jakee
-
Content
24,932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by jakee
-
Duh. How do you know that? It comes from the brain and nerve stimuli to it. Change the stimuli, change the conscious experience. Change the brain, change the nature of the consciousness itself. We know this, we can experiment on it, we can even find where certain aspects of consciousness are housed within the physical brain, and we can even create repeatable effects on minds with repeatable actions on brains. Just because we don't know everything about it yet doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm pretty sure you're interpreting it in a different way. Anyway, provable isn't the same thing as proven. The idea that the mind is entirely a product of the physical brain is surely provable. So what's the problem? Where's the inconsistency? That was a mistake.
-
Right, a source who is a friend of Maxwell. A source who claims that Maxwell is an innocent victim, despite the fact that we can be about 99.99% sure she's actually a despicable human trafficker and supplier of children to one of the most prolific paedophiles known. So when that same source talks about safehouses, special forces protection and credible threats, why do you think we must believe her? If you realise I know it already then you know you're not doing the work for me. Again, why do you pretend to be this stupid? What do you have to gain from it?
-
That's not a problem.
-
Then as far as I'm concerned not only are you not really talking about morality, you're not really talking about atheism either. You're defining your own artificially restrictive worldview in order to create the inconsistency you're then moaning about. Again, nah. Doesn't fly. And even then, I'll say again that all you have is a god of the gaps rehash. You don't know exactly how the brain creates consciousness, so you assume it can't and therefore the spiritual realm is required. No. Sorry. Didn't work for lightning, doesn't work for this. It's an old argument, it's been dealt with many times.
-
Which is an inconsistency in their worldview. And an inconsistency from you if you don't think it should be challenged. You really need to state your full point if you want to continue this discussion. Why don't you think the belief system isn't that well thought out? At present, as far as I can tell, you're arguing that if I don't believe god exists I'm not allowed to believe I exist. And, well, nah. Doesn't fly. All you're doing is restating a basic 'God of the Gaps' argument. Sorry. No, you've confused it more than grounded it. Seriously.
-
Well I did try, but you once again refuse to engage on a topic you supposedly wanted to talk about because you know that giving an honest answer will mean needing to back down. Which you will never do. But OK, I'll ask you about the subject matter again. In the article, who says there's a credible threat?
-
How do you know that? So again - A) Followers of the biggest religions in the world have the same problem, except more explicitly. If there is an omnipotent god and god has a will, we're all just meat puppets. There's no morality in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. B) So what? If we're all acting out a predisposed path then morality is irrelevant, but the fact that we still think we have it and can act in a moral way is also predisposed, so what's the point in discussing it? Actually, at this point I think you're shifting to the argument that being a conscious human in its entirety is incompatible with atheism, so tbh I think you've wasted a lot of our time by starting the conversation with the misleading and limiting reference to morality. Why didn't we just start here?
-
That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the rest of your post.
-
I don't know. But so what? I know it does. You can put chemicals in my brain and my consciousness will change, you can hit my brain and my consciousness will change, you can remove pieces of my brain and my consciousness will change. Consciousness = brain. QED. So, I honestly don't know what you're getting at here. And I don't really know what your hole thread is getting at. You're saying there's nothing in atheism to facilitate a moral outlook. So again, I'm telling you I'm both an atheist and moral. Which one do you think I'm lying about?
-
What does that have to do with the subject? it's an utter non-sequitur. What?
-
With this particular definition of spirituality it seems to me to be synonymous with consciousness. So sure, I am conscious therefore I am spiritual therefore I can be moral. Job done. It comes from consciousness, therefore it comes from my brain. If you take my brain away then yes, my own spiritual reality would cease to exist. It's axiomatic. Ask Descartes.
-
Well there you go then. I'm an atheist and my theory of the world doesn't exclude consciousness or morals. Inconsistency resolved. Simples.
-
What do you mean by “belief systems” in that context?
-
I’ve asked you this before but I’m still curious - what is it that you think you gain by pretending to be that stupid? It’s just weird. But ok, let’s take your feigned cluelessness at face value and assume you are incapable of reading the article and seeing where the claim comes from. Let’s just go with “the media” said it. Why did you take exception to a post saying there’s a possibility that something in the media might not be entirely true? Given your posting history don’t you think that’s a teeny bit hypocritical?
-
Why? Do you feel you need that protection?
-
Right. For instance I am self aware. I can think and feel, and I know other do the same. Does that count as being outside purely physical reality and therefore “spiritual”? If it does, great - the OP must accept that atheists can be spiritual and therefore moral without needing to believe in any woo-woo. If that doesn’t count as being spiritual, he must explain why anything more is required to enable morality.
-
What does that have to do with abandoning intellectual reasoning to gain salvation through surrender to (no) God? No matter how dedicated the atheist you come across, can the above sentence ever make sense?
-
Incorrect. While we don’t really know how consciousness works we certainly have the appearance of free will, so might as well assume it exists. Pre determinism is actually a much bigger philosophical problem for religious people who believe in an omnipotent god. How can a fundamentalist Christian be moral if he believes he is simply acting out God’s plan? That aside, your fundamental question about atheist can be answered very easily by looking at reality. We know that morality doesn’t come from religion, because our current moral thought doesn’t match the written teachings of any religion. Morality must be a living societal construct because there’s no other basis to be found for its current form. There is then absolutely no reason I can think of to claim that atheists are less able to engage with it than anyone else.
-
Lol what?
-
All those hits are, like your OP, based on the same Daily Mail article. In that article, who says the threats are credible? Come on man, this isn't hard. I've given you the answer already in this thread.
-
But they would correctly be saying it about someone else's beliefs, not describing their own.
-
Ok then, let's play " Does Turtle know how to read?" Who says the death threats are credible?
-
At this point, why are you even bothering to type anything if all of it is going to be pointless nonsense?
-
Yes, that’s the question. Simply restating it isn’t an answer.
-
Don’t lie. This is clearly a continuation of your belief that Epstein was silenced by a high level political conspiracy. Epstein and Maxwell are connected, hence your positions are connected. And again, what am I assuming? How is “not necessarily” an assumption in your world?
