LIKE MY VIDEOS? See my other videos as “The Distressed Watcher” at TGWTG: tinyurl.com FORUMS: www.terroja.com FACEBOOK GROUP tinyurl.com TWITTER: twitter.com MYSPACE: www.myspace.com MY BOOK: www.lulu.com
Tags: Atheism · Skepticism25 Comments
Domains for Sale -
Thanks for checking out our site
June 26th, 2010 by
-
Condo for Rent (Click for Info)
Poipu Beach, Kauai - Hawaii
Blogroll
Don’t you dare say Johnny Hip’nCool’s name in vain!
(Just kidding, if you don’t understand me.)
If you’re looking for truth, the first requirement: read Quantum Psychology.
youtube.com/watch?v=wVC0FcSRxL8
Skepticism is all about overcoming our own prejudices and assumptions that distort our interpretation of empirical evidence. This includes our psychological factors, language, belief systems, etc.
You might also be interested in Pyrrho the “first skeptic” or how Zen Buddhism/Nondualism is actually radically skeptical.
Nietzsche, Husserl, Kant, etc might call vanilla atheism naive.
If there is not any ‘God’ , then there is neither any ‘God’ IN whom anyone does believe – nor is there any ‘God’ in whom anyone does not believe.
@FractalHelix777 Over exposure to reality is a terrible thing and for the comudgeons. Like this guy for example! ZING!
Well here’s my problem TJ. I solidified my atheistic stance after my father died, which probably was an emotional reaction. However, ever since that solidification, I’ve studied the Bible, and approached it with an open mind. Take for example Mathew 5: 17-18. I always thought that meant that Christians HAD to follow the Old Testament, but I figured out that most take a “pick-and-choose” stance on following the Old Testament, which is what the New Testaments about. PIcking and choosing. LOL.
God = Primitive Superstition. Which God? = All of them. In Fact The Only Real god Is Me. KnobiLingus = The God of DoggyStyle
Do Christians wear socks? if not…. tell me if you get a blister. if you do… sorry to say god is not real!
one of my favorites
lol I’m glad there is no Judeo Christian God wow epic man good job.
@FractalHelix777 Reality = comfort.
I am going through some very intense, deeply tragic and very difficult times right now. I would love to believe in an all-loving or all-powerful creator and have the hope of heaven but I prefer reality over dishonest comfort.
I like it when you smile.
@sillygames
Oh, did I mention that the hard problem has nothing directly to do with the spiritual concept of “soul” (and you would know if you had a clue, you know)? or did YT swallow it? whatever i guess, you don’t listen anyway…
@sillygames
So the hard problem is an emergent property? You still have no clue how to talk, do you?
No, saying that it “somehow emerged from the brain functions” is not the definition of a scientific answer.
And you’re not gonna win an argument by repeatedly ignoring, missing and misrepreseenting your oponent’s questions and points, and then waving off with a “nai, whatever”… just for the future.
@sillygames And no, the assertion of a soul has nothing to do with it, either – which you would know… if you had a clue.
It’s the equivalent of saying “God did it” because we have no theory on everything, or a definite answer on abiogenesis.
“The “problem” doesn’t even exist, because neuro explains consciousness.”
If you knew the definition of the hard problem, you certainly wouldn’t have written that… google and find out why
@sillygames And no, the assertion of a soul has nothing to do with it, either – which you would know… if you had a clue.
It’s the equivalent of saying “God did it” because we have no theory on everything, or a definite answer on abiogenesis.
“The “problem” doesn’t even exist, because neuro explains consciousness.”
If you knew the definition of the hard problem, you certainly wouldn’t have written that… google and find out why
@twooffour I do know “what it’s about” and it’s an emergent property.
You’re going to be stuck on this no matter what, so have fun with that. Spam away; I’m done with you and won’t be replying any further.
@sillygames
… processes directly cause phenomenal experience? ‘Cause last time I checked, it hasn’t yet.
Just saying “uh, it’s the brain, and, it makes consciousness, and it’s all based on particles anyway” is a premise at best, and certainly doesn’t come close to an actual scientific explanation, especially as science doesn’t have any in this regard in the first place.
If it had, the hard problem might STILL be there. And if you knew what it’s about, your responses would be different
@sillygames
So for the 6th time or so, you’ve again proven you have no clue what we’re talking about.
I’m not sure what exactly you’ve been studying for years, but basic conversation and comprehension skills (you know, actually getting the premise before starting with the debate) never hurt anyone.
I dunno, do you have some insider knowledge from your study that is omitted from the public? Has science actually found where consciousness lies and how the corresponding physical…
@twooffour … actually is about.
*to make it fit*
@twooffour Consciousness arises from brain function, just like life arises from chemistry. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The “problem” doesn’t even exist, because neuro explains consciousness. People like you just want to think there’s a problem, and I’m not even sure why — unless it’s because you want to believe that you have some kind of “soul” that is separate from your brain.
@sillygames
Yes, I got it the first time, thanks.
You’d still need to explain how this philosophical issue in any way contradicts “known science” (you know… like ID does…)… because it doesn’t meddle with it in the first place.
I still have the impression that you just joined in the discussion about some sort of weird, alleged “problem” some philosopher whackos propose in order to debate neuroscientific research to fit into their mindset, without having any trace of a clue what it…
@twooffour I didn’t compare it to ID; I compared the declaration of the “problem” to the “controversy” of evolution. It’s the same kind of thinking regardless of whether it’s based on religion. The “controversy” results from not accepting known science, and so does the “problem.” It’s a simple analogy, but you seem to be so one-dimensional that an analogy flies completely over your head.
@twooffour Try a simple google search.
@sillygames
I’m curious, though, which “refutations” are you referring to? None you presented were even aimed at the subject at hand, so I still can’t tell if you got any clue whatsoever…