(September 13, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I'd still like to know what the hell Brian is talking about when he says "what you just said right here" and quotes me as saying something I didn't actually just say, or anything even remotely close to (where did he get the topic of "universal consciousness" from all this?). Looks to me like he either made an honest mistake and misquoted me, or else he's extremely disingenuous and proving his inability to have a "big boy" discussion.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 4:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You don't think the psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and philosophers at the elite schools accept and understand (at least to some degree) mental compartmentalization?

There certainly no lack of experiments that demonstrate it.

That's really a non-sequitur. Of course, we as human beings do that. However, much of the divide among laypeople and academics stems from differences in worldview, which involve philosophical disagreements, and I think those can be both thoughtful and thoughtless on either side.

That might of been a miss edit on my part. It was part of a longer exchange between two people in a thread. If you did not claim the universe was a giant consciousness itself, then I must have quoted the wrong person. I was trying to slim down that big post where the quote was taken from in edit.

The argument itself still would stand though. I still would see no difference between claiming a god or the universe being a giant consciousness. I am sorry however for the confusion.

---

psychoslice Wrote:Yes I agree, I don't have any beliefs in any god, but I do feel there is a collective universal consciousness that we are all one in. This idea of a universal consciousness is something I cannot prove

In post #216 of this thread. Sorry about the miss edit.

(September 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The argument itself still would stand though. I still would see no difference between claiming a god or the universe being a giant consciousness. I am sorry however for the confusion.

No problem. And indeed, my only point of contention in this thread is that we give the God proposition or anything else that seems intuitively strange a fair hearing. I find it to be a troubling trend amongst so-called "free thinkers" to replace insult for reasoned debate, and far worse, in their overthrow of repressive religion, to almost seem to adopt oppressive tactics of their own by marginalizing and ostracizing anyone who would even question the materialist point of view as somehow moronic or childish (although I don't extend this courtesy and exempt absurd piety for obvious human inventions--"holy books" in particular--from ridicule). The main point that I think is fair to criticize (on the materialist's position) is the sometimes dogmatic assumption that the concepts of our mind, translated from the contents of our senses, (or vice versa?) can ever hope to capture in toto the essence of reality and therefore rule out a priori any possibility of something like a hyperphysical nature having any role in either our personal lives or the existence of mind and/or matter itself. While I am (currently) a realist and a materialist, I don't think it's all that obvious what exactly matter (or mind) is.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:52 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The argument itself still would stand though. I still would see no difference between claiming a god or the universe being a giant consciousness. I am sorry however for the confusion.

No problem. And indeed, my only point of contention in this thread is that we give the God proposition or anything else that seems intuitively strange a fair hearing. I find it to be a troubling trend amongst so-called "free thinkers" to replace insult for reasoned debate, and far worse, in their overthrow of repressive religion, to almost seem to adopt oppressive tactics of their own by marginalizing and ostracizing anyone who would even question the materialist point of view as somehow moronic or childish (although I don't extend this courtesy and exempt absurd piety for obvious human inventions--"holy books" in particular--from ridicule). The main point that I think is fair to criticize (on the materialist's position) is the sometimes dogmatic assumption that the concepts of our mind, translated from the contents of our senses, (or vice versa?) can ever hope to capture in toto the essence of reality and therefore rule out a priori any possibility of something like a hyperphysical nature having any role in either our personal lives or the existence of mind and/or matter itself. While I am (currently) a realist and a materialist, I don't think it's all that obvious what exactly matter (or mind) is.

Holy crap.....skip the labels for a second seriously. No theist vs atheist, no fundy vs atheist, no "freethinker vs humanist", no left vs right, no us vs them, ok?

When in human history have all humans always only had polite conversations and only said nice things about each other? You really think that that is possible on a planet of 7 billion? You really think you can set up a utopia where no one ever cusses or blasphemes?

Now again, that seriously is a comfort level on your part. Some people like the library and other don't mind the verbal boxing ring. Now again if you read the OP you understand the CONTEXT of my bluntness and language. That is not the same as hating in a bigoted sense at all. Just like when you have a kid or brother or sister who is saying or doing something stupid. In the case of believers it is an attack on their logic, not their right to believe nor is it an attack on them personally. It is an attack on their claim.

I really frown on projecting scripts on other as to how you think they should behave. Froodo isn't a bad guy and he would not be in this thread if he hated me that much, and he has the ability to avoid my posts too. Niether of us are unwilling participants nor are we prisoners.

On top of that, worrying about blasphemy and cussing which are not crimes is much more disturbing to me. Christians and gays and non Shiites living in Iran are oppressed, and cant even politely dissent or be open. Girls and women in the middle east and in Africa are oppressed and often murdered or rapped for "honor" punishment. The Muslims and Christians being slaughtered by Isis are oppressed. Merely saying "bullshit" is not an act of violence.

I think your concern should be physical violence and government oppression than someone being offended. Far to much of Islam worries about being offended. I really do not think the west needs to make demands on how conversations go between people. No one has the right to play morality police or thought police. The only thing civil society can do is to agree not to get violent or call for violence. Other than that your conversations are a comfort issue and a context issue.

---

Quote: to almost seem to adopt oppressive tactics of their own by marginalizing and ostracizing anyone who would even question the materialist

There is your empathy kicking in. Once again you mistake bluntness and blasphemy for oppression. "bullshit" is not oppression. "That is stupid" is not oppression. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. No one here is being forced by government to read these posts. No one is demanding the arrest of theists nor should they. Everyone here is here on their own accord.

You should be worried about men shooting girls for wanting an education. You should be worried about people who use politics to control the bodies of women. You should be worried about people who insist on replacing science with creationism. You should be worried about people who murder reporters and slam planes into buildings. You should be worried about people who deny gays rights.

Froodo is not worried about me having him arrested. He is not worried about me having him murdered. The only thing he or you can say is "I don't like your word choice". That is a matter of comfort, not oppression.

---

Quote: I don't think it's all that obvious what exactly matter (or mind) is.

Science and evolutionary biology has answered that. What we call "I" or or "mind" is simply or brains in motion. No brain no you. There is nothing separate about your thoughts or your brain. Just like there is no speed with no car.

That finite mundane reality is hard for most people to accept. It should not be however anymore than knowing a leaf falling off a tree is finite. If that leaf is not attached to the tree and living it will not function.

(September 13, 2014 at 8:22 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 7:09 pm)Chas Wrote: Please provide evidence that any of them are critical thinkers.

Please do me a favor and provide evidence that you are likewise one before I proceed to squander any more of my time qualifying why "elite scientist" and "professor" of a "prestigious school" such as Oxford demands a certain amount of capacity to think critically.

Belief without evidence is the opposite of critical thinking.
Humans are able to compartmentalize beliefs to protect them from being subject to critical thinking.

So, yes, some scientists and professors do that. Your point?

(September 14, 2014 at 8:04 am)Chas Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 8:22 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Please do me a favor and provide evidence that you are likewise one before I proceed to squander any more of my time qualifying why "elite scientist" and "professor" of a "prestigious school" such as Oxford demands a certain amount of capacity to think critically.

Belief without evidence is the opposite of critical thinking.
Humans are able to compartmentalize beliefs to protect them from being subject to critical thinking.

So, yes, some scientists and professors do that. Your point?

Newton certainly made mistakes. He got physics right but also postulated alchemy which was bullshit.

No scientist I would call ethical should have the goal of protecting their claims. Quite the opposite, the ethical ones want their claims to have the shit kicked out of them. If what they have is valid, the claim will survive the shit kicking. If it does not survive, that scientist gets to learn from their mistake and does not see it as a bruise to their ego.

(September 14, 2014 at 6:16 am)Brian37 Wrote: When in human history have all humans always only had polite conversations and only said nice things about each other? You really think that that is possible on a planet of 7 billion? You really think you can set up a utopia where no one ever cusses or blasphemes?

I think I am responsible for myself and that includes calling out the tendencies of irrationality and dogmatism (which is what name-calling and straw-manning reduce to) when I perceive it, regardless if I ultimately agree or disagree with the claim being made. It's not really an issue of politeness for me, but rather honesty and open-mindedness.

Quote:Now again, that seriously is a comfort level on your part. Some people like the library and other don't mind the verbal boxing ring. Now again if you read the OP you understand the CONTEXT of my bluntness and language. That is not the same as hating in a bigoted sense at all. Just like when you have a kid or brother or sister who is saying or doing something stupid. In the case of believers it is an attack on their logic, not their right to believe nor is it an attack on them personally. It is an attack on their claim.

I didn't take any particular issue with the OP, only some of the comments directed towards theism or believers in general that as I said, disarm rational debate and replace it with insults and false caricatures. I don't think that accomplishes anything except to in fact set secularism back, that is, if we view any of these discussions in the broader context of dismantling dogmatism's stronghold over future generation's minds. I'm sure that is at least to some extent a goal most of us would like to imagine is possible, and ourselves be thought to make, however small, a positive contribution to (it sure sounds like you do from your posts anyhow).

Quote:I really frown on projecting scripts on other as to how you think they should behave. Froodo isn't a bad guy and he would not be in this thread if he hated me that much, and he has the ability to avoid my posts too. Niether of us are unwilling participants nor are we prisoners.

On top of that, worrying about blasphemy and cussing which are not crimes is much more disturbing to me. Christians and gays and non Shiites living in Iran are oppressed, and cant even politely dissent or be open. Girls and women in the middle east and in Africa are oppressed and often murdered or rapped for "honor" punishment. The Muslims and Christians being slaughtered by Isis are oppressed. Merely saying "bullshit" is not an act of violence.

I think your concern should be physical violence and government oppression than someone being offended. Far to much of Islam worries about being offended. I really do not think the west needs to make demands on how conversations go between people. No one has the right to play morality police or thought police. The only thing civil society can do is to agree not to get violent or call for violence. Other than that your conversations are a comfort issue and a context issue.

The first sentence of this quote and the points you raise in the third paragraph seem to contradict everything else you're saying. I'm not policing thought or demanding how a conversation ought to go any more than you are demanding how people ought to behave with respect to religion (seemingly without conceiving a difference between the manners and degrees to which religion effects people's thoughts and actions). If you don't see the inevitable connection between the two then you've missed the forest for the trees. I agree with you, that much of what you said worries me too. That is after all why I consider myself an anti-theist. And yet also greatly concerning me is oppression that waves an anti-religious flag. Secular dogmatism will not triumph religious dogmatism. Rational discussion and debate, I believe, however, can and must. Call that "policing thought;" I call it being reasonable.

Quote:There is your empathy kicking in. Once again you mistake bluntness and blasphemy for oppression. "bullshit" is not oppression. "That is stupid" is not oppression. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. No one here is being forced by government to read these posts. No one is demanding the arrest of theists nor should they. Everyone here is here on their own accord.

You should be worried about men shooting girls for wanting an education. You should be worried about people who use politics to control the bodies of women. You should be worried about people who insist on replacing science with creationism. You should be worried about people who murder reporters and slam planes into buildings. You should be worried about people who deny gays rights.

Froodo is not worried about me having him arrested. He is not worried about me having him murdered. The only thing he or you can say is "I don't like your word choice". That is a matter of comfort, not oppression.

No, you're right, those two things are not the same; however, it's safe to say that there certainly would have never been blood nearly the amount of bloodshed in the twentieth century if it hadn't been for the level of rhetoric and stereotyping that polemical writers exhibited in the nineteenth.

Quote: Science and evolutionary biology has answered that. What we call "I" or or "mind" is simply or brains in motion. No brain no you. There is nothing separate about your thoughts or your brain. Just like there is no speed with no car.

It is nothing but naivety to flat out proclaim "science has answered that." No, it's working on it, and I hope it eventually does... if it is possible.

---

(September 14, 2014 at 8:04 am)Chas Wrote: Humans are able to compartmentalize beliefs to protect them from being subject to critical thinking.

So, yes, some scientists and professors do that. Your point?

Post #230?

(September 14, 2014 at 9:30 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 6:16 am)Brian37 Wrote: When in human history have all humans always only had polite conversations and only said nice things about each other? You really think that that is possible on a planet of 7 billion? You really think you can set up a utopia where no one ever cusses or blasphemes?

I think I am responsible for myself and that includes calling out the tendencies of irrationality and dogmatism (which is what name-calling and straw-manning reduce to) when I perceive it, regardless if I ultimately agree or disagree with the claim being made. It's not really an issue of politeness for me, but rather honesty and open-mindedness.

Quote:Now again, that seriously is a comfort level on your part. Some people like the library and other don't mind the verbal boxing ring. Now again if you read the OP you understand the CONTEXT of my bluntness and language. That is not the same as hating in a bigoted sense at all. Just like when you have a kid or brother or sister who is saying or doing something stupid. In the case of believers it is an attack on their logic, not their right to believe nor is it an attack on them personally. It is an attack on their claim.

I didn't take any particular issue with the OP, only some of the comments directed towards theism or believers in general that as I said, disarm rational debate and replace it with insults and false caricatures. I don't think that accomplishes anything except to in fact set secularism back, that is, if we view any of these discussions in the broader context of dismantling dogmatism's stronghold over future generation's minds. I'm sure that is at least to some extent a goal most of us would like to imagine is possible, and ourselves be thought to make, however small, a positive contribution to (it sure sounds like you do from your posts anyhow).

Quote:I really frown on projecting scripts on other as to how you think they should behave. Froodo isn't a bad guy and he would not be in this thread if he hated me that much, and he has the ability to avoid my posts too. Niether of us are unwilling participants nor are we prisoners.

On top of that, worrying about blasphemy and cussing which are not crimes is much more disturbing to me. Christians and gays and non Shiites living in Iran are oppressed, and cant even politely dissent or be open. Girls and women in the middle east and in Africa are oppressed and often murdered or rapped for "honor" punishment. The Muslims and Christians being slaughtered by Isis are oppressed. Merely saying "bullshit" is not an act of violence.

I think your concern should be physical violence and government oppression than someone being offended. Far to much of Islam worries about being offended. I really do not think the west needs to make demands on how conversations go between people. No one has the right to play morality police or thought police. The only thing civil society can do is to agree not to get violent or call for violence. Other than that your conversations are a comfort issue and a context issue.

The first sentence of this quote and the points you raise in the third paragraph seem to contradict everything else you're saying. I'm not policing thought or demanding how a conversation ought to go any more than you are demanding how people ought to behave with respect to religion (seemingly without conceiving a difference between the manners and degrees to which religion effects people's thoughts and actions). If you don't see the inevitable connection between the two then you've missed the forest for the trees. I agree with you, that much of what you said worries me too. That is after all why I consider myself an anti-theist. And yet also greatly concerning me is oppression that waves an anti-religious flag. Secular dogmatism will not triumph religious dogmatism. Rational discussion and debate, I believe, however, can and must. Call that "policing thought;" I call it being reasonable.

Quote:There is your empathy kicking in. Once again you mistake bluntness and blasphemy for oppression. "bullshit" is not oppression. "That is stupid" is not oppression. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. No one here is being forced by government to read these posts. No one is demanding the arrest of theists nor should they. Everyone here is here on their own accord.

You should be worried about men shooting girls for wanting an education. You should be worried about people who use politics to control the bodies of women. You should be worried about people who insist on replacing science with creationism. You should be worried about people who murder reporters and slam planes into buildings. You should be worried about people who deny gays rights.

Froodo is not worried about me having him arrested. He is not worried about me having him murdered. The only thing he or you can say is "I don't like your word choice". That is a matter of comfort, not oppression.

No, you're right, those two things are not the same; however, it's safe to say that there certainly would have never been blood nearly the amount of bloodshed in the twentieth century if it hadn't been for the level of rhetoric and stereotyping that polemical writers exhibited in the nineteenth.

Quote: Science and evolutionary biology has answered that. What we call "I" or or "mind" is simply or brains in motion. No brain no you. There is nothing separate about your thoughts or your brain. Just like there is no speed with no car.

It is nothing but naivety to flat out proclaim "science has answered that." No, it's working on it, and I hope it eventually does... if it is possible.

---

(September 14, 2014 at 8:04 am)Chas Wrote: Humans are able to compartmentalize beliefs to protect them from being subject to critical thinking.

So, yes, some scientists and professors do that. Your point?

Post #230?

Sorry but this is a convoluted way of saying "the way I do it is right and it should only be done my way".

We are not dealing with a utopia in reality. We are a diverse and very messy species, and we should deal with reality the way it is and not the way you think it should go.

I can and I will use the language I see fit. I can and will ridicule and blaspheme what I see fit. The part you miss is CONTEXT and that always matters. You start getting into script solutions in a diverse species you are setting yourself up to become as dogmatic as those you rightfully would object to being dogmatic.

This is an atheist website, first and foremost. If the owners and admins want to change the rules to suit their own comfort levels of interaction, they can. If they chose to change things, then I have a choice, conform or go somewhere else. It would be no different if I went to a Christian or Muslim website and chose to deal with the rules they set up.

Nowhere have I ever said or nor will you ever hear me say, that even my tactics and the way I conduct myself are an absolute and should be employed in every setting.

It really does amount to a comfort issue, and nothing more. I have been at this for 13 years on multiple websites and for you to presume that my detractors cant handle the boxing ring and have glass jaws is absurd.

The only people who have a right to say anything to me on this website are the owners and admins. AND if I am not correct every member also has the option of blocking viewing of posters they don't like.

The only thing about any discourse that makes it abusive is when one party is forced into it and has no way out of it. I think this website provides lots of options ignore those you don't want to talk to.

If you want to conduct yourself like you are at a 5 star hotel or golf clubhouse or at a Royal Palace that is your comfort level. But do not presume for me or a believer that is debating me that they cant handle it.

Froodo and Dirich and other theists have been here for years, if they truly thought atheists were monsters they would not be here. If they were that thin skinned they would not be here.

(September 14, 2014 at 10:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry but this is a convoluted way of saying "the way I do it is right and it should only be done my way".

Nope. It's more like "I think the way I'm suggesting is more productive and rational and these are my reasons why."

Quote:We are not dealing with a utopia in reality. We are a diverse and very messy species, and we should deal with reality the way it is and not the way you think it should go.

Are you sure? Is that the way you think it should go?

Quote:I can and I will use the language I see fit.

Likewise.

Quote: I can and will ridicule and blaspheme what I see fit.

Yeah... likewise...

Quote:The part you miss is CONTEXT and that always matters. You start getting into script solutions in a diverse species you are setting yourself up to become as dogmatic as those you rightfully would object to being dogmatic.

Likewise! Bold = For the most part exactly the point I've been making the past few pages. Lol.

Quote:This is an atheist website, first and foremost. If the owners and admins want to change the rules to suit their own comfort levels of interaction, they can. If they chose to change things, then I have a choice, conform or go somewhere else. It would be no different if I went to a Christian or Muslim website and chose to deal with the rules they set up.

Nowhere have I ever said or nor will you ever hear me say, that even my tactics and the way I conduct myself are an absolute and should be employed in every setting.

It really does amount to a comfort issue, and nothing more. I have been at this for 13 years on multiple websites and for you to presume that my detractors cant handle the boxing ring and have glass jaws is absurd.

The only people who have a right to say anything to me on this website are the owners and admins. AND if I am not correct every member also has the option of blocking viewing of posters they don't like.

The only thing about any discourse that makes it abusive is when one party is forced into it and has no way out of it. I think this website provides lots of options ignore those you don't want to talk to.

If you want to conduct yourself like you are at a 5 star hotel or golf clubhouse or at a Royal Palace that is your comfort level. But do not presume for me or a believer that is debating me that they cant handle it.

Froodo and Dirich and other theists have been here for years, if they truly thought atheists were monsters they would not be here. If they were that thin skinned they would not be here.

Yep. I agree. You can conduct yourself however you please. We all can. That's what I'm doing too. That's what makes a forum work.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:07 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 10:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry but this is a convoluted way of saying "the way I do it is right and it should only be done my way".

Nope. It's more like "I think the way I'm suggesting is more productive and rational and these are my reasons why."

Quote:We are not dealing with a utopia in reality. We are a diverse and very messy species, and we should deal with reality the way it is and not the way you think it should go.

Are you sure? Is that the way you think it should go?

Quote:I can and I will use the language I see fit.

Likewise.

Quote: I can and will ridicule and blaspheme what I see fit.

Yeah... likewise...

Quote:The part you miss is CONTEXT and that always matters. You start getting into script solutions in a diverse species you are setting yourself up to become as dogmatic as those you rightfully would object to being dogmatic.

Likewise! Bold = For the most part exactly the point I've been making the past few pages. Lol.

Quote:This is an atheist website, first and foremost. If the owners and admins want to change the rules to suit their own comfort levels of interaction, they can. If they chose to change things, then I have a choice, conform or go somewhere else. It would be no different if I went to a Christian or Muslim website and chose to deal with the rules they set up.

Nowhere have I ever said or nor will you ever hear me say, that even my tactics and the way I conduct myself are an absolute and should be employed in every setting.

It really does amount to a comfort issue, and nothing more. I have been at this for 13 years on multiple websites and for you to presume that my detractors cant handle the boxing ring and have glass jaws is absurd.

The only people who have a right to say anything to me on this website are the owners and admins. AND if I am not correct every member also has the option of blocking viewing of posters they don't like.

The only thing about any discourse that makes it abusive is when one party is forced into it and has no way out of it. I think this website provides lots of options ignore those you don't want to talk to.

If you want to conduct yourself like you are at a 5 star hotel or golf clubhouse or at a Royal Palace that is your comfort level. But do not presume for me or a believer that is debating me that they cant handle it.

Froodo and Dirich and other theists have been here for years, if they truly thought atheists were monsters they would not be here. If they were that thin skinned they would not be here.

Yep. I agree. You can conduct yourself however you please. We all can. That's what I'm doing too. That's what makes a forum work.

Right, so why the lecture about my word choice then?

(September 14, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Right, so why the lecture about my word choice then?

To repeat: "I think the way I'm suggesting is more productive and rational..."
Also because, as I already stated multiple times, I find your word choice to largely confine itself to straw-men.