about god is sound.
To this I can only say.... huh? That argument only makes sense if your trying to conflate human consciousness and god.
I think, Dave W, that we basically agree on post mortem human consciousness. I am confused by why/how god, god being a fundamentally different topic, is even relevent to this argument |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 20:09:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Ricky:
Now of course a theist will give all sorts of evidence to E. that God does exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really true. Most theists that I have encountered when I have asked them for evidence, they say you must "have faith" in god, that no evidence exists to test you. (Oh, btw, love your last quote by the Chruch, can I ask where you got it from?)
Really? I experience the opposite; they give me "evidence," but it's very weak evidence, ranging from: "Something can't come from nothing," arguments to "The Bible says so," and the humorous ones from the Intelligent Design folks, "What, did we come from salamanders??"
Well, I am so tired, but I wanted to give you the quote site I got the Galileo quotes from over a year ago. The second site I'm giving you is even better, in that it specifically cites the sources. All quotes are subject to source review--there are a few hanging around from those big quotation sites that have no sources and are bogus.
These are not sites I peruse--I had once searched for a quote and just saved these pages:
http://www.httpjoke.com/god-fi.html] Galileo
http://www.newagedatabase.com/quotes.htm#Jefferson] Other notable quotations
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 22:26:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Really? I experience the opposite; they give me "evidence," but it's very weak evidence, ranging from: "Something can't come from nothing," arguments to "The Bible says so," and the humorous ones from the Intelligent Design folks, "What, did we come from salamanders??"
Thats not evidence.
"Something can't come from nothing," - Arguement from Ignorance
"The Bible says so," - Begging the Question
"What, did we come from salamanders??" - ummm, just being plain stupid?
The first two are fallacies, and I'm not sure what to call the 3rd one. Anyways, they are not evidence. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 23:43:25 [Permalink]
|
| The third one there is a red herring/straw man kinda thing. An attempt to distract the argument away from the issue. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 06:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Really? I experience the opposite; they give me "evidence," but it's very weak evidence, ranging from: "Something can't come from nothing," arguments to "The Bible says so," and the humorous ones from the Intelligent Design folks, "What, did we come from salamanders??"
Thats not evidence.
"Something can't come from nothing," - Arguement from Ignorance
"The Bible says so," - Begging the Question
"What, did we come from salamanders??" - ummm, just being plain stupid?
The first two are fallacies, and I'm not sure what to call the 3rd one. Anyways, they are not evidence.
That's why I put evidence in quotation marks and because I was so exhausted, I didn't go into it further. I wish I could now, but I have to go to work; and you know what? This site is blocked by my company's blocking software. I can get into other boards like Bad Astronomy and such, but this one elicits that nasty "ACCESS DENIED." I wonder why. The software covers mostly game, entertainment and sex sites. Hmm.
My home board is full of several right-wing and conservatives, which is fine, but they don't argue very well about the matter. One thinks discussions of religion are offensive to them, yet he can excoriate liberals, talk about abortion, gay marriage, talk about so many personal views, but say something about the Catholic Church and that gets him in a tizzy. I don't see that discussing religion is any different than discussing one's views on other subjects, especially as the ones I mentioned have so much to do with religion.
The "salamander guy" was being just being a jerk. He's one of those people who mixes up evolution with humans having come from apes ONLY. As I said, he is a proponent of Intelligent Design and thinks it should be taught in school along with evolution.
Gotta run, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 08:13:08 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Who's conflating?
The topic of god has no bearing on the topic of consciousness. You guys just won't relenquish your iron grip on the conflation of these to different topics.
Yes Dave_W, I understand your tentative position, so I'm not directing a portion of this specifically at you.... however,
you throw god up as a straw-man, state the reasons that support atheism and the lack of neccessity for god, and then state that your conclusion about consciousness is somehow the correct one because your argument about god is sound.
To this I can only say.... huh? That argument only makes sense if your trying to conflate human consciousness and god.
I think, Dave W, that we basically agree on post mortem human consciousness. I am confused by why/how god, god being a fundamentally different topic, is even relevent to this argument
Yes, you are confused.
I have never conflated god and consciousness-after-death. What I have been discussing is your arguments related to the two subjects, which you stated after Ricky suggested you would be an agnostic.
You argue that applying Occam's Razor to the question of post-mortem consciousness is unreasonable and illogical. Your position on the subject is that of "agnosticism."
On the other hand, you use Occam's Razor to eliminate the extraneous hypothesis of god, and so your position there is one of atheism.
It is this inconsistency which I have been discussing. That and nothing else. You have failed to justify your choice of using three assertions for denying the god hypothesis, but only one assertion for the topic of consciousness after death, when all three of your "god-assertions" are also applicable to post-mortem mind. You have failed to suggest why the last two are inapplicable, other than to repeatedly assert that "we know consciousness exists," but apparently failing to recognize that we only know that consciousness exists in a very narrow set of circumstances.
The other analogies I introduced ("straightness" and Bigfoot) were more apt than that of god, since - like consciousness - we know that straightness and wild primates both exist. You have failed to address these analogies. I am not conflating these topics, but only trying to demonstrate that one's arguments for all four subjects can be (and in my opinion, should be) more-or-less identical.
We agree regarding consciousness after death only so far as we agree that there is zero evidence one way or the other. We disagree on the application of Occam's Razor to this state of affairs, since in my opinion, the continuation of consciousness after death requires assumptions for which we also have no evidence, and thus are "unnecessary pluralities" which Occam allows us to trim away. And you have repeatedly suggested that the conclusion I've reached is, instead of being a conclusion, some sort of assertion.
Finally, you claim to "understand [my] tentative position," but still, you lumped my posts in with the dogmatic and never-ending adherence of verlch for his. In fact, I don't think anybody involved in this discussion has said anything like "consciousness terminates upon death, and there's no way anybody will ever convince me otherwise," so your generalized accusation of verlchishness seems misplaced, at best, and a pissy-mean insult at worst. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 14:45:19 [Permalink]
|
You insist on conflating god and consciousness-after-death.
Until you stop, this conversation is pointless. The two are entirely unrelated, and your arguments are fallacious.
I only mention god because Ricky accuses me of being agnostic, which is entirely incorrect. Ricky was the one to introduce god, with his little invisible dragon analogy. Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
quote:
You argue that applying Occam's Razor to the question of post-mortem consciousness is unreasonable and illogical. Your position on the subject is that of "agnosticism."
To bad you keep conflating god and post mortem consciousness. It's not helping your arguments.
quote:
The other analogies I introduced ("straightness" and Bigfoot) were more apt than that of god, since - like consciousness - we know that straightness and wild primates both exist. You have failed to address these analogies.
I'm required to address yet more meaningless analogies? <sigh>
Your "bigfoot" analogy is so far out in left field that it's would be stupid of me to let you divert the debate there.
Straightness? If your seriously contending that qualities like "straightness" or "hardness" or "curvyness" or whatever, can be conflated with "human consciousness", then I think you should reconsider.
Straightness, for example, is an observed quality. It has a fairly subjective definition. Most people would agree that your "straight" board (which you throw into yout woodchipper) has "straightness" before you hip it.
Human consciousness, on the other hand, is an observable phenomenon. It has a large objective set of data.
All observed phenomenon change over time and with events around them.
All observed phenomenon, that we can detect and measure accurately, can be tracked over time, and we can draw conclusions as to their eventual fate.
Why should human consciousness be any different? We can't detect or measure it accurately yet, and until we can it's bad logic to draw a conclusion (or to even pretend that one answer is more likely than another) about what happens to it after the death of the body.
And finally, to call me an agnostic, because I state that there is not enough information to make even a guess at the answer, is insulting and it demonstrates a lack of understanding.
So, seriously...
Stop conflating god and post-mortem consciousness.
Stop drawing conclusions (especially ones that illustrate your ignorance) about my personal beliefs concerning god based on my opinon that it's not possible (yet) to make an intelligent conclusion pertaining to the post-mortem fate of human consciousness. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 18:42:04 [Permalink]
|
WTF?
Since when did I call you an agnostic with regard to god? Talk about a straw-man argument. I never once drew any conclusion about your personal beliefs, except to say that they appear to me to be inconsistent (with each other, just to make that clear). Oh, and I took you at your freakin' word when you said you were an atheist. Should I disencumber myself of the conclusion that "what Dude says about his own beliefs, I should believe?" Sure, I've got no evidence that you really meant that you're an atheist, so I suppose every sentence you write about yourself, I should assign no truth value whatsoever.
And for Pete's sake, I am not conflating god and post-mortem consciousness. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, you cannot make it true.
I take it that along with certain applications of Occam's Razor, argument by analogy is simply untenable to you?quote:
Human consciousness, on the other hand, is an observable phenomenon. It has a large objective set of data.
All observed phenomenon change over time and with events around them.
All observed phenomenon, that we can detect and measure accurately, can be tracked over time, and we can draw conclusions as to their eventual fate.
Why should human consciousness be any different? We can't detect or measure it accurately yet, and until we can it's bad logic to draw a conclusion (or to even pretend that one answer is more likely than another) about what happens to it after the death of the body.
Fina-fucking-ly. Forcryingoutloud, it was hard as hell to get you to offer up a decent argument regarding this. Your prior arguments were far too terse.
But to answer, and disagree: consciousness after death is not an observed phenomenon. There is zero objective data for it. And I have zero evidence with which to support the idea that I should spend any amount of time or effort entertaining the idea that post-mortem consciousness might, someday, become an observed phenomenon. I don't even have any evidence that there might be evidence that there might be evidence of "P.M.C." some time in the far future.
I do, however, have evidence that if I cut someone's head in half with a chainsaw, they lose consciousness, and never regain it. For all intents and purposes, and at this moment in time, what I observe is completely consistent with the non-existence of P.M.C. And so, it has very little value as a hypothesis at all - even if as just one to "keep in reserve" while being non-commital.
Please, tell me why it should have some value.quote:
And finally, to call me an agnostic, because I state that there is not enough information to make even a guess at the answer, is insulting and it demonstrates a lack of understanding.
Why? Why take it as an insult or a demonstration of a lack of understanding? Here, let me quote the dictionary at you:2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
- The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition It is a very apt term for someone who denies all knowledge of something, like consciousness after death, as you do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
