The Fallacy of "Rational thought."

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
The Fallacy of "Rational thought."

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity? 

 

What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 My brain comes up with

 My brain comes up with philosophies that have no base in the sensory all the time. The concept of infinity, the concept of a logical progression, and with the help of some extremely powerful substances, I have seen and tasted colors that do not exist. (Which really does some fucked up things to your mind.) 

I'm honestly too fucking lazy to read through that massive post. I get about halfway through it and I get really tired of constantly looking shit up, so explain in everyday terms how you established that both my premises are flawed. I really doubt you need to try to impress me with a massive post that I would obviously have no intention of reading, if you can say it with that behemath, I'm sure you can simplify it. 

The question of equality, as I have shown in my other thread, was a logical trap I set up for you to fall in. If you choose to ignore it, good for you. 

 

Whats the contradiction in describing god as thought?

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 Ok, I'm sorry I offended

 Ok, I'm sorry I offended you:

 

Do you believe in the equality of HUMANKIND? Because that is an idea that requires a belief in a deity. 

Do I say that I am better than you because I have morals and you do not? No. I might be a happier, smarter person, but not better. Think more of misguided rather than inferior. 

Obedience and morality are not one and the same. There you go. Do you believe in self-evident truths? 

 You are stoopid. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:My brain comes up with

Quote:

My brain comes up with philosophies that have no base in the sensory all the time.

It is clear that you didn't even read my post:

Quote:

We can only concieve of concepts which have an experiental basis in the form of our sensory experiences. There is some confusion about what this means. It is possible to concieve of things we have not experienced, a process recognized as "imagination", but not possible to concieve of something we cannot experience. I'll show you. Try to concieve of UV light. Try it! You can't, can you? In the same way that a blind man cannot concieve of colors. You might wear UV goggles, this essentially makes UV look purple, but in that case all you are doing is translating UV (which cannot be concieved of, since we cannot percieve UV) into something you can concieve of (purple, because that is within our visual spectrum). In general, it is only possible to concieve of things not experienced if the conceptual basis for this imagined idea is within our capacity to percieve. I might ask you to concieve of a futuristic alien civilization, something you have never perceptually experienced (actually, this is not quite true, since it may be the case that you have seen such a thing on a film, etc.) and you could concieve of it, but the mental image formed would be based upon experiences that you can percieve, it will take the form of distinct colors and shapes and sights and so forth that are within the human capacity to conceive.

Quote:

, I have seen and tasted colors that do not exist. (Which really does some fucked up things to your mind.)

I never said that a real object was necessary to exist behind some perceptual experience. That is not the basis of our discussion. At any rate, this precisely backs up my point. The use of drugs constitutes a neurochemical alteration, induced by neural hyperpolarization or depolarization, depending on the type of drug being employed. The manner in which this produces sensory experiences, or alters them, has already been described. It is definitely clear that you didn't read my post. The sensory experiences induced by drugs still counter under the description of "sensory experiences", regardless of the real ontological basis behind them.

Quote:

I'm honestly too fucking lazy to read through that massive post.

Then get out. I wasn't too lazy to write it.

Quote:

I would obviously have no intention of reading

Actually, it wasn't "obvious" that you had no intention of reading it. People in debates should read the writing of their interlocutors.

Quote:

The question of equality

Is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the debate. It is an appeal to emotion.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
How about this?

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity? 

 

What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Jack , how dare you think

Jack , how dare you think your "awe" is unique. You are displaying arrogance. This is a common trait of young grasshoppers denied a loving start. You are simply breaking free and your ego is strong, lucky you. You are learning and shouting and that is good. 

We that argue with you are your caring friends. My message to you is , YOU ARE GOD AS I , as all is one, connected. We are all in awe. Nothing is unique, nothing is special.

      YOU are the center of all there is, and still you are not unique .....       

 In other words, you are the center of everything no matter where you go in the entire cosmos of all universes ..... but not unique. Stop silly arrogance , as that is dogma.

  Dogma ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
See? Vindicated.

See? Vindicated.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I think of concepts that I

I think of concepts that I cannot experience. Like what it would be like to not exist. What is the idea of negative numbers? When have I ever experienced a negative of anything?

I might get around to reading it eventually, but I already raised all the points I'm trying to raise int he other thread, and I have no intention of arguing with a biologist about the brain. you know more about it, and my expertise is not in science. Besides, from what I've read you have not proven the non-existence of a soul at all.

 

Anyways, tommorows my b-day, so Im probably not gonna be on here so dont get all excited and think I "ran away" or "was beaten"

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Be a Happy Jack ! Share your

Be a Happy Jack ! Share your smile ! .... OR ELSE , me gawed ! 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think of concepts

Quote:

I think of concepts that I cannot experience. Like what it would be like to not exist. What is the idea of negative numbers? When have I ever experienced a negative of anything?

But this is only because abstract conceptualizations such as negative numbers, or indeed, positive numbers, have associated symbolism that can be experienced. This is, indeed, the very basis of abstract thought. It would not be possible to conceive of numbers if it was not possible to experience symbols associated with numbers, visual symbols which are associated, via our capacity with language, with non-experiential conceptualizations. Without this neurological function it would not be possible to think abstractly.

Quote:

Besides, from what I've read you have not proven the non-existence of a soul at all.

Well, I've punched enough holes in the concept to show that it is not tenable.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity? 

 

What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

 

Who hires these trolls, and can they come up with something better? I was hoping for something a bit more interesting.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


keremeikos33 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A question

Isn't it intuitive to doubt that awareness is a purely mechanical phenomenon?

 

It is obvious that all we are machines in a sense. However, if the bio-chemical machinery of the senses and memory exist to form a model of reality to be presented to awareness, what is doing the perceiving? Are they one and the same ~ the presenting mechanism and some kind of perceiving mechanism?
 

In me there is an intuitive sense that I am not merely a machine.

 

Has this ever occured to anyone else?

 

I find it difficult to see the awareness of self as purely mechanical when I go through the thought experiment of building a self aware machine. To create such a machine I would start by adding cameras and a microphone attached to a sophisticated computer to form a model of the environment. This mechanical assemblage would represent sense experience. I could further imagine giving the computer a behavior mechanism by hooking the environmental model to an adaptive neural network and driving novel behaviors through hard-coded or "instinctual" feedback software (perhaps a drive to seek light for energy). I could further imagine giving the machine a language instinct, with sophisticated turn taking and mimicry software acting as a reward mechanism to stimulate the formation of the ability for the machine to provide some level of sensible responses to spoken language. No matter how sophisticated the machinary and life like the behavior of such a mechanism, I find it difficult to imagine it having awareness of it's own being. It is still just an elaborate simulation.

 

It could be that awareness is either too simple or too complex a thing for me to see it's mechanism.  Thoughts?

 


bodhi smith
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-07-05
User is offlineOffline
What's a soul?

What's a soul?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
keremeikos33 wrote:Isn't it

keremeikos33 wrote:
Isn't it intuitive to doubt that awareness is a purely mechanical phenomenon?

Sure. It's also intuitive to figure that when we get sick, it's because we've offended the gods. Intuitive has value, but let's not get silly and decide that it's amazingly successful at driving us to the truth.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3625
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
bodhi smith wrote:What's a

bodhi smith wrote:

What's a soul?

It's on the bottom of your shoe...right ?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It's also intuitive to think

It's also intuitive to think the Earth is flat and the sun moves around the Earth.