Am I the only one out there getting really tired of the Moslems? Am I the only one getting really fed up with people killing people over fundamentally stupid things (like cartoons)? Am I the only one who grows less and less sympathetic with Moslem causes, because everything they do justifies those against whom they fight?I think not. I think everyone is on my side. I think everyone is being affected very negatively by the fact that people have died because of cartoons, Islamic states are now mounting anti-Holocaust campaigns (were the cartoonists Jewish?), and Muslims are chanting in favor of terrorism.My take is that Islam owes the world an apology. A great big sincere apology. Barring that, there isn’t a government in the world who should cave in to terrorists — or their supporters.
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
Because he asked nicely, and I do not have a problem with mastur_bation, mental or otherwise.
r4d:
You are just 1 of my favorite folks on this blog. For some reason, your response:
Well, I laughed so hard, I got tears running from my eyes.
That just tickled me pink. Dunno know why.
Thanks.
Reluctant Atheist:
You seemed to have an issue with my statement: “Muslims are truly becoming more trouble than they are worth.” I get the impression that you assumed I was suggesting genocide. I feel this impression colored the rest of your response as well.
I was not suggesting genocide. I meant that it was not worth allowing Muslims into our countries. Too many of them are dangerous, and for the safety of western citizens a moratorium should be placed on immigration and tourism from Islamic countries. Apologists will inevitably say that they have the right to travel and emigrate freely. These imagined freedoms pale in comparison to the very real right of CITIZENS to not dread public transportation, public gatherings, etc.
In response to your other sentiments:
“Most religions are anything but peaceful”
I realize this. However, the primary threat we face from Christianity is ignorance and a limitation of our freedoms. These are negative things, to be sure, but Christianity-based murders, while not uncommon, are isolated incidents. There is presently no other organized religion that murders on such a wide scale as Islam.
“& how do you know they don’t?
Maybe you should go visit some Muslim blogs.”
I know there is NOW, some speech against these riotous acts. This is certainly too little & far too late.
“Oy gevalt.”
Though your tone improves by the end of your comment, at this point it is unimpressive.
“So when should they express their ‘feelings’? When it’s agreeable?”
At NO point did I say they should not express their feelings. As long as they are not destroying everything in sight, killing people or unwarrantably calling for mass murder, they can of course express their feelings. However, from a perspective of self-preservation we should not feel obligated to consider Muslim sentiments. We should be weary of Muslims. There is no need to force ourselves to feel comfortable around them or to even accept them. Political correctness is demanding that we ignore a legitimate threat, and that is utterly foolish.
“The fact that none of us really realize that we’re talking about a completely different cultural mindset. Instead, we’re looking at it from our own. This is a common failing, for every culture, not just ours.”
Honestly, fuck culture. This is about survival. If you expect me to disregard my own life and that of my loved ones, so that a bunch of lunatics and fanatics can express their cultural tendencies, many of which involve killing people just like me, possibly eventually even including me, then I must question your sanity. You are allowing apologetics to cloud your judgement.
“Who’s the next scapegoat? ”
Saying that we are scapegoating Muslims, is implying that Muslims and Islam are guiltless. This is not PreHolocaust Germany, and rioting Muslims and terrorist are not European Jews. You want to talk about scapegoats. The current scapegoats are westerners, not Muslims. Muslims see us as the root of all the world’s evils, completely disregarding the fundamental flaws in their religion and culture. I think you should reevaluate how you toss around the word scapegoat.
Again, I am not advocating genocide and I do not feel they have no right to be offended by these cartoons. However, it is ignorant to believe that we must accept the blame for all their misery. We have to look out for ourselves and our western brothers. It is these men (Muslims) that have decided to make life a battle between us and them, and they are fully willing and often eager to inflict the wrath of Allah onto innocent bystanders. Under these Muslim established circumstances, their is no real argument for abiding Muslim apologetics.
jcc
If I remember correctly, you were exploring Christianity and trying to debunk it through reason. I’m talknig about just surrendering yourself to reason without the myth.
Arrghh. From my point of view, you are still operating under your OWN will. You are merely telling yourself that another hand is guiding you. You still make mistakes, don’t you? You still act willfully and narcissistically at times? So HIS will isn’t keeping you from any of that. You just comfort yourself with the idea that when you die, you will be forgiven and get to sit with God.
People screw up. There’s nothing wrong with a sincere apology and an equally sincere effort to not commit the affront again, or to change behavior, or whatever it takes. Life is NOW.
And your god is just one more added to my list of same. So you can see how “nothing ventured, nothing gained” would not indicated a possible loss of some kind to me.
Permalink
Ezzatoa
I am rather ignorant on the Quran. I have read and reread the passages you quoted and I see nothing relevant to the treatment of women or the atrocities committed by muslims.
I do see that both men and women will be rewarded by Allah if they behave properly.
So are you saying that it is culture and tradition that mandates honor killings and the wrapping of women in cloth from head to foot, the segregation of men and women in mosque, schools, even in the home? Is it tradition that calls for amputation of hands for theft? For beheading for non-belief? Tradition calls for the retaliation against images of Muhammed in the newspaper?
You must follow a very moderate form of Islam, and as far as I can tell, are in the minority. When countries based in Islam no longer show such bias towards women, violent measures in activism and outright hatred of those who do not believe in Allah, all the while chanting for their god, I may believe you.
Defiant:
Well, truthfully, you didn’t qualify it.
See, now there’s a qualifiable statement.
Agreed. What exactly do you mean by ‘imagined freedoms’? Where did I say they could ‘travel freely’, exactly?
By & large, agreed.
Yes, there is. Been reading egyptiansandmonkey’s blog. Good stuff. Also noted peaceful rallies in Iraq over the entire affair. Read where clerics waded into the crowd, trying to stem the madness.
Not an advocate of PC, or forcing folks to accede.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Again, not an apologist. Not asking ANYONE to disregard their own safety. Re-read my post.
Okay, I’ll retract the word. Easily.
No, not all Muslims see us as the root of all the world’s evils.
Oh, & here, from answers.com – scapegoat – “Scapegoating is often more devastating when applied to a minority group as they are inherently less able to defend themselves. A tactic often employed is to characterize an entire group of individuals according to the unethical or immoral conduct of a small number of individuals belonging to that group.”
That was the definition I was using.
1st off, I was posting somewhat emotionally. Previously an alleged ‘philosophy’ student advocated turning the desert into glass. I was wrangling w/another atheist, who advocated we should ’stamp them out’. Apparently you got caught in my crossfire, & apologies for that. I was attempting to be a voice of reason amid the outrage.
I have also mentioned, SEVERAL times, that these bloody cartoons had been published prior to the incident. Once in Sept., by the same paper, & once in Oct., during Ramadan no less, in an Egyptian rag. This seemingly was ignored.
I DID say this: “& no, I’m not condoning the behavior. Or capitulation.”
I say there’s more beneath the surface than we know. Turns out, the whole damn thing was stirred up by an imam, who incited a bunch of folks to riot, & it spun out of control.
& again I point to riots in our own country. Watts. L.A. People flipping out over what seems to be 1 isolated event. Is it right to do so? No. Does anyone listen prior to the fact? No. Does our media report objectively, honestly, what’s really going on in our own country? No. Should we just lay down, & become welcome matts? A 1000 no’s to that 1. Am I an apologist? Hell no. Are we to blame for ALL of their ills & woes? No. But there’s always some mitigating factors that folks tend to gloss over. We have some culpability. As do they.
Hey, I’ve said it before: apparently the KSA is exporting Wahabbi extremists to the US. So, yes, let’s restrict emigration from THAT country 1st & foremost. Also, the amount of folks emigrating from KSA to here have DOUBLED since 9/11.
By & large, I’m against ANYONE living in fear, be they muslim, xtian, or atheist.
So, in short:
Write your congressman. Or senator. Or the WH.
& quit calling me an apologist.
Reluctant Atheist:
Some of what I wrote in my last post was not directed at you. My first post was written more emotionally than I would have liked & I used my second post, not only to clarify some of the misconceptions you had with my post, but also to get my point across with a little more reason and a little less emotion.
I’m glad to see that we’re in more of an accord than I originally thought, however you were coming off as an apologist. I’m not telling you this to instigate or insult, I’m just suggesting that you review your words a little more carefully, so that you could get your position across more clearly, much like I did after my first post.
Actually it wasn’t until after reading that post that refered to melting the whole desert w/a nuke, that I realised that you likely thought I was advocating genocide. Believe me, I am not.
In response to your statement that this is all the fault of some rogue imam. He (they) would certainly deserve much of the blame. However, every single person to cooperate with the chaos is to blame.
Defiant Atheist:
Welllll…I guess we could shake hands & make up, or somesuch.
I can only say that I’ve been called a sophist, wormtongue, gollum, sock puppet, & a dumb ass for all my efforts last week, & it’s difficult not to start lashing out somewhat. So apologist just happened to get up me nose a tad.
But tain’t an excuse. So sorry.
I’ve been gleaning a lot of info here:
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/
From a pretty modernistic, sharp muslim fella, who’s apparently very critical of his fellow muslims.
& we all get irrational from time to time.
I was trying to be the opposite, is all.
Because fear makes monkies of us all.
& we’re not. We’re human. & so are they.
As a species, we could all use a bit more listening. You. Me. Just about everyone on this planet, it appears.
& I don’t want to see anyone killed in a pissing match over some stretch of land approx. 100 miles in length, & based on the argument of 1 book vs. another, over who gets the rightful succession.
Which is where it all began to begin with.
Let’s hope this nonsense settles down soon.
But yet another iron in the fire: Condo Rice announced the other day, they’re blaming Syria & Iran for the debacle.
Which lifts my eyebrow a bit.
The blame game, again. Pointing fingers rather than fixing problems. A spectacular convenience, if I do say so meself.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if DC’s fingers were in that pie. Mere speculation only, but wouldn’t surprise me 1 jot.
Mesoforte, I’ve found the article, the one about the doubts concerning the Big Bang Theory.
It’s on page 44 of “Focus” magazine, issue number 158, December 2005, by Robert Matthews.
“Focus” is an English magazine that is available in Australia as well, where I am, but I don’t know if it is sold in the United States (is that where you are?).
Maybe if you check their website, which is http://www.bbcfocusmagazine.com, it might be there as well.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Again, sorry for the late response.
Sorry, but after all I?ve said to amply demonstrate the exact opposite, I?m at a complete loss to understand why you continue to cling to that subjective perception.
How do I word this in such a manner that you?ll finally understand that that is not the case? The reasons for faith have never changed?my pursuit of knowledge led me to reexamine those reasons more seriously than the superficial and cursory way I originally had.
Again, how can I get you to see it from my perspective??it?s not being ?shored-up.? Like you, I see the world through a scientific lens. You know I use?I need science to do my job, but we obviously differ where science hasn?t provided clear-cut answers. You believe one explanation, and I believe another. There?s nothing ?pseudoscientific? to say of something that possesses an obvious appearance of design that it could have been designed.
Because those not cut-and-dried concepts that are beyond doubt. It?s a push-back to finally say, hey, there is scientific evidence for the existence of God and if anything, the attempt to stifle that dissent shows the fear in those opposed to ID?fear that it could be true.
Nothing.
It does, and it has scientific evidence to support it.
No, absolutely NOT. My pursuit of knowledge led me to a personal relationship with the God who created me?not my buying into a rigid ?religious? mindset.
Again, I simply don?t understand why you and karen have convinced yourselves that I?ve somehow ?lobotomized? myself to any further scientific curiosity. That curiosity?that thirst for knowledge, has always been, and will continue to be, a huge characteristic of my being.
Sigh?yourself. Thanks for the Blackmore links. Of all her materialist pap, she summed her own beliefs up quite nicely in a couple of sentences :
Wow. How sad it must be for all of you who buy that. So, the ?self? is a Nietzcheian construction; existence precedes essence?and you cite Blackmore?s ?evidence? for such an assertion. So, what about evidence to the contrary? Amber Ramirez, a 15 year old, underwent a hemispherectomy?the removal of HALF her brain?and has made a remarkable recovery. If you and Blackmore are correct then one would have expected her to have lost HALF of her personality because, after all, personality can only be attributed to physical, neurological pathways in the brain, right? But, even though she wasn?t physically able to speak immediately after her surgery, her personality persisted?in tact. It didn?t need rehabilitation. In your view, personality, will and ambition must be a product of ?application specific circuitry??but the evidence speaks differently. The fact is you simply cannot demonstrate that the mind is the sole manifestation of physical components of the brain. As demonstrated by the ability of a surgeon, while operating on a conscious patient, to cause that patient?s arm to move by stimulating that area of the brain?and hear the patient say, ?I didn?t do that? is enormous evidence for the distinction of mind and brain.
And I?m living proof that the power of doubt cuts both ways.
Yes, let?s keep working on it.
This is EXACTLY what needs to be done if we are ever going to see peace in the ME(read link). After all the real reason the ME is always at war is over livable land. The cartoons were just fuel to the fire.
http://www.orgonelab.org/PressRelease2.htm
And I do believe Wilhem Reich’s reptutation is VERY undeserving! The man was absolutely brilliant!
karen:
I?m at a loss to be able to get you to accept the fact that it was through reason that I came to acknowledge that the conclusions other scientists had drawn were indeed subjective, and not at all fully supported by existing evidences. And I?ve been over this so many times?what you regard as ?myth? is what I regard as valid, substantiated history. Sure, it?s open for debate, but so far, it has yet to be unequivocally refuted.
Key phrase there: your ?point of view.? I have never ventured to make such a presumption about you and your thoughts and you are completely without facility to make such an assertion about me.
Absolutely.
Right, because I continue to possess my own, free will?and of the two wills, I am still at liberty to choose which to obey?at any time.
Pambrus-
Thanks, though it might be hard to get it in Texas.
‘The world is only a construction of an information-processing system, and the self is too’ – Susan Blackmore, & quoted by jcc
Did she really say this? Boy is she misguided! I think that she needs to get out of the lab and experience the real world a bit more, and then she will perhaps realise that we are not automatons that have been programmed by neuro-chemistry or genetics. This is reductionism gone mad.
For once I find myself in total agreement with a theist, which doesn’t happen very often. The current theories that attempt to explain the experience of ‘I’, the reality of self-awareness, are all mired in a 19th century view of the universe as being nothing more than a giant machine that is simply following it’s program; it is deterministic in nature. Of course, this isn’t the reality, it does not take into account conscious volition (also known as free will) and quantum mechanics, to name just two. Judging by her quote, I don’t think that she believes that she actually exists! She is just an illusion. Absolutely hilarious (and sad at the same time).
Pambrus:
Does this mean that you also acknowledge the existence of a soul?
jcc
It is not a perception, it is a definition. Now, definitions are really just uses, so if you are using the word ‘faith’ in a way that contradicts my usage of that word, a usage that I have gleaned from the dictionary as well as my personal study of philosophy and theology, then we need to clear this up before going on. I use the word ‘faith’ to describe an unwavering trust in authority without the need for evidence. It is obvious that you do not agree with this definition. Tell me then, what is your definition of faith, and where are you getting that definition from?
Except that upon closer examination those examples are anything but ‘obvious’ ‘design.’ It’s all a blind series of trial (survival) and error (whoops). Living things only work ‘well enough.’ They are not optimized in such a way that suggests purposeful engineering. Now, if you want to get all theological about it, I guess we could say that something ‘designed’ nature in such way so that natural selection would result in what we see today. But at that point we would no longer be within the realm of science.
Science is ‘materialistic’ because it only deals with the observable world. Any attempt to eliminate ‘materialism’ is an attempt to redefine the scientific paradigm – to merge it with mysticism. The ID people are on record admitting that this is exactly what they aim to do. But it’s actually even worse than that, for the ID movement isn’t interested in changing the scientific paradigm from within through experimentation and peer review. They seek to overthrow it through public relations and political maneuvering. So yes, I would say there is a lot of fear within the larger scientific community right now. And I think it is useful to point out that this larger community includes plenty of theists, even devout christians, who see no need to eliminate the materialism of science in order to believe in a supreme being.
And we are obviously using different definitions of the word ‘religion.’ Actually, I should have known that you might take offense to that. I’m sorry.
And I didn’t mean to suggest that. I do not think you have lobotomized yourself. But we both have our biases, right? And we are both actively searching for truth? If so, if we haven’t yet let our respective biases totally block our minds from certain data, then it is reasonable to suggest the possibility that one of us could eventually change our mind on the God question. After all, there can only be one real answer. I see religious tradition and dogma, or spirituality and theology if you prefer, as an unwavering solidification of bias, and thus a barrier, or at least an obstacle, to the truth. But, once more, if you and I have differing opinions of just what ‘faith’ is, then we need to take a few metaphysical steps back before further debate on this point can continue.
haha, nice!
Okay, first of all, you have to keep in mind that Blackmore is an ex-parapsychologist. She spent several decades searching for genuine, quantifiable evidence for psychic/supernatural phenomena. Eventually she had to admit that there was no such evidence, and thus became a skeptic. Now, there’s still plenty of residue from her new age years in the language she uses, and I admit that I’m often rather uncomfortable with it. But her comparison to buddhist theology is simply a metaphor – an analogy – and should be treated as such. She’s not saying that “reality is an illusion” or that “buddha was right after all.” It’s not literal solipsism, it’s metaphor – it’s poetry. So I don’t think it very fair of you to pick out a buddha reference and use that as a reason to discount all of her years of careful research. I don’t do it when other scientists invoke Christian metaphors, even when I suspect they believe it. (Ken Miller’s a good example of that) If it’s sound science, it’s sound science.
Second of all, I don’t see what’s so sad about the fact that consciousness is a function of the brain. Yeah, ‘existence precedes essence.’ Cause and effect. That is about as reasonable as it gets, and I really can’t fathom how there could be any other conclusion in light of the evidence.
Yes, I remember her. She was on ‘60 Minutes’ about 7 years ago. And yes, it was a remarkable story.
I find that oversimplification ridiculous. No, I wouldn’t expect her to lose ‘half’ her personality just because half of her brain was removed. It can’t possibly be that simple.
The evidence points to a combination of genes and experience. Your genes determine just what sort of brain you’ll get, and your experiences shape how that brain perceives the world.
Um, yes it did. She had a lot more recovering and relearning to do than just the ability to speak. And to say that her personality didn’t change at all suggests that you may not have been paying very close attention. I remember profound changes.
But my question is where is she now? She would be around 21 years old by now. Did she survive? If so, what has her experience taught us about the mind? At the time, I remember there was talk about how her neural centers had to construct new pathways. Pieces of her were scattered throughout her brain, and she was slowly able put some of those pieces back together through tedious physical rehabilitation and mental exercise. No one was sure just how much of her old self could be recovered. I want to know just how far she came, and I can’t seem to find any recent information on her. Have you any recent news on Amber Ramirez?
Well, I never said ?application specific circuitry.? That sounds like either a metaphor or a design inference to me. If it is a metaphor, then it is an incomplete one because living things adapt, circuitry does not. If it is a design inference, ala Behe’s ‘outboard motor,’ then I’m not really sure what problem you have with it.
Sure I can.
The reason this patient knew that ‘he’ didn’t cause his own arm to move is because the movement wasn’t preceded by a thought. He didn’t send the message, the surgeon did. Thought, or consciousness, doesn’t happen in one specific location of the brain. It happens all over the brain in a continuos stream, resulting from millions of simultaneous bioelectrical cycles. And what about stimulating a patient’s brain to make him laugh, cry, relive a past event, or even make him believe he’s seen a ghost, left his body, or talked with God? You seem to be cherry picking the evidence to suit your needs.
Touch?!
Jcc, first of all I would need a proper definition of the word ’soul’. No, I’m not trying to be funny or evasive here, it’s just that the soul is another one of those concepts that seem to defy definition, like ‘truth’ and ‘beauty’. It also has negative connotations, being associated in many peoples’ minds with the New Age movement.
I suppose one definition could be, ‘an immaterial presence and/or force that animates living forms, the distinguishing feature of these forms, and what differentiates them from the inanimate’, but that’s still a bit vague.
Anyway, rainbows4dinosaurs stated that ‘She’s (Susan Blackmore) not saying that “reality is an illusion”‘ in his above post. This may be true, but I do know that there have been others like her (Francis Crick being one example that I can think of right now) who have quite explicitly stated that our minds, through which we perceive this reality, IS an illusion. That is, our sense of self is not real, it is just the by-product of our neuro-chemistry. At the very least this is an unproven assertion, and is, in my opinion anyway, highly unlikely. I know for a fact that I am not an illusion, I am real. Yes, I know that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, that I can’t ‘prove’ my existence, and so on, but perhaps in this instance I don’t need to because it is axiomatic; i.e. it is so blatantly obvious that proof, of any kind, is not necessary.
How about anyone else here? Is there anyone who actually believes that they don’t really exist? Anyone??
Pambrus,
I’m not sure how our sense of self being a by-product of neurochemistry equates our sense of self being an illusion. No, I do not hold to that, at least not in a literal sense. Nor do I think that the subjectivity and limitations of our senses suggest that our reality is an illusion (at least not literally.) Yes, the world would appear very different to us if we all had seven eyes and a built in radio receiver, but reality would still remain reality.
I am not a solipsist, and I do not think Blackmore is either. But it is still necessary to point out the limitations of perception when discussing consciousness, especially when it comes down to its religious implications. People have always seen, heard, and ‘felt’ things that were not really there, and many of these people later became religious leaders.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
We?re using the same definition, but we clearly differ in interpreting it. The key phrase in the definition above is without the need for evidence; I believe that you take that to mean ?under no circumstances can one?s faith require evidence.? But that isn?t implied in the definition, it just says evidence isn?t needed. On the other hand, I assert that the definition states nothing to explicitly preclude the use of evidence. Evidence, as a basis for faith (if you?ll recall my discussion with escher several months ago) is a valid epistemological argument.
That?s not true, ?planned obsolescence? was a cornerstone of American engineering (especially in the auto industry) until Japanese manufacturers made it an unmarketable goal?but the point is, who?s to say that a design that only works ?well enough? is no less of a design than one that is deemed ?excellent?? But speaking to the point of optimization, how can you say that something of the magnitude of the human immune system is not an ?optimized? design, or better yet, how can you say that the structure of the DNA molecule?containing protein information, hasn?t been ?optimized? far beyond the capability of any known intelligence?
I disagree with that assessment to the extent that what you regard as the ?scientific paradigm? is artificially restricted to that materialism by Materialists?and it shouldn?t be. Again, it is not irrational, illogical or unreasonable to suggest that a possible explanation for something could exist simply because there is no conclusive proof for it (after all, if Darwinists can do it, why can?t ID?ers?
).
Regarding my search for truth, I do prefer ?spirituality and theology? to ?religion and dogma? because they are, on many levels, mutually exclusive?for example, I do not subscribe to the Catholic dogma that confession can only be done by mediation of a priest.
It wasn?t so much her reference to Buddah as much as it was her declaration that, ?The world is only a construction of an information-processing system, and the self is too? that I object to. That is neither poetry nor metaphor?it?s an unabashed declaration of what she considers to be fact. It?s not just me and a few other ?religious nuts? who are arguing for dualism. This is a debate that the world?s foremost neural scientists have been engaged in for decades.
Because it reduces your being to that of an automaton that is ultimately incapable of free will.
I don?t understand how you can make that statement knowing that you have kids of your own. My children?s personalities were well established and obvious long before they could talk?literally, even before they were born?that?s a pretty big blow to the ?existence preceding essence? argument.
Exactly?because the best explanation is also the most obvious: there is a distinction between mind and brain.
Yes, she had to relearn practically all motor skills, but the person of Amber Ramirez before the surgery was, without a doubt, still the same person after.
Yes, she?s doing extraordinarily well:
http://lancaster.unl.edu/4h/Clubs/ClubSpotlights/
Nov_Dec2002.htm
I think you missed my point; the patient?s ?self? was aware of his body being moved outside of his ?self?s? will. But even if it was, as you said, because the movement wasn?t preceded by thought?that begs the question: what is the impetus of each thought? It can?t possibly be ultimately reduced to simple cause and effect; how can a purely physical mechanism possibly ponder the metaphysical?
What about that? All those are under the control of either physical memory pathways or other nerve endings that can be externally stimulated?just like an acid trip?and seem real to the mind. I?m not cherry-picking evidence; it?s all pretty consistent to me.
jcc
I find this argument puzzling, for my understanding of the words ‘need’ and ‘require’ is that they are synonymous. But just to make sure, I looked them up. The result was kinda funny:
need – require (something) because it is essential or very important
require – need for a particular purpose; depend on for success or survival
Do you see a difference? I don’t.
And I would say that any belief not based on evidence is utterly worthless.
If you are basing you beliefs solely on the evidence, then it is reason, not faith, that sustains those beliefs.
Well that certainly was an interesting pirouette! I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that one before. God planned useless organs, inverted eyeball construction, aging prostates, wisdom teeth, and the like, so that we would be motivated to trade our substandard bodies for new ones. Interesting apologetics!
Well, shoot, that’s easy. Look how often it fails. And the fact that we have to build up immunities only to see many viruses counter-adapt against it all is a hell of a lot more evidence for the biological fact of evolution than any supernatural cause.
Again, citing DNA only undermines your argument. Our DNA isn’t exactly optimized, or even specifically coded, for human beings. There are pieces of every living organism on Earth within our own DNA – direct evidence of our kinship with the whole of nature. Plus, the majority of these proteins don’t appear to have any specific purpose or relation to our development whatsoever – the so-called junk DNA. And as far as the “capability of any known intelligence,” I suppose you mean us. No, we’re not yet capable of calculating the trillions of minute adaptations necessary to create such a structure brick for brick. So what.
Well if it is not a part of the material world, then we can not test for it. If we can not test for it, then how is it science? It is not “artificially restricted by materialists.” Science is the study of the material world. That’s all there is to it.
Whoa there, Mr. Objective Reality… what the hell kind of an argument is that? Or was it just tongue and cheek, hence the smiley? Plus, that comparison is just totally fallacious – The so called “Darwinist” have the evidence on their side, the IDer’s just have a public relations firm and an army of screaming evangelicals who would dump ID in a second if they thought they could get literal creationism in the schools instead. Fortunately, it appears that the public at large is beginning to see through the farce.
Then point to some credible neural scientists (and when I say credible I mean peer-reviewed, falsifiable research) who have specifically argued for a physical separation of brain and consciousness and I will be very happy to read it.
What!!?? How? It has to be obvious to you that I do not see it that way.
Okay, I know what you’re referring to. Yes, my children have all had their basic personalities, or perhaps more accurately their basic temperaments, since they took their first breaths. But that temperament, that slate if you will, was determined by their genes. The combination of mine and my wife’s DNA is the existence that preceded the essence. You may find that horrifying, or at least less than edifying, in light of your need to believe in an eternal soul. But for me, it’s beautiful.
And I say that is a terrible explanation. Try removing the entire frontal lobe and see what you get.
Except that she lost use of an arm, and if I remember correctly, she suddenly gained an ability to calculate random calendar dates on the fly. But sure, those neurons are still based on the same gene template, and they now say that memories are stored in many parts of the brain at once, so I guess from a certain perspective you’re right. And you have prompted me to look into the hemispherectomy procedure and its implications in the philosophy of the mind, so thanks. Still, as far as I’m concerned at this point, all this really tells us is that we can survive, and think, with only half a brain. That doesn’t mean that the brain is not the engine of consciousness.
Hey, thanks. Oh wait – That was only three years after surgery. No matter though. Apparently this procedure is becoming more commonplace, or at least as common as you would expect from a rare condition, so there’s a lot of data out there anyway.
Have you ever tried to pinpoint a thought? I’m sure you have – we all have. It is impossible, because as soon as you try to become ‘aware’ of what you are thinking you realize that you are no longer thinking it – you’re thinking about thinking it. So then you start wondering where the original thought went, and before you know it your mind has gone off in a completely different direction. That is cause and effect, and it is the essence of consciousness. One thought leading to another and then another and then another endlessly and continuously. But only provided that you are ‘conscious,’ that is, not during non-REM sleep, under anesthesia, or dead. I rest my case.
So what are you saying, heaven is an acid trip induced by God? Well now I’m sure I don’t want to go there.
r4d, jcc
I’m really mesmerized by your discussion.
R4d, you come up with the bestes, most awesomest responses. If I had half my brain removed, do ya think I could think like you?
jcc
Whatever gave you the impression that your children had personalities BEFORE they were born? Or are you referring to the distinction r4d made about their genetic coding?
Karen,
Thanks, though I have this nagging tendency to never be completely satisfied with anything I write (or draw, or code, or record) – Mr. over critical here.
I think jcc might be referring to the later months of pregnancy when the baby is kicking, and that something about their personality can be gleaned from just how or how often they kick. That’s just a guess, but I really can’t think of anything else. So I asked my wife about that, and she said that she doesn’t remember any real difference in that aspect of any of her three pregnancies. So really, I don’t know.
As far as I’m concerned, if there is no input there is nothing to think about.
Actually, I’ve decided to amend my response to the following:
If you mean to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then I wholeheartedly agree. But what we are really talking about, in the context of this debate, is the difference between mountains of mutually supportive evidence and a collection of straw men and paper dragons. That is the fundamental difference between evolution and creationism, and I suspect the difference between neuroscience and literal dualism as well.
But no, I cannot ‘prove’ that God doesn’t exists anymore more than you can ‘prove’ he does.
Who knows, perhaps the next move for the creationist wedge movement will be to rename the effort something like ‘theoretical supernaturalism’ and have it taught as an alternative ‘philosophy of science.’ Uh oh, I better get that trademarked before Philip Johnson gets wind of it.
Interesting debate.
First I have to say I?m not an english spoken person, sorry for my english.
Jcc, I understand you are saying soul is the source of consciense, personality, what make us humans beings, etc. I have this questions:
1) If someone could change our brain for a PCU, a hard drive, and still be able to continue living with this computer taking charge for all vital signs and orders gived to the body to fully function. Are we still hold our conscience and personality?, I mean, I deduce for what have you been saying, brain is only responsible for body performance.
2) You said free will is possible because we have soul, animals have free will too, animals have souls?.
3) Is there a scientific proof of soul existense outside a human body?, because your religion believes in that doesn?t it?, do you believe in ghosts?.
I?ll estimates your responses
Xytras,
Welcome to the blog. This thread is dying (or already dead). Might as well wait for the next big one, if you want to chat with the theists.
Muslims Kill… Again
Ann Coulter’s solution: Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.
rainbows4dinosaurs, karen & Xytras:
If you?ll bear with me, I haven?t given up?I just haven?t had time to respond. Hopefully this evening I can get a break. After all, you didn?t think I’d let you have the last word did you?
I was just banned from Beliefnet for publishing links to the accounts of Muhammad’s ordered assassinations of the 3 poets; putting Muhammad in his proper role in history next to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao; and linking to Faithfreedom.org.
When the Moslems shut down their offices shouting “there is no god but Allah”, perhaps they’ll wish they’d listened to me.
Thanks Deadly for the welcome.
Lets wait patiently for jcc
Dave, I beg of you to make a really hot new thread! For the sake of ezzatoa and Xytras!
Trudeau, the doonesbury cartoonist, made these comments about the muslim cartoons:
What do you think of the State Department’s statement, essentially condemning the publication of the cartoons in European newspapers?
A concession to reality. It’s the State Department. What is the U.S. supposed to say — that it approves of cartoons that set off demonstrations around the world? Just how much more hated in the Muslim world do we need to be?
Why has the U.S. news media (broadcast and print), almost universally refused to publish the cartoons?
I assume because they believe, correctly, it is unnecessarily inflammatory. It’s legal to run them, but is it wise? The Danish editor who started all this actually recruited cartoonists to draw offensive cartoons (some of those he invited declined). And why did he do it? To demonstrate that in a Western liberal society he could. Well, we already knew that. Some victory for freedom of expression. An editor who deliberately sets out to provoke or hurt people because he’s worried about “self-censorship” is not an editor I’d care to work for.
jcc,
Whether you or I end up having the last word on this particular thread is absolutely meaningless and inconsequential. The ideas themselves will succeed or fail on their own merits, no matter what.
Try and digest these verses from the Koran-
Kill the kafirs (non Muslims)wherever you find them
Only Muslims are eligible to go to Heaven
Kafirs in a Muslim state must be completely under the command of Islam
It is the sacred duty of every Muslim to continue with Jihad till Dar-ul-Islam(The Islamic world)completely subjugates Dar-ul-Harb(the non-Muslim world)
When such is the mentality promoted by the faith iself how can we expect its followers to behave in a civilised manner?
Look Of Love Pony Express Hair
His original designs, such as the Pony Express and100% Human Hair Braids & Switches Butterfly Surprises Fabulous Falls…
I know it’s a dead thread, but…
Turbomb
They published a prophet in Denmark,
Whose image, it seems, can make men dark.
His head was a bomb,
So with great aplomb,
On Holy Jihad they did em-bark.
fabric for window blinds
fabric for window blinds
Islam preaches that all non-Muslims should be asked to convert to Islam or be killed. The goal of Islam is a world that is 100% Muslim. It teaches the destruction of God’s choosen people and all who help them. It is us or them folks. The sooner we rid the world of ALL Muslims, the closer we will be to world peace.
Yes, we need to kill all Muslims.
When I came to the US in 1960 I was called a “nigger lover” because I disagreed with the segregation policies in the US. After about 20 years here, I am no longer a