Poll: after life or oblivion
Oblivion duh
Reincarnation as human only
Resurrection only
I would be a ghost trolling humans
Reincarnation Hindu or Buddhist style
I dont know
heaven or hell and then resurrection
other
[Show Results]
 
afterlife or oblivion ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Ah ok and see here's where we run into problems regarding qualities: colour is a good example- some animals are colour blind, but we know that there are colours because they're seen by other animals and ourselves and we can (to a degree) measure the colour spectrum, but the problem is when animals can see more colours than we can- if we say a shirt is not only red, but say a particular shade of crimson, can we be sure that's what that shade actually looks like since we are unable to see parts of the colour spectrum? This is why I was talking about the qualities being subjective, but that's a poor way of putting it: it's better to say our perception of those qualities is subjective, am I right?

Yes and no.

If we are to treat external observation and scientific conclusions as having any validity whatsoever - and the alternative is vapid solipsism, mind - then no. Every photon in existence possesses a discrete quantifiable energy, corresponding to a wavelength. In bulk these may exhibit a range of values such that they exhibit whatever peak, linewidth, and curve one may imagine.
(except I guess virtual photons in a sense but that's highly abstruse quantum field theory...)

And insofar as the sensation of perceiving colour is a subjective neurological phenomenon, then yes. The three (ish) sets of receptors in the human retina produce signals which are further interpreted that don't directly map to external observables.

(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Touch taste and smell become more problematic: do we know if other species experience them in the same way we do? I think we've just assumed for the most part that they do- about the best we could do would be to communicate with gorillas in sign language and ask them what something feels, tastes, smells like to them, but because they're related to us there's a good chance their experiences may be the same or similar, so that might not be very helpful in this regard.

What does it matter what our experience is?
(trivially it matters to each of us as individuals, but... ?)

Do you accept a distinction between perception and existence?

(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  To conclude, I think at best we can say that there are objects that are objectively real, and that those objects contain certifiable objective qualities as they relate to human experience, or if you don't like that wording, our perception of them as human beings is subjective. Thank you for helping me to see my errors, it's been quite helpful.

I see. But then human history is itself an attempt at approaching collective understanding of objective phenomena as divorced from the limited lens of highly contingent subjective experience. Right?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 10:12 PM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2016 10:15 PM by Nagoda.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 02:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:11 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  Due to consistently bad argumentation on the part of theists, would you say that you are skeptical of new arguments for the existence of God because prior experience has proven such arguments to be particularly terrible?

I'll let you know when I hear a new argument. Drinking Beverage

Quote:In other words, are you willing to take what the person has to say seriously, or because it's a theist making another argument, do you think "hoo boy, here we go again" and assume it's likely that they're going to fail based on past experience?

I dismiss all the previously debunked arguments. They are never accompanied by evidence.

Quote:Everyone has a bias Chas, even atheists. You can be open to evidence, but that doesn't mean you're not biased in some ways,

Sure, but I am not biased in the way you have been implying.

Quote:and this is true of your atheism and mine- every world view has a bias, there's no such thing as an unbiased position.

Of course there are. A factual position is unbiased.

Quote:I think because the free thought movement is based on the very idea of being open to evidence and weighing the facts, the very idea that atheists could be biased against religion is unconscionable because it's against the very openness we strive for. But if we're not critical of our own beliefs and our own practices, we loose our credibility.

It's time for you to define what you mean by 'biased against religion'.

A factual position is unbiased? No I'm sorry, that's simply not true: a factual position may be based on facts and evidence, but you or someone else is interpreting those facts so they can be understood, that interpretation has a bias precisely because humans are not 100% objective, and their experiences are going to sway them in a certain way towards holding certain opinions. You can claim "no no, I'm rational! I use logic, I use reason, I use science to back up my claims!"- but basic psychology will show you that your emotions and experiences do impact your beliefs/opinions/positions, no matter how much you wish it weren't true. it's impossible to be 100% objective in forming an opinion. You can try to get close, but some bias will always exist. Pure objectivity is simply unattainable, although it's a laudable goal to strive for, and I'm not saying we shouldn't stop trying to achieve it. If you believe factual positions are unbiased you need to look at that statement again and critically self examine it further.

Biased against religion- I define that as viewing religion as predominantly negative, unhealthy and/or destructive, which biases you against viewing religion in a more positive light, or acknowledging the positive religions have, and thus viewing them in a more objective manner. Example: saying that religion is the source of most of the world's problems and the world would be better off without it. Or, alternatively, not taking religious claims seriously because they're religious and religion is BS and shouldn't be taken seriously because they can't back up their claims.

When a scientist proposes a theory to explain a problem but say they can't prove it because they don't have evidence and say they need time to work it out, we generally give it to them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, sometimes their theories are even hailed as potentially groundbreaking. Sometimes these theories hinge upon other theories which also haven't been proven. When a religious person does the exact same thing, we dismiss them and call them crackpots or say that's bullshit. There is a very clear negative bias against religions on the part of Atheists because they lack evidence, but yet when Atheists do the exact same thing or scientists do the same, we are no where near as critical of them as we are towards religious people- there is a very evident bias and double standard going on.

Atheists need to learn to be as critical of science and their own positions as they are of religion, otherwise we loose any and all credibility and become hypocrites. Atheism and anti-theism have appeared to become coupled with each other, and I am incredibly skeptical of anti-theism as it's a horribly biased position and not objective in the slightest. It might be based on facts and evidence, but its interpretation of those facts has a very strong bias against religion.

It's also overly simplistic in terms of how it views religion as the cause of all the major evils, or the root of them, and doesn't critically self-examine it's own position. Yes, I'll grant that saying "my god is better than yours" started the whole mess, but the problem isn't gods or religions: it's that people think their world views to be right, correct, and superior in some manner to someone else's. It doesn't matter that someone has evidence to back up what they say, what matters is that they think their world view is better than the other person's, and they try to convert them to their way of thinking because they believe themselves to be right and that the evidence proves them right.

This is proselytizing, Atheists who take it upon themselves to promote their world view do this all the time. It doesn't matter that we're right on lots of stuff, that doesn't mean we should be telling people our way is better than their own! If you are going to tell people what's best for them or imply it strongly, you are moralizing just like the Christian fundamentalists do. Who the fuck do we think we are to tell people how they should live their life, or criticize them if they are not harming themselves or others? If religions or religious people do harm others, we have every right to point out the problems, but if belief in God or Jesus or Buddha or whatever has a positive impact on people's lives, no matter how untrue it may be, who the fuck are we to suggest what works best for them?

We are not in their shoes, we have not been what they've been through, we cannot paint religion with broad strokes the way we have been doing as Atheist communities. It is much, much, much more nuanced and complex than we make it out to be. The problem is not religion, it's ideological superiority which can happen with anything, it just happened to be taken up by religion first because that's where we based our power structures back in the day.

I fully admit I have a bias against anti-theism, but that's precisely because I find it to be so biased. It's my opinion that we as a community of Atheists do not practice self criticism in regards to our own beliefs as much as we should,that we do not think reflectively on our words and actions as much as we should or at least not as much as we reflect on the problems within religion. You could respond with "well religious people don't base their opinions on evidence, I don't need to respect them", like Dawkins would say, but the problem with that is that if you do not show respect towards a person in a debate, you have shut down the conversation completely by calling their beliefs deluded, crazy, or calling them names like "Christotards" (I'm not saying you do Chas but I've seen others use the term on the forum multiple times). We have resorted to boorishness, name calling, and utter derision. We have becomes bullies, and it's time we faced those facts instead of pretending that it's not true and ignoring the issue.

This behaviour is not respectful, this is not charitable, but above all this is not constructive behaviour: it does not promote a dialogue between Atheists and Theists. Where I come from, Canada, we are polite and we try to respect people's beliefs no matter how much we might vehemently disagree with them, unless those beliefs can be shown to cause harm that is quantifiable. We should not respect the beliefs of fundamentalists who harm others, either physically by murdering and torturing people like in certain interpretations of Islam, or psychologically like how certain denominations of Christianity treat LGBT people. But it's ludicrous to claim every Christian or Muslim is harming someone by professing their beliefs: not all religious dogmas equate to harm being done. Things are much more complex than we've been making them out to be.

Take creationists: I fully admit I do not respect the views of creationists, but I'm working to change that, because respecting their beliefs is the only way by which I will have a civil discourse with those people on the issues at hand. They might be wrong, they might be teaching kids lies about evolution, but that can be corrected with dialogue and the only way you can do that is if both parties have a mutual respect for each other and their respective beliefs at the start of the conversation.

The manner in which many anti-theists conduct themselves and indeed I'd argue the very principles of anti-theism itself are against the very values that are at the core of the free thought movement: self reflection, self criticism, not being bound or blinded by Dogma (in this case, anti-theists' worldview/ideology). When people here in Canada generally act the way anti-theists like Dawkins do, they end up losing the respect of people and people generally view them as being intolerant and dickish towards other people's beliefs.

I realize the Canadian perspective of respecting a belief while disagreeing with it is not practiced in many countries, but I believe it is the best way to ensure that the dialogue between Atheists and Theists keeps going and is constructive. If you're here to turn religious people to Atheism, congratulations, you've become an Evangelist, just like the Christians but in reverse.

Atheism comes in many varieties: I am not an anti-theist, and I wish people would stop associating me with them simply because I'm an Atheist, because they equate that word with people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. And quite frankly to be associated with people who, by their own admission, are disrespectful towards religion, and who are blind to their own biases, is a damn shame. Anti-theists have effectively co-opted the conversation on Atheism and made themselves it's brand and posterchild- if that wasn't true Richard Dawkins would not be one of the first persons who comes to people's minds when you say the word Atheist.

This needs to stop: Atheism is much bigger, much more diverse than the narrow interpretation these people have made it out to be. For one thing, some of us actually have respect for religions. For another, some of us are religious (religious naturalists, pantheists)- to say that Atheism and religion are opposed to one another is false: go and tell that to the many pantheists like myself who are religious and don't believe in gods, and we'll show you how we've made both work and how the two aren't opposed to one another.

Atheism is a simply a lack of belief in gods- how that lack of belief is expressed is up to the individual, and it is quite diverse. It should not be associated, ever, with the disrespectful and rude behaviour of many anti-theists: it damages our credibility in the eyes of others and gives us a bad name.

We can do better than this, and we know it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 12:18 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  if we say a shirt is not only red, but say a particular shade of crimson, can we be sure that's what that shade actually looks like since we are unable to see parts of the colour spectrum?

Yes.

Even if we couldn't, this still does nothing to establish that reality is anything other than objective. Colors remain different wavelengths of light. Even if we lack the ability to directly perceive them, they exist. We can prove that they exist.

(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  This is why I was talking about the qualities being subjective, but that's a poor way of putting it: it's better to say our perception of those qualities is subjective, am I right?

To an extent. cjlr's reply is correct on this point. I refer you to him.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  A factual position is unbiased? No I'm sorry, that's simply not true

Yes, it is. That is what "factual position" means.

Unless you want to accuse the one holding such a position of having a bias towards fact, which is exceptionally silly for a number of reasons which I sincerely hope are obvious, there is no ground to stand on here.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  You can claim "no no, I'm rational! I use logic, I use reason, I use science to back up my claims!"- but basic psychology will show you that your emotions and experiences do impact your beliefs/opinions/positions, no matter how much you wish it weren't true.

Which is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that it has actually done so in the case of the factual belief.

I have snipped the rest of your rant against anti-theism, as I am not an anti-theist. Nor, I think, is anyone else with whom you are currently speaking.

The only point that I think is worth addressing is that creationism and related positions are not dismissed because of anti-theistic bias. They are dismissed because they are demonstrably, factually, and objectively very, very stupid.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
02-04-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 12:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  if we say a shirt is not only red, but say a particular shade of crimson, can we be sure that's what that shade actually looks like since we are unable to see parts of the colour spectrum?

Yes.

Even if we couldn't, this still does nothing to establish that reality is anything other than objective. Colors remain different wavelengths of light. Even if we lack the ability to directly perceive them, they exist. We can prove that they exist.

(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  This is why I was talking about the qualities being subjective, but that's a poor way of putting it: it's better to say our perception of those qualities is subjective, am I right?

To an extent. cjlr's reply is correct on this point. I refer you to him.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  A factual position is unbiased? No I'm sorry, that's simply not true

Yes, it is. That is what "factual position" means.

Unless you want to accuse the one holding such a position of having a bias towards fact, which is exceptionally silly for a number of reasons which I sincerely hope are obvious, there is no ground to stand on here.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  You can claim "no no, I'm rational! I use logic, I use reason, I use science to back up my claims!"- but basic psychology will show you that your emotions and experiences do impact your beliefs/opinions/positions, no matter how much you wish it weren't true.

Which is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that it has actually done so in the case of the factual belief.

I have snipped the rest of your rant against anti-theism, as I am not an anti-theist. Nor, I think, is anyone else with whom you are currently speaking.

The only point that I think is worth addressing is that creationism and related positions are not dismissed because of anti-theistic bias. They are dismissed because they are demonstrably, factually, and objectively very, very stupid.

First let's figure out what we mean by "factual positions"- if we are referring to someone stating a fact or facts, that's not an opinion or position but just a plain statement of facts. If you are referring to positions/opinions that are formed and based on facts and evidence, which I think both you and Chas are, then what you are describing does not exist and we are going to have to agree to disagree on the matter.

As I said before, the facts and evidence that the position is based on are unbiased, yes, but the interpretation of them by people in order to form that position is not unbiased. Evidence must always be interpreted, and humans are not 100% unbiased when they interpret things precisely because their personal experiences which are unique to them as well as their emotions will affect their interpretation of the facts either consciously or subconsciously without them realizing it.

If you are you are going to say that the fact that emotions affecting people's judgment is irrelevant, I'm sorry but you're wrong- it's very evident that our emotions and experiences come into play when forming an opinion, and they will bias us in some way- this is a basic part of being human. If it's not obvious, I'm not sure what else I can say, but it seems like you're writing off a basic truth here and severely downplaying something that has a large impact on how we form our opinions.

Agree to disagree then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 12:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The only point that I think is worth addressing is that creationism and related positions are not dismissed because of anti-theistic bias. They are dismissed because they are demonstrably, factually, and objectively very, very stupid.

I object to your use of the word stupid here- let's be more precise. What you mean to say is that they are ignorant of the evidence being presented. The word stupid has a negative value judgment attached to it, and can be seen as denigrating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 12:11 PM by Nagoda.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Ah ok and see here's where we run into problems regarding qualities: colour is a good example- some animals are colour blind, but we know that there are colours because they're seen by other animals and ourselves and we can (to a degree) measure the colour spectrum, but the problem is when animals can see more colours than we can- if we say a shirt is not only red, but say a particular shade of crimson, can we be sure that's what that shade actually looks like since we are unable to see parts of the colour spectrum? This is why I was talking about the qualities being subjective, but that's a poor way of putting it: it's better to say our perception of those qualities is subjective, am I right?

Yes and no.

If we are to treat external observation and scientific conclusions as having any validity whatsoever - and the alternative is vapid solipsism, mind - then no. Every photon in existence possesses a discrete quantifiable energy, corresponding to a wavelength. In bulk these may exhibit a range of values such that they exhibit whatever peak, linewidth, and curve one may imagine.
(except I guess virtual photons in a sense but that's highly abstruse quantum field theory...)

And insofar as the sensation of perceiving colour is a subjective neurological phenomenon, then yes. The three (ish) sets of receptors in the human retina produce signals which are further interpreted that don't directly map to external observables.

(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Touch taste and smell become more problematic: do we know if other species experience them in the same way we do? I think we've just assumed for the most part that they do- about the best we could do would be to communicate with gorillas in sign language and ask them what something feels, tastes, smells like to them, but because they're related to us there's a good chance their experiences may be the same or similar, so that might not be very helpful in this regard.

What does it matter what our experience is?
(trivially it matters to each of us as individuals, but... ?)

Do you accept a distinction between perception and existence?

(01-04-2016 03:27 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  To conclude, I think at best we can say that there are objects that are objectively real, and that those objects contain certifiable objective qualities as they relate to human experience, or if you don't like that wording, our perception of them as human beings is subjective. Thank you for helping me to see my errors, it's been quite helpful.

I see. But then human history is itself an attempt at approaching collective understanding of objective phenomena as divorced from the limited lens of highly contingent subjective experience. Right?

Yes I would agree with you that we've been attempting to do this, although some histories want to tell it how they see it (history is written by the victors and all). I do not think it is attainable, but yes, we should continue to get as close to it as we can.

And yes, I accept that distinction although we often conflate the two and use the terms interchangeably when we're really speaking of our perception of our existence. I did this at the start of the conversation and thanks to the help of Chas/Unbeliever, I've seen my error in doing so.

Our experience is trivial? Our experiences as individuals is trivial? In the grand scheme of things as they relate to the entire universe, yes, but that's incredibly reductionist and nonsensical to me. We are humans, it's true we do not matter to the larger universe, but for goodness' sake, how is that important to our daily lives here on earth?

We can do nothing but put ourselves at the center of our world and universe simply because we are the center of our own world and universe, or rather what I mean to say is that we as individuals and our experiences as they relate to us are our largest points of reference. We can only speak to our own experiences, and cannot speak to the experiences of others with any authority simply because we are not other people, we are not in their shoes, we don't know what they've been through to get to where they're at.

Science provides us with facts and evidence about the world around us, but experience, perception, all of that, brings meaning and understanding to those facts. Without experience we would not be able to form opinions and positions based on those facts, because we cannot be alive without experiencing something! This is so basic, I am not sure how you can ask the question you have seriously. If people are being this rationalist and reductionist and trying to reduce experience and emotions to the point where they don't matter, they are in denial of a basic part of how we as humans and our brains that form our perceptions operate.

Are people trying to be Vulcans or something? We're human! Accept the basic truths of how we perceive our existence and move on already! Sorry, but I find this extreme form of reductionism to be incredibly frustrating ... and there's my emotions coming into play. I made a factual position based on facts and evidence and what happened? My emotions and experiences came into play and my bias affected my interpretation of the evidence to form the position I did. Silly rabbits, extreme rationalism and reductionism are for Vulcans! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 11:53 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes and no.

If we are to treat external observation and scientific conclusions as having any validity whatsoever - and the alternative is vapid solipsism, mind - then no. Every photon in existence possesses a discrete quantifiable energy, corresponding to a wavelength. In bulk these may exhibit a range of values such that they exhibit whatever peak, linewidth, and curve one may imagine.
(except I guess virtual photons in a sense but that's highly abstruse quantum field theory...)

And insofar as the sensation of perceiving colour is a subjective neurological phenomenon, then yes. The three (ish) sets of receptors in the human retina produce signals which are further interpreted that don't directly map to external observables.


What does it matter what our experience is?
(trivially it matters to each of us as individuals, but... ?)

Do you accept a distinction between perception and existence?


I see. But then human history is itself an attempt at approaching collective understanding of objective phenomena as divorced from the limited lens of highly contingent subjective experience. Right?

Yes I would agree with you that we've been attempting to do this, although some histories want to tell it how they see it (history is written by the victors and all). I do not think it is attainable, but yes, we should continue to get as close to it as we can.

And yes, I accept that distinction although we often conflate the two and use the terms interchangeably when we're really speaking of our perception of our existence. I did this at the start of the conversation and thanks to the help of Chas/Unbeliever, I've seen my error in doing so.

Our experience is trivial? Our experiences as individuals is trivial? In the grand scheme of things as they relate to the entire universe, yes, but that's incredibly reductionist and nonsensical to me. We are humans, it's true we do not matter to the larger universe, but for goodness' sake, how is that important to our daily lives here on earth?

We can do nothing but put ourselves at the center of our world and universe simply because we are the center of our own world and universe, or rather what I mean to say is that we as individuals and our experiences as they relate to us are our largest points of reference. We can only speak to our own experiences, and cannot speak to the experiences of others with any authority simply because we are not other people, we are not in their shoes, we don't know what they've been through to get to where they're at.

Science provides us with facts and evidence about the world around us, but experience, perception, all of that, brings meaning and understanding to those facts. Without experience we would not be able to form opinions and positions based on those facts, because we cannot be alive without experiencing something! This is so basic, I am not sure how you can ask the question you have seriously. If people are being this rationalist and reductionist and trying to reduce experience and emotions to the point where they don't matter, they are in denial of a basic part of how we as humans and our brains that form our perceptions operate.

Are people trying to be Vulcans or something? We're human! Accept the basic truths of how we perceive our existence and move on already! Sorry, but I find this extreme form of reductionism to be incredibly frustrating... and there's my emotions coming into play. I made a factual position based on facts and evidence and what happened? My emotions and experiences came into play and my bias affected my interpretation of the evidence to form the position I did. Silly rabbits, extreme rationalism and reductionism are for Vulcans! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 12:11 PM by Nagoda.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 12:06 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 11:53 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  Yes I would agree with you that we've been attempting to do this, although some histories want to tell it how they see it (history is written by the victors and all). I do not think it is attainable, but yes, we should continue to get as close to it as we can.

And yes, I accept that distinction although we often conflate the two and use the terms interchangeably when we're really speaking of our perception of our existence. I did this at the start of the conversation and thanks to the help of Chas/Unbeliever, I've seen my error in doing so.

Our experience is trivial? Our experiences as individuals is trivial? In the grand scheme of things as they relate to the entire universe, yes, but that's incredibly reductionist and nonsensical to me. We are humans, it's true we do not matter to the larger universe, but for goodness' sake, how is that important to our daily lives here on earth?

We can do nothing but put ourselves at the center of our world and universe simply because we are the center of our own world and universe, or rather what I mean to say is that we as individuals and our experiences as they relate to us are our largest points of reference. We can only speak to our own experiences, and cannot speak to the experiences of others with any authority simply because we are not other people, we are not in their shoes, we don't know what they've been through to get to where they're at.

Science provides us with facts and evidence about the world around us, but experience, perception, all of that, brings meaning and understanding to those facts. Without experience we would not be able to form opinions and positions based on those facts, because we cannot be alive without experiencing something! This is so basic, I am not sure how you can ask the question you have seriously. If people are being this rationalist and reductionist and trying to reduce experience and emotions to the point where they don't matter, they are in denial of a basic part of how we as humans and our brains that form our perceptions operate.

Are people trying to be Vulcans or something? We're human! Accept the basic truths of how we perceive our existence and move on already! Sorry, but I find this extreme form of reductionism to be incredibly frustrating... and there's my emotions coming into play. I made a factual position based on facts and evidence and what happened? My emotions and experiences came into play and my bias affected my interpretation of the evidence to form the position I did. Silly rabbits, extreme rationalism and reductionism are for Vulcans! Tongue

And I'm not sure how I did what I just did, but I was trying to edit my original comment Big Grin

Edit: Aha! I hit the reply button instead of the edit button, oops!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 11:10 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  First let's figure out what we mean by "factual positions"- if we are referring to someone stating a fact or facts

We are.

(02-04-2016 11:20 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  I object to your use of the word stupid here- let's be more precise. What you mean to say is that they are ignorant of the evidence being presented. The word stupid has a negative value judgment attached to it, and can be seen as denigrating.

I'm aware. That is the intent.

The vast, vast majority of creationists are not ignorant. Or, rather, they are willfully so. I see no reason to disrespect those who have simply not been educated on the subject, but a hallmark of creationist belief is that they have been - or, at least, many, many people have made the attempt, only to be actively rebuffed. See Call_of_the_Wild's posts on this very forum for an easy example.

I have nothing against ignorance. I detest willful idiocy.

(02-04-2016 11:53 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What does it matter what our experience is?
(trivially it matters to each of us as individuals, but... ?)

Do you accept a distinction between perception and existence?

Our experience is trivial? Our experiences as individuals is trivial? In the grand scheme of things as they relate to the entire universe, yes

As that is explicitly the context in which this statement was meant, everything following this is irrelevant. Once again, you are going off on a tangent to rail against a position that no one in this thread holds or has argued in favor of. This is called strawmanning.

I am sure that this is not intentional, but please, try not to put words in others' mouths. Chas, cjlr, and I all tend towards the extremely blunt and exceptionally literal. We mean exactly what we say, nothing more and nothing less.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
02-04-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
I dont remember anything before my birth.

I simply imagine death is the same.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: