And there it is. Special snowflake dreamed up all the works of art, languages, designs, laws of science etc etc he is familiar with, all by himself.
The arrogance of that position is staggering to me.

(September 11, 2014 at 12:14 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: "Cognito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth. I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.

Biological scientists have attempted to expand upon Descarte’s truth to try to explain the mechanisms involved. Many claim that vibrating waves and particles interact with our awareness and are experienced based on the frequency of the vibration. Labels have been assigned to aspects of, what have been called, “biological systems” to assist with the communication of these concepts. According to many, there is no experience beyond what is capable of being picked up by these receptors (or assistant technologies).

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”. The biological systems are said to produce an experience based on the vibration of particles interacting with receptors and the subsequent biological processes. The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descarte’s claim that we experience and form opinion. Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. In this sense, anything could be possible.

I'm curious as to the atheist perspective on this...

My perspective as an atheist is that yeh we could all be living in some sort of advanced simulation or dream.

(September 12, 2014 at 1:23 am)Bibliofagus Wrote: And there it is. Special snowflake dreamed up all the works of art, languages, designs, laws of science etc etc he is familiar with, all by himself.
The arrogance of that position is staggering to me.

Neutral monism... it's just as rational of an idea as any, in my opinion. Who are you to judge? You have a better explanation of consciousness?

I'm female, by the way. Way to make assumptions.

Your arrogance is also very frustrating.

---

Quote:I'm curious as to the atheist perspective on this...

My perspective as an atheist is that yeh we could all be living in some sort of advanced simulation or dream.

Well, thanks for that. Finally. Can't understand why people keep assuming I'm making some sort of theological argument by posing this question here.

(September 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I ask because of the absolute nature of the atheist perspective. Most atheists I know argue they are 100% sure there is no intelligent design,

Like a lot of people have said there's no specific atheist perspective but even Richard Dawkins one of the most outspoken atheists there is has said he finds the idea of intelligent design an interesting plausible idea but just not when gods or supernatural designers are involved.

(September 12, 2014 at 1:52 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I ask because of the absolute nature of the atheist perspective. Most atheists I know argue they are 100% sure there is no intelligent design,

Like a lot of people have said there's no specific atheist perspective but even Richard Dawkins one of the most outspoken atheists there is has said he finds the idea of intelligent design an interesting plausible idea but just not when gods or supernatural designers are involved.

I wasn't aware of that... So, did he imply what would be plausible intelligent design and who would be doing the designing? Humans? Aliens? Some collective consciousness of all the species?

No he didn't. If you're referring to the infamous "Expelled" interview, he has gone on record repeatedly as saying that he was entertaining Ben Stein's question about proposing a scenario in which intelligent design might be plausible. He gave the much-derided 'aliens' response without actually accepting any of it as a true reflection of reality.

(September 12, 2014 at 2:04 am)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 1:52 am)paulpablo Wrote: Like a lot of people have said there's no specific atheist perspective but even Richard Dawkins one of the most outspoken atheists there is has said he finds the idea of intelligent design an interesting plausible idea but just not when gods or supernatural designers are involved.

I wasn't aware of that... So, did he imply what would be plausible intelligent design and who would be doing the designing? Humans? Aliens? Some collective consciousness of all the species?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0

Basically another civilization. But which also must have evolved or at least come into being by something that is in one way or another explicable and not just come into existence by magic or by god turning them into living beings from dust.

(September 12, 2014 at 1:06 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Further, including "God" in the questions posed in the titles was done out of respect for the theists that I thought would also be part of these discussions. I didn't realize that it wasn't a welcoming environment for theists to participate in discussion. I realize that now.

A large proportion of atheists here (and generally, everywhere) treat any discussion that does not support atheism with hostility. A theistic position is dangerous and needs to be isolated and controlled. You'll find that in an exchange not perceived as threatening the same people will be supportive of the ideas they vigorously attack.

(September 12, 2014 at 1:06 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Well, that was only slightly insulting. Honestly, it seemed much more effective to start a new thread

If you had started a new thread, I would have welcomed you and examined your position, theist, xenopsychic, agsnotic, or whatever, with much tolerance and interest. But you didn't. You swamped the forum with perhaps half a dozen or more new threads challenging Darwin and the Big Bang, talking about Scientism and atheistic "dogma." Clearly, you came in knowing where most atheists would stand on these issues, and volunteered to enter with a bullseye on your back. You're like the proverbial party girl with her cleavage hanging way too far out, shouting "Like, omg, why does everyone keep staring at my boobs?!"

That being said, I'm interested in the words "neutral monism," and you have made some philosophical points that I agree with in a couple threads. Once I recover from the shock of the carpet-bombing you started with, and once you stop trying to make yourself the center of the AF universe, I suspect I will discover you have something interesting to offer.

---

(September 12, 2014 at 5:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 1:06 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Further, including "God" in the questions posed in the titles was done out of respect for the theists that I thought would also be part of these discussions. I didn't realize that it wasn't a welcoming environment for theists to participate in discussion. I realize that now.

A large proportion of atheists here (and generally, everywhere) treat any discussion that does not support atheism with hostility. A theistic position is dangerous and needs to be isolated and controlled. You'll find that in an exchange not perceived as threatening the same people will be supportive of the ideas they vigorously attack.

I don't think that's accurate. I've seen people take religious arguments seriously, and seen those threads go on for as many as fifty pages before everyone realized that the theist was never going to directly answer questions, was never going to provide support, and was going to keep throwing one bald assertion after the other. You want hostility, go to any X-tian site and say Dawkins and Dennett more than about two times.

(September 12, 2014 at 9:33 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 1:06 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Well, that was only slightly insulting. Honestly, it seemed much more effective to start a new thread

If you had started a new thread, I would have welcomed you and examined your position, theist, xenopsychic, or whatever, with much tolerance and interest. But you didn't. You swamped the forum with perhaps half a dozen or more new threads challenging Darwin and the Big Bang, talking about Scientism and atheistic "dogma." Clearly, you came in knowing where most atheists would stand on these issues, and volunteered to enter with a bullseye on your back. You're like the proverbial party girl with her cleavage hanging out, shouting "Why is everyone looking at me?!"

That being said, I'm interested in the words "neutral monism," and you have made some philosophical points that I agree with in a couple threads. Once I recover from the shock of the carpet-bombing you started with, and once you stop trying to make yourself the center of the AF universe, I suspect I will discover you have something interesting to offer.

Despite your implications, I had no intention of making myself "the center of the AF universe". I honestly had no idea it would get such a response or that I would be looked at like I was "carpet-bombing" by starting (5 by the way) new threads on different topics.

And, oh yes, now that everyone has had their chance to give me shit about my ignorance regarding your community's social expectations, let's please get to the point of being here. Thanks.