Why I'm not an atheist

[seer]

He'd be comfortable with that assessment.

Then he is not practicing what he preached according to lao tzu's quote.

[seer]

Again, who says it has to?

Then you agree that this is something that science can not determine.

[rogue06]

First book I ever read was Breakfast of Champions.

I wish it wasn't.

Cereal boxes aren't books

rs_634x981-150422144234-634.oly.jenner.mh.070612.jpg

I read Machiavelli's The Prince and Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil shortly after turning 11 (or was it 12?). And folks wonder why I'm screwed up. Then again, perhaps they don't.

[Carrikature]

Then you agree that this is something that science can not determine.

No. I think you're using 'science' improperly and insisting on a bar that doesn't exist in practice.

[seer]

Cereal boxes aren't books

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14708[/ATTACH]

Since when?

[seer]

No. I think you're using 'science' improperly and insisting on a bar that doesn't exist in practice.

How so? If materialism is true shouldn't everything be open to scientific understanding or investigation?

[Meh Gerbil]

How so? If materialism is true shouldn't everything be open to scientific understanding or investigation?

Not necessarily as we may simply not have the means or understanding required to investigate something.
Our inability to detect sub atomic particles 500 years ago doesn't mean those sub atomic particles were non-physical.

Being open to investigation isn't the same as being possible to investigate, that is, sub atomic particles may be open to investigation but we only recently became possible to investigate them.
The burden would be on you to prove the consciousness is not open to investigation instead of merely being out of range of our capabilities to investigate at this time.

[seer]

Not necessarily as we may simply not have the means or understanding required to investigate something.
Our inability to detect sub atomic particles 500 years ago doesn't mean those sub atomic particles were non-physical.

Being open to investigation isn't the same as being possible to investigate, that is, sub atomic particles may be open to investigation but we only recently became possible to investigate them.
The burden would be on you to prove the consciousness is not open to investigation instead of merely being out of range of our capabilities to investigate at this time.

You said:

If you were making this argument 10,000 years ago would you be a cavemen arguing that thunder must be of supernatural origin since they've no science to measure it?

In short, I'm a theist and I'm finding this line of reasoning to be problematic.

I said:

This may not be like that at all. And I'm not claiming a super-nature event. Let me go at it this way. What is my favorite color? My favorite food (OK that is easy, bacon is everybody's favorite food)? My favorite landscape? Can science examine my brain and divine that? No, those are first person experiences or knowledge - qualia.

Check this short piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32m9...&nohtml5=False

And remember Chalmers is an atheist.

[Carrikature]

How so? If materialism is true shouldn't everything be open to scientific understanding or investigation?

For one thing, it has to be reproducible to be testable. We're getting better at drawing information from large sample sizes, but that tends to show us correlation only. For another, science is better used as a framework upon which to investigate individual pieces. Natural selection is a framework. It won't necessarily tell you which species is going to win out long term, though. Likewise, we can understand the framework of rewards in the brain, but that doesn't mean we can know which activities will be rewarded in your brain. We can come up with generalizations, but specifics take observation. Not everyone likes bacon, but we still know that fattier foods taste better to most people.

[Christianbookworm]

Pretty biased quiz, but I got:

You Are Very Skeptical

Your personal motto is: "Prove it."
While some ideas, like life after death, may seem nice...
You aren't going to believe them simply because it feels good.
You let science and facts be your guide... Even if it means you don't share the beliefs of those around you.

I got very skeptical also. Doesn't hurt that the majority of the questions were about stuff that Christians would consider bunk/potentially dangerous.

[Meh Gerbil]

This may not be like that at all. And I'm not claiming a super-nature event. Let me go at it this way. What is my favorite color? My favorite food (OK that is easy, bacon is everybody's favorite food)? My favorite landscape? Can science examine my brain and divine that? No, those are first person experiences or knowledge - qualia.

I think we could agree that a lie is something akin to a preference in that it is a state of truthfulness which is non-physical.

That said, according to this article scientists are beginning to detect lies using physical measurements:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15744871

Perhaps preferences (for bacon) are stored in the brain.
The smell of bacon is associated with a happy memory (1) while hot dogs trigger sad memories (2).
You don't actually recall the memories beyond a vague feeling of happiness, hence the preference.



NOTES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Susie Pommet had a bacon grease soaked moustache the first time she let you kiss her.
2: Your dad used to flog you with hot dogs. They were actually bratwurst but I don't want my point to be derailed by Godwin's Law.

[37818]

As a whole it all comes down to a matter of truth. If God is not Cod, that there being no God, my beliefs only have any value now in this life. When I am dead it will not likely make any difference to me. Most likely will not know it.

But if what I believe is true. Me not believing it would be very bad, not just for me, but maybe others I would fail to warn.

[Meh Gerbil]

If God is not Cod...

Up until this point I'd taken your designation as 'Nontraditional' with a side of lemon butter.

[firstfloor]

That is the point FF. I'm not worried about the Matrix, but we can not logically justify our experience of the external world. You have nothing except your personal experience. Everything you know or think you know is filtered through your subjective mind.

This might interest you.

https://www.auburn.edu/~marcuea/zombies.pdf

[seer]

This might interest you.

https://www.auburn.edu/~marcuea/zombies.pdf

FF, that does not change anything I said about logically justifying our experience of the external world. And if you don't like zombies you can use sociopaths like I mentioned earlier.

And if you don't like Zombies try the bat: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portal.../nagel_bat.pdf