Hey, Atheists...

[RamiC]

Whose purpose?

Is survival a purpose...that is my question.....in ToE, is increased chances of survival the reason life forms evovle?

 

[Bradskii]

I don't need to as you have supported my point and thats all that matters. So agreeing that secularists can have metaphysical beliefs besides religion supports my point that humans even atheists naturally create different kinds of metaphysical ideas to account for morality and reality.

So the material atheist claims about morality and beliefs is but a metaphysical belief itself.

It's not a metaphysical belief. Perform a moral act and I will agree with it. Or not. It isn't anymore complicated than that.

Otherwise if its just what the brain does mechanically then we should be able to one day create consciousness mechanically.

Yes.

This has not be verified and in fact evidence shows that consciousness can go on with a dead brain...

I can verify it. I'll cut off your head. You are arguing nonsensically now. If you want to say that somewhere there is something that somehow connects to the brain but which isn't of the brain then show me. To save you wasting your time any talk about NDEs will be completely ignored.

Your missing the logic. The idea of relative morality applying to groups (cultures) and subjective morality applying to individuals is that it logically makes morality non objective outside the individual or culture.

How you got to your conclusion is somewhat garbled. But at least the conclusion is correct.

I don't need to give examples because its a matter of logic and reasoning.

Yes. You do. If it exists then giving an example is trivially easy.

Exactly. So don't use neurons, dendrites, genetics, biology, evolution to explain consciousness and morality as they cannot be reduced to such material processes.

Yes, they can. Everything that the brain does is a material process. It's the experience of consciousness is the hard problem.

Yes I do. But do you really know why this is a problem when it comes to morality. There is none. And yet we live like moral truths are as everybit a law as physics.

No we don't. Well, you might If you think it's objective. Again, an example is required.

Why is that when we cannot reduce this to the physics. Some non physical law that dictates reality.

In your reality headless people can be conscious. It's not mine.

 

[Bradskii]

Is survival a purpose...that is my question.....in ToE, is increased chances of survival the reason life forms evovle?

It's the reason as in the explanation. Not as in the purpose.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok secularism. But isn't there some beliefs within secularism that are not religious in the traditional sense. My point was that people can have other metaphysical beliefs besides religious ones about God as the basis for they morality.

No. Not "secularism", secular morality. When you conflate things it really makes it hard to communicate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The idea comes from quantum mechanics itself. The psychicist who dicovered QM Max Planck says the same think.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” – Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.

Random quotes from old scientists won't support your idea for a "fundamental consciousness". Actual evidence is required for not only phenomena, but mechanisms.

(And Planck didn't "originate quantum theory" on his own. You have to include Bohr, de Broiglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Jordan, Dirac, Einstein and many others.)

 

[stevil]

Citation needed.

You need a citation for my opinion. My post is the citation of my own opinion.

How does the fact that these things can be imagined mean they are not real?

The burdon of proof is on the person making the claim, they need to convince others that their claim is real.

Who is the "we"?

The people that are listening to the person making the claim.

Increased chances of survival = purpose?

No, not really.

 

[Hans Blaster]

By the beginning of the twentieth century, biologists were actively avoiding any sort of purpose-oriented language, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis
So scientists were already naturally referring to purpose and design in eviolution. They has to come up with some way of minimizing this through teleonomy. But this is still teleological in nature as it just pushes back the teleology to a program of design and purpose. How did the problem come about with some purpose.

We went over this guy a while back and his "institute" before. He is a DI fellow writing in a DI journal. He's not even a scientist, but a software engineer.

 

[stevil]

It does matter who is saying it as to whether its nonsense or not.

Did Plank write a peer reviewed scientific paper about consciousness being the precursor to reality?
Scientists are people. People have opinions, just because someone did some great work it doesn't mean all their opinions are great works.

Its not about the different ideas people use as metaphysical beliefs. Butthe fact that coming up with these ideas, looking for them and making them real is a natural human tendency.

OK, so have we made vampires and werewolves real? What zoo can I find them in?

Thats the point, that is the evdience for belief that as humans we have a a natural inclination to believe.

Are we talking about beliefs now?

From this we can either say its all illusion of there is some truth that the tendency to believe maybe based on the reality that there is something beyond what we see. But both options are open.

I am open to new evidence of things coming in, but until then, I'm not going to put much stock into this.

In fact I would say the weight is towards there being something beyond.

I'm the opposite of this. There is no evidence of all these supernatural or immaterial claims therefore they are either best ignored or simply to be enjoyed in fiction books or movies as a bit of escapism fun.

What do you mean. Dawkins famously states that evolution has the appearence of design.

Do you understand the difference between "the appearance of design" vs "the evidence shows that there is clearly design going on here"?
It is weird that you have brought this up. I would have thought that you are smart enough to know this doesn't support your point at all.

So scientists were already naturally referring to purpose and design in eviolution.

No they aren't.

They has to come up with some way of minimizing this through teleonomy.

No they don't.

Theres no way to direcly prove God.

Yes, when it comes to threads or discussions about proof for god(s), this is all that needs to be said.
And this is why I am an ignostic atheist. The claim is insufficiently formulated as it doesn't allow for verification or falsification. It is vague and incomplete.

That is the idea I think, faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

This is an excuse, used to try and implore people to look beyond the fact that the claim is incomplete and that there is no evidence in support of the claim. Don't be a doubting Thomas, just believe. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease, just believeeeeeeeeeeee.

But the mere possibility (that springs from a materialist view of reality and not a thiestic one). Means that the possibility cannot be counted out and therefore any claim about objective reality being the only reality is undermined.

The burdon of proof is on those making the claim. Show some credible evidence. What is god made of? Is anything else made of that same stuff? Can we detect that stuff? How did god(s) evolve from that stuff?

But I think theres a stronger case for something beyond because if you add up all the theistic beliefs for which there are many and the majority of the world believes. Even non theists believing in some sort of soul.

Huh, this is evidence of something?

As well as all the non theistic metaphysical beliefs like the 'Simulation theory', the many theories that stem from QM such as Multiverse and Hologram principle, String theory, Wheelers Participatory universe, Quantum Bayesianism, Panphysicism ect which all posit some intelligent Mind fundementally.

Oh boy...

The evidence seems to point more in the direction of something beyond, some sort of mind or intelligence beyond what we see.

What evidence?

So are you saying because they are untestable they are all fantasy. It doesn't follow.

Fantasy unless some evidence comes to light to show there is something there.

We can't test for love but does that make it a fantasy.

Love is a concept.
Love can be tested somewhat.
Lots of youtube clips of people's love being put to the test.

You seem to think the only way we can know reality is by physically testing it.
But that can only account for one aspect of reality which is the physical aspects. What about all the rest.

What rest?

Lets say God is real.

OK, let's just have faith.

According to your logic there is no God and yet God is real. How do you get around your worldview counting out what may be real automatically because it doesn't fit to a limited way of measuring reality. Your more or less saying GOd is unreal not because He is truely unreal as in verified as unreal. But is unreal because of a biased way to see the world that counts out everything except what we can see and test.

OK, let's just say that someone claims that the Dodo bird exists today.
I tell them that I won't believe it until they show some credible evidence.
I go through life happily thinking the Dodo doesn't exist anymore. But then one day they come to me with the evidence.
I see the evidence and now I accept that the Dodo bird exists. I go through the rest of my days happily thinking the Dodo does exist.

So, well, I'm happy to think gods don't exist, and if you bring me credible evidence of the existence of gods then I will change to the position of happily thinking gods do exist.

Ok but when I say the evidence is all around us I am saying the work was already done in looking for the evidence and accummulating it.

Please provide specific and credible evidence. It is incredibly lazy to say the evidence is all around us and just leave it at that.

The materialist worldview will dismiss all this but those supporting an immaterial fundemental reality like Mind or consciousness beyond brain see it as evidence. In that sense the evdience is all around us but materialist cannot see it dioes to a bias that makes that evidence fantasy.

Show me credible evidence of something immaterial (not just a concept) and I will then no longer be a materlialist. I am open to changing my mind based on evidence. Just not on faith, or emotional appeal or appeal to belief of others.

 

[BCP1928]

Is survival a purpose...that is my question.....in ToE, is increased chances of survival the reason life forms evovle?

Purpose requires intention. Adaptation leading to survival and to evolution is a causal chain--a process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But I think theres a stronger case for something beyond because if you add up all the theistic beliefs for which there are many and the majority of the world believes. Even non theists believing in some sort of soul.

Beliefs don't add together, nor is overall popularity of an idea evidence for its correctness.

As well as all the non theistic metaphysical beliefs like the 'Simulation theory', the many theories that stem from QM such as Multiverse and Hologram principle, String theory, Wheelers Participatory universe, Quantum Bayesianism, Panphysicism ect which all posit some intelligent Mind fundementally.

Show us where string theory posits mind fundamentally.

 

[stevevw]

It's not a metaphysical belief. Perform a moral act and I will agree with it. Or not. It isn't anymore complicated than that.

I talking about why you believe morality is subjective and theres nothing beyond the objective world. Thats the metaphysical belief.

Yes.

Thats the metaphysical belief I am talking about. You believe that physical reality is all there is.

I can verify it. I'll cut off your head. You are arguing nonsensically now. If you want to say that somewhere there is something that somehow connects to the brain but which isn't of the brain then show me. To save you wasting your time any talk about NDEs will be completely ignored.

This is a false comparison. You also cannot do anything with your head cut off and we can never know. But a person who is brain dead and comes back to life can tell us about the experience. Why are you banning evidence for consciousness beyond brain. NDE and OBE are the best evidence for this.

Yes. You do. If it exists then giving an example is trivially easy.

I said I don't need to prove that you claim that objective morality doesn't exist because I am using your own arguements. I said if your logic is true and theres no objective morality then what you are talking about as morality is not morality because morality demands an objective.

I don't need any examples as the logic defeats your arguement. As soon as you try to apply your morality outside yourself it can be defeated as 'just your opinion'. Your moirality has no normative weight. Its like demanding people to like the same things you like.

Yes, they can. Everything that the brain does is a material process. It's the experience of consciousness is the hard problem.

That is faulty logic. Its like saying everything a radio does is a physical process so radio waves are the physical processes of the radio. It doesn't follow. So you can't use physical brain processes to explain consciousness. This only explains the behaviour of the brain during a conscious experience. Or that the experience of a violin concerto is the violin itself and the sound vibrations from the rubbing of a bow against cat gut.

No we don't. Well, you might If you think it's objective. Again, an example is required.

As I mentioned true belief is not in what people say but how they act. People can say morality is subjective but act like morality is objective and thus contradict their own morality.

For example under subjective morality some may say that stealing is ok if people are in such need to steal. Heck some States allowed shop lifting up to $1,000 by making it a minor offense that people knew they could get a slap on the wrist for.

But the moment a subjectivist who supports such an idea has something stolen they demand justice and their stuff back.

In your reality headless people can be conscious. It's not mine.

We are talking about lived morality. We live as though morality is objective. Like the morals are laws unto themselves like physical laws. If there is no objective morality then there is no morality at all.

 

[BCP1928]

That is faulty logic. Its like saying everything a radio does is a physical process so radio waves are the physical processes of the radio. It doesn't follow. So you can't use physical brain processes to explain consciousness. This only explains the behaviour of the brain during a conscious experience. Or that the experience of a violin concerto is the violin itself and the sound vibrations from the rubbing of a bow against cat gut.

Everything a radio transmitter does is physical. A radio transmitter produces radio waves which are physical entities. A radio receiver receives the radio waves and processes them into audio waves which are also physical entities.

 

[stevevw]

No. Not "secularism", secular morality. When you conflate things it really makes it hard to communicate.

But your wanting me to use your definition which is not necessarily correct. Under secularism people can believe in non religious metaphysics and ideology such as paganism or Woke as their basis for morality. So secular is not a good way to describe subjective morality.

Its more about a material verses immaterial worldview. The material will restrict everything to the objective world. Whereas an immaterialist will be open to a immaterial basis for morality be it something non religious like consciousness. Secularists believe in consciousness beyond brain and from this they can expand morality to some objective conscious law like physical laws.

 

[BCP1928]

But your wanting me to use your definition which is not necessarily correct. Under secularism people can believe in non religious metaphysics and ideology such as paganism or Woke as their basis for morality. So secular is not a good way to describe subjective morality.

Its more about a material verses immaterial worldview. The material will restrict everything to the objective world. Whereas an immaterialist will be open to a immaterial basis for morality be it something non religious like consciousness. Secularists believe in consciousness beyond brain and from this they can expand morality to some objective conscious law like physical laws.

If you mean by "secularist" a person who does not believe in God and/or some transcendant reality, I think that you will find that they are generally not substance dualists. Nor even are all theists.

 

[stevevw]

Beliefs don't add together, nor is overall popularity of an idea evidence for its correctness.

Beliefs do add together is they all allow metaphysically something beyond the material world and it doesn't have to be a religious belief.

I think its contradictory that a moral subjectivist claims popularity is not evidence for correctness when this is one of the basis for subjective morality. That agreed subjective morality adds weight to a moral ie the majority agree and anyone who disagrees is rejected from the group.

Show us where string theory posits mind fundamentally.

I never said mind but rather posits other dimensions beyond our own reality. Multiverse theory which stems from String theory claims there are other universes where the physics may be completely different. Where another you or me is living different lives.

Maybe some version has us more like zombies or our animal instincts are more rudimentary where what we think as immoral is just a normal way of being. Maybe another world where consciousness is more available and we have a completely different worldview.

 

[Bradskii]

I talking about why you believe morality is subjective...

Because it's my opinion on what constitutes a moral act. You can give me an objective moral position if you could (3). The number represents the number of times I have asked for this.

Thats the metaphysical belief I am talking about. You believe that physical reality is all there is.

Which would include concepts such as value, love, height etc. Yes.

This is a false comparison. You also cannot do anything with your head cut off...

That's right. QED

and we can never know.

I've seen headless bodies. There's definitely no consciousness there.

But a person who is brain dead...

Paaarp. Not interested.

I said I don't need to prove that you claim that objective morality doesn't exist because I am using your own arguements. I said if your logic is true and theres no objective morality then what you are talking about as morality is not morality because morality demands an objective.

You don't need to prove it. Just give me an example of a moral act that you have performed that is objectively true (4).

As soon as you try to apply your morality outside yourself it can be defeated as 'just your opinion'.

It will certainly be my opinion. But if you think you have a better one (that's objective) then you can argue against mine. Can you give me one (5)? The one with the best argument wins. Or we agree to disagree.

That is faulty logic. Its like saying everything a radio does is a physical process...

It is.

...so radio waves are the physical processes of the radio.

They are.

It doesn't follow.

It does.

So you can't use physical brain processes to explain consciousness.

I did.

This only explains the behaviour of the brain during a conscious experience.

That's right.

Or that the experience of a violin concerto is the violin itself and the sound vibrations from the rubbing of a bow against cat gut.

Quite right. How you interpret that sound is a personal matter.

As I mentioned true belief is not in what people say but how they act. People can say morality is subjective but act like morality is objective and thus contradict their own morality.

You'll have to give me an example of what you mean (6).

For example under subjective morality some may say that stealing is ok if people are in such need to steal. But the moment a subjectivist who supports such an idea has something stolen they demand justice and their stuff back.

If I thought that someone really needed something of mine to survive, then I'd probably give it to him. I certainly wouldn't ask for it back. Your mileage may vary.

We are talking about lived morality. We live as though morality is objective.

Let's examine this. Maybe with an example (7)?

Like the morals are laws unto themselves like physical laws. If there is no objective morality then there is no morality at all.

Perhaps you can give me an example of what you mean (8).

 

[stevevw]

If you mean by "secularist" a person who does not believe in God and/or some transcendant reality, I think that you will find that they are generally not substance dualists. Nor even are all theists.

Studies have been done where the majority of people believe we have a soul and even some atheists supported this. I would say many secularists believe in a soul.

Most atheists believe in the supernatural, despite trusting science
Research on atheists and agnostics around the world has revealed that almost nobody can claim to completely reject irrational beliefs such as life after death, astrology, and the existence of a universal life-force.

Most atheists believe in the supernatural, despite trusting science

Atheists are more irrational than you might think Belief in the supernatural is still alive and kicking, even among people who don’t believe in a god. Research on atheists and agnostics around the world has revealed that almost nobody can claim to completely reject irrational beliefs such as...

www.newscientist.com

There it is, the ambiguious universal life force. Some say its the universe itself or the universe is conscious or its just some force out there somewhere. But its still a metaphysics about something beyond.

I would assume most atheists are secularists so using secular morality is not a good way to understand this. Its realliy about a material verses immaterial belief as subjective/relatove morality logically implies nothing beyond this world to determine morality. Whereas objectivists logically support something transcedent of this world to base objective morality on.

 

[stevevw]

If you mean by "secularist" a person who does not believe in God and/or some transcendant reality, I think that you will find that they are generally not substance dualists. Nor even are all theists.

Well the link I posted above and other studies I have seen show that even the majority of atheists believe in some sort of life after death or a soul. I would assume secularists are atheists or atheists are secularists.

 

[BCP1928]

Well the link I posted above and other studies I have seen show that even the majority of atheists believe in some sort of life after death or a soul. I would assume secularists are atheists or atheists are secularists.

That is one of the silliest things you have ever written. According to Pew Research, around 3% of atheists believe in some kind of life after death.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But your wanting me to use your definition which is not necessarily correct. Under secularism people can believe in non religious metaphysics and ideology such as paganism or Woke as their basis for morality. So secular is not a good way to describe subjective morality.

Its more about a material verses immaterial worldview. The material will restrict everything to the objective world. Whereas an immaterialist will be open to a immaterial basis for morality be it something non religious like consciousness. Secularists believe in consciousness beyond brain and from this they can expand morality to some objective conscious law like physical laws.

The subject was morality. @Bradskii preferred you use "secular morality" rather than "atheist morality" (and I would agree), but in either case the subject in question was *morality*, not some philosophy you are trying to argue into existence as "secularism".

A particular secular morality might be also a subjective morality, but not all secular morality is. (Or at least there are non-religious people who believe in objective morality without a god.)

Secular (or even athist) morality isn't about a "(im)material world view.

As it you have shifted the terms, rotated the subject, conflated things, and made various irrelevant attacks.

Just please pay attention to the terminology being used. We use precise terms to express our meaning, not as an invitation to have our positions distorted.