(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: In a previous post the topic of subjective morality is pointed out as being self contradictory. Since, determination is based on "our feelings" it naturally follows that our feelings our biased in favor of ourselves and thereby leads to contradictory answer regarding a given moral question. The example given was it is okay for you to lie for your benefit while you would not consider it as okay for another to lie for their benefit. (The qualifier of necessity was left out intentionally to illustrate the contradictory answer in less definitive scenarios of morality).

Hmmm. The example reminds me of those who argue in favor of a deity which (who?) bestows rewards on its favorite tribe for following commands to commit genocide while prohibiting murder as an evil that is deserving of capital punishment. Anyway, I don't see the problem with subjective morality simply because it's possible to be inconsistent, which is not the same as self-contradiction---that would require one to say that it is both right and wrong to lie with regard to the same person, at the same time, and in the same respect.

(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Interesting. As i would argue that a production of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena is imaginary in exactly the same sense as godhead. The distinction being the "personhood" linguistic production is regards to phenomena of self where as the "Godhead" linguistic production is in regards to a more teleological subject.

Well, I think you demonstrate further down the necessity of linguistic items such as "I" even if these items fail to describe anything with definite boundaries or objective existence, the same way that you might perceive the floor that presently sustains your body as a "solid plane" of "continuous magnitude" when we know in actuality that there are innumerable minute atoms surrounded by large gaps of empty space comprising every body in human perception. It's imaginary in the sense that it's one of many blunt conceptual aids used to describe phenomena between object and subject on a practical level, consistent with personal experience, but doesn't actually come close to truly representing the fundamental nature of beings and their surroundings. That's partly a problem of language, partly a problem of how brains process information received by the senses. When someone is able to establish "God" as a concept that approaches the same measure of necessity, or even utility, that you pointed out is involved in our sense of being continuous individual identities, I think you might have something of an argument for the benefits of deity as a concept, but still will not have offered anything in support of its objective existence.

(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: While I am glad you are willing to acknowledge as a theoretical matter it would appear that your acknowledgement lacks a certain...well level of acknowledgement. You are willing to forgo the distinctive identity of "I" as an imaginary construct, while still maintaining consciousness. But this consciousness, which you maintain is itself a metaphysical construct lacking sufficient "proof" in the same manner as the "I". "I" is the form following the function of consciousness. But I like your acquiescence of giving in without giving in

I didn't deny the existence of consciousness... that would be a bit difficult. I'm only denying the existence of self as it immediately appears to conscious beings.

(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Again. You are presuming the presence of I, us, or ourselves. Since there is not sufficient "proof" of the personhood or consciousness that gives rise to said personhood one cannot state we find ourselves anywhere due to the lack of we and the lack of self to be found. (This is of course excluding the argument that perception is done by the "I" and not simply the ontological nerve endings of the meat).

There's ample evidence for consciousness. You know, like the phenomenon of experiencing this present conversation, or the changes one undergoes with alternative brain states. That said, like libertarian free will, precisely defining---and then locating---the "I" of my thoughts, seems to be an entirely different matter. Btw, you do realize that difficulty in one subject that the sciences appear exclusively poised to address has no bearing on the validity or soundness of theology, right? So, are we just setting the god thing to the side to discuss a far more interesting topic or are you trying to make a (fallacious) argument here?

(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: You know this is just asking for it. "What proof do you have that they exist?" "What proof do you have that we recognize them?" "What proof do you have of 'we'?"

I'm not advocating a dogmatic attachment to the self as a metaphysical entity with certain existence... I'm simply utilizing the best known means to continue living in an environment that contains others who are capable of thought and communication, and hopefully someone will eventually discover more as to what the relation is between mind and matter, concepts I think it would be nearly impossible to proceed without.

(May 29, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Anima Wrote: No?

I did not think it would due to comment on my perceived magnificence, but that I would be able to discuss the good nature by which I embarked upon the thread in the first place (as exhibited throughout the thread in many locations).

Well, let's see. Nestor was asking you if there was to be found a more compelling argument beyond the first ten pages, to which you responded by talking about the generosity of your thread. That is the direct context of the exchange. Maybe you chose the word "magnanimous" where "magnitude" would have served more appropriately?

(May 21, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Hello everyone;

I am interested in setting up a debate with someone regarding the need of an imaginary friend for morality.  Please let me know if anyone is interested in participating in this debate in accordance with the rules specified.  Thank you.

Well, I do have a simple question (considering we're talking about the need for a deity to instill or incentivize morality).

Atheists are the least represented group in our prison population, and this is a proportional statement e.g. atheists only make up ~0.07% of our prison population, while comprising anywhere between 2.4 and 8% of the overall population (I'm fine with assuming the low number for the purposes of this thread). For comparison, Catholics make up ~24% of our prison population, while they only make up 22% of our overall population (and the percentage of protestants in our prisons is similarly consistent with their representation in the overall population). These numbers are taken from studies that used numbers from the US Department of Justice.

There are certainly some valid problems that we can find with these numbers, the most profound being the impact of institutional racism on the prison population.

However, even when we adjust the numbers to account for racial disparities, the percentage of atheists in prison (relative to the overall population of atheists) is still far lower than any other group (particularly Catholics and protestants). 

Likewise, atheists are the most educated segment of the population, they get divorced less, they're less likely to suffer from substance abuse issues, less likely to become pregnant as a teen, etc. Indeed, in virtually every metric that we commonly associate with "morality" ... atheists outperform the general population (again, particularly the Christian population). Even when we look at materialism, atheists tend to be far more left wing than the general population (your Pope Francis was a latecomer to our party), they're more likely to support taxation of wealth and public spending on social welfare programs, etc. 

So my question is ... what is it about atheism (in the context of the United States at least) that makes one "more moral" when compared to those who claim affiliation with the Christian faith? My hypothesis is selection bias (though I have no data to back it up). However, we might look at these numbers in the opposite way e.g. is it that atheism makes one more motivated to seek higher education, or does higher education make a person more predisposed to atheism? My guess is, it's the latter (although I admit, this is just anecdotal speculation). 

(May 29, 2015 at 5:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Anima Wrote: No?

I did not think it would due to comment on my perceived magnificence, but that I would be able to discuss the good nature by which I embarked upon the thread in the first place (as exhibited throughout the thread in many locations).

Well, let's see. Nestor was asking you if there was to be found a more compelling argument beyond the first ten pages, to which you responded by talking about the generosity of your thread. That is the direct context of the exchange. Maybe you chose the word "magnanimous" where "magnitude" would have served more appropriately?

Magnanimity was the word i was going for. I was trying to say my overt goodness would convince him as a sarcastic response to his sarcastic comment.

Though I have made the mistake before of confusing magnanimity with magnitude.

---

(May 29, 2015 at 5:42 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: Well, I do have a simple question (considering we're talking about the need for a deity to instill or incentivize morality).

Atheists are the least represented group in our prison population, and this is a proportional statement e.g. atheists only make up ~0.07% of our prison population, while comprising anywhere between 2.4 and 8% of the overall population (I'm fine with assuming the low number for the purposes of this thread). For comparison, Catholics make up ~24% of our prison population, while they only make up 22% of our overall population (and the percentage of protestants in our prisons is similarly consistent with their representation in the overall population). These numbers are taken from studies that used numbers from the US Department of Justice.

There are certainly some valid problems that we can find with these numbers, the most profound being the impact of institutional racism on the prison population.

However, even when we adjust the numbers to account for racial disparities, the percentage of atheists in prison (relative to the overall population of atheists) is still far lower than any other group (particularly Catholics and protestants). 

Likewise, atheists are the most educated segment of the population, they get divorced less, they're less likely to suffer from substance abuse issues, less likely to become pregnant as a teen, etc. Indeed, in virtually every metric that we commonly associate with "morality" ... atheists outperform the general population (again, particularly the Christian population). Even when we look at materialism, atheists tend to be far more left wing than the general population (your Pope Francis was a latecomer to our party), they're more likely to support taxation of wealth and public spending on social welfare programs, etc. 

So my question is ... what is it about atheism (in the context of the United States at least) that makes one "more moral" when compared to those who claim affiliation with the Christian faith? My hypothesis is selection bias (though I have no data to back it up). However, we might look at these numbers in the opposite way e.g. is it that atheism makes one more motivated to seek higher education, or does higher education make a person more predisposed to atheism? My guess is, it's the latter (although I admit, this is just anecdotal speculation). 

Without arguing all of the various assertions I have a few general responses:

1. Based on what is expressed it may be said that atheism is practiced by those who are not in need of religion. I have heard it said religion is a crutch and I would not deny this assertion. Naturally a crutch is a tool to be used when needed, a hindrance when not, and may cause further injury if used improperly. However because a small minority are not in need of a thing is not to say the majority is no longer in need of said thing or that another minority is not in need of it.

2. What is implied by your statement is that because religion has many of the less desirable people of society as it members then religion is the cause of their undesirability does not account for how many "get" religion in the pokey and is akin to stating that AA is making alcoholics or hospitals are making people sick. After all there are so many sick people associated with hospitals. Nonetheless I would be remiss in saying that religion is not often used to justify conduct. But, I think we would be mistaken in saying that devoid of religion people would not engage in that conduct. Eliminating religion does not necessarily eliminate the conduct, though it will eliminate that particular justification. Unfortunately any example of this (communistic societies) will be skewed by the severity of punishment for crimes by the state. In which case it is hard to distinguish if the impact is theistical or judicial.

3. Furthermore, I doubt many of the people who are imprisoned for some crime based the commission of said crime upon their theistic beliefs, teaching, or understanding. Admittedly their are a few who are doing because the dog told them too. Usually those claiming the dog or god told them to do something are rare and far between or commonly feigning insanity (with an even small few actually being insane).

4. In regard to higher education it is the Catholic church that established the institution of higher education and has been its most ardent supporter for millennia. It may be said that the majority of scientific, social, and political advancements in the world have been made by religious people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#...iversities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

5. As such world history would support that theistical influence has done more to promote and advance humanity than atheistic influence.

---

(May 29, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Anima Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 5:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Well, let's see. Nestor was asking you if there was to be found a more compelling argument beyond the first ten pages, to which you responded by talking about the generosity of your thread. That is the direct context of the exchange. Maybe you chose the word "magnanimous" where "magnitude" would have served more appropriately?

Magnanimity was the word i was going for.  I was trying to say my overt goodness would convince him as a sarcastic response to his sarcastic comment.

Though I have made the mistake before of confusing magnanimity with magnitude.

---

(May 29, 2015 at 5:42 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: Well, I do have a simple question (considering we're talking about the need for a deity to instill or incentivize morality).

Atheists are the least represented group in our prison population, and this is a proportional statement e.g. atheists only make up ~0.07% of our prison population, while comprising anywhere between 2.4 and 8% of the overall population (I'm fine with assuming the low number for the purposes of this thread). For comparison, Catholics make up ~24% of our prison population, while they only make up 22% of our overall population (and the percentage of protestants in our prisons is similarly consistent with their representation in the overall population). These numbers are taken from studies that used numbers from the US Department of Justice.

There are certainly some valid problems that we can find with these numbers, the most profound being the impact of institutional racism on the prison population.

However, even when we adjust the numbers to account for racial disparities, the percentage of atheists in prison (relative to the overall population of atheists) is still far lower than any other group (particularly Catholics and protestants). 

Likewise, atheists are the most educated segment of the population, they get divorced less, they're less likely to suffer from substance abuse issues, less likely to become pregnant as a teen, etc. Indeed, in virtually every metric that we commonly associate with "morality" ... atheists outperform the general population (again, particularly the Christian population). Even when we look at materialism, atheists tend to be far more left wing than the general population (your Pope Francis was a latecomer to our party), they're more likely to support taxation of wealth and public spending on social welfare programs, etc. 

So my question is ... what is it about atheism (in the context of the United States at least) that makes one "more moral" when compared to those who claim affiliation with the Christian faith? My hypothesis is selection bias (though I have no data to back it up). However, we might look at these numbers in the opposite way e.g. is it that atheism makes one more motivated to seek higher education, or does higher education make a person more predisposed to atheism? My guess is, it's the latter (although I admit, this is just anecdotal speculation). 

Without arguing all of the various assertions I have a few general responses:

1.  Based on what is expressed it may be said that atheism is practiced by those who are not in need of religion.  I have heard it said religion is a crutch and I would not deny this assertion.  Naturally a crutch is a tool to be used when needed, a hindrance when not, and may cause further injury if used improperly.  However because a small minority are not in need of a thing is not to say the majority is no longer in need of said thing or that another minority is not in need of it.

2.  What is implied by your statement is that because religion has many of the less desirable people of society as it members then religion is the cause of their undesirability does not account for how many "get" religion in the pokey and is akin to stating that AA is making alcoholics or hospitals are making people sick.  After all there are so many sick people associated with hospitals.  Nonetheless I would be remiss in saying that religion is not often used to justify conduct.  But, I think we would be mistaken in saying that devoid of religion people would not engage in that conduct.  Eliminating religion does not necessarily eliminate the conduct, though it will eliminate that particular justification.  Unfortunately any example of this (communistic societies) will be skewed by the severity of punishment for crimes by the state.  In which case it is hard to distinguish if the impact is theistical or judicial.

3.  Furthermore, I doubt many of the people who are imprisoned for some crime based the commission of said crime upon their theistic beliefs, teaching, or understanding.  Admittedly their are a few who are doing because the dog told them too.  Usually those claiming the dog or god told them to do something are rare and far between or commonly feigning insanity (with an even small few actually being insane).

4.  In regard to higher education it is the Catholic church that established the institution of higher education and has been its most ardent supporter for millennia.  It may be said that the majority of scientific, social, and political advancements in the world have been made by religious people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#...iversities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

5.  As such world history would support that theistical influence has done more to promote and advance humanity than atheistic influence.

---

Thanks for the reply. Not much to disagree with in your item one. But no, I don't necessarily blame religion for the state of the people who are attracted to religion, although, religion may be to blame in some cases. It's variable (depending on circumstances). In the case of people indoctrinated in a faith system from birth, religion has to take some part of the blame for their character (even if only a small part of the blame). If someone gravitates to religion because they're a drug addict or alcoholic, obviously we can't blame religion for their condition. Yes, many scientists (in past decades and centuries) were religious (Mendel, Newton, the list is long). But at that time virtually everyone was religious, and pioneers in science were no exception. But I don't think that says anything about anything. 

The fact that religious people have exerted a great influence over events in western history shouldn't surprise anyone (atheism, in the form we see today, is a relatively recent development, even Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume, who was accused of being an atheist, vigorously opposed that classification, the closest to atheism you had back then was deism). And pointing out that the Catholics built universities is also not very compelling. Rome built the architecture of western civilization, much of which still exists to this very day, but that doesn't mean Rome wasn't a brutal imperialistic empire, they clearly were, their accomplishments notwithstanding. 

In fact I don't even deny that religion is useful for many people (I think it's almost absurd to deny as much). Nonetheless, none of this supports the veracity of religious claims (as I suspect you're aware). And obviously it's pretty tough to argue that the teachings of Jesus (a socialist, maybe even anarchist, love filled hippy) somehow induced felons to commit the crimes for which they're imprisoned. The point is ... religion doesn't appear to be a very strong mediating factor, and thus it also seems difficult to argue that religion is somehow beneficial in terms of bestowing its adherents with morality. 

(May 29, 2015 at 9:45 pm)francismjenkins Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Anima Wrote: Magnanimity was the word i was going for.  I was trying to say my overt goodness would convince him as a sarcastic response to his sarcastic comment.

Though I have made the mistake before of confusing magnanimity with magnitude.

---

Without arguing all of the various assertions I have a few general responses:

1.  Based on what is expressed it may be said that atheism is practiced by those who are not in need of religion.  I have heard it said religion is a crutch and I would not deny this assertion.  Naturally a crutch is a tool to be used when needed, a hindrance when not, and may cause further injury if used improperly.  However because a small minority are not in need of a thing is not to say the majority is no longer in need of said thing or that another minority is not in need of it.

2.  What is implied by your statement is that because religion has many of the less desirable people of society as it members then religion is the cause of their undesirability does not account for how many "get" religion in the pokey and is akin to stating that AA is making alcoholics or hospitals are making people sick.  After all there are so many sick people associated with hospitals.  Nonetheless I would be remiss in saying that religion is not often used to justify conduct.  But, I think we would be mistaken in saying that devoid of religion people would not engage in that conduct.  Eliminating religion does not necessarily eliminate the conduct, though it will eliminate that particular justification.  Unfortunately any example of this (communistic societies) will be skewed by the severity of punishment for crimes by the state.  In which case it is hard to distinguish if the impact is theistical or judicial.

3.  Furthermore, I doubt many of the people who are imprisoned for some crime based the commission of said crime upon their theistic beliefs, teaching, or understanding.  Admittedly their are a few who are doing because the dog told them too.  Usually those claiming the dog or god told them to do something are rare and far between or commonly feigning insanity (with an even small few actually being insane).

4.  In regard to higher education it is the Catholic church that established the institution of higher education and has been its most ardent supporter for millennia.  It may be said that the majority of scientific, social, and political advancements in the world have been made by religious people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#...iversities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

5.  As such world history would support that theistical influence has done more to promote and advance humanity than atheistic influence.

---

Thanks for the reply. Not much to disagree with in your item one. But no, I don't necessarily blame religion for the state of the people who are attracted to religion, although, religion may be to blame in some cases. It's variable (depending on circumstances). In the case of people indoctrinated in a faith system from birth, religion has to take some part of the blame for their character (even if only a small part of the blame). If someone gravitates to religion because they're a drug addict or alcoholic, obviously we can't blame religion for their condition. 

Yes, many scientists (in past decades and centuries) were religious (Mendel, Newton, the list is long). But at that time virtually everyone was religious, and pioneers in science were no exception. But I don't think that says anything about anything. 

The fact that religious people have exerted a great influence over events in western history shouldn't surprise anyone (atheism, in the form we see today, is a relatively recent development, even Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume, who was accused of being an atheist, vigorously opposed that classification, the closest to atheism you had back then was deism). And pointing out that the Catholics built universities is also not very compelling. Rome built the architecture of western civilization, much of which still exists to this very day, but that doesn't mean Rome wasn't a brutal imperialistic empire, they clearly were, their accomplishments notwithstanding. 

1. We are rather agreed on point one as by your argument of indoctrination we may say that the socioeconomic system that people are indoctrinated into from birth takes part of the blame as well (if not the bulk of said blame).

2. The third link was specifically in regards to scientist who chose to be catholic clerics and were no simply catholic because everyone was some religion at the time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists). What it does show is that the church has a history of highly educated people. I now the desire is to focus on the uneducated portion and I would agree with such focus if the church commanded or compelled them to be uneducated. However, the church does not do so. To this day there are many education centers maintained and established by the church. Believers are encouraged to attend catechism and learn the theology of the faith as well as attend higher institutions of learning. The general catholic belief being that truth supports truth and god maybe further understood in the understanding of his creation (which includes our person).

3. Establishments of Universities (hospitals and orphanages) by the church (most of which are still in existence today) is to serve as proof of the churches efforts to educate people throughout history. Prior to most institutions created by the church education was private and only paid for the elite by the elite. The church is the first formal institution to promote the education of laypersons and the education of women. The history just does not support your assertion that religion endeavors to keep people ignorant as a common way to get a free education was to join the church, because the church wanted its clergy educated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...1600_AD.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_...es#History

4. Regarding your argument of Rome. It is one of the constructive fallacies. It appears that you are doing the fallacy of composition. Which is to say that a condition of a part of the whole is the condition of the whole. Because the teeth in the emoticon are white this emoticon is white It also seems you believe a purely atheistic society would be far from brutal or imperialistic (which I take you to mean top down oppressive). Again history is not on your side for this argument as exhibited by the various atheistic communist nations which have existed throughout the world (which I do not think you would consider bastions of freedom, understanding, and pacifism).

Nestor; let me apologize for the delayed reply. I was not in a rush as several of the points you have brought up are already covered in the other pages of this thread. Nonetheless I will try to give sufficient response to save you the trouble of reading through everything again.

(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: Hmmm. The example reminds me of those who argue in favor of a deity which (who?) bestows rewards on its favorite tribe for following commands to commit genocide while prohibiting murder as an evil that is deserving of capital punishment. Anyway, I don't see the problem with subjective morality simply because it's possible to be inconsistent, which is not the same as self-contradiction---that would require one to say that it is both right and wrong to lie with regard to the same person, at the same time, and in the same respect.

Regarding the self contradiction of subjective morality we made reference to the Subject A lying for their own benefit to Subject B. Under subjective morality the moral quality is to be determined according to that of Subject A. As such the action of lying for ones own benefit is held as moral. Now if we are to continue to view the situation from the perspective of Subject A, but swap the actors to Subject B lying for their own benefit to Subject A. From the perspective of Subject A the action would be immoral. So in the same respect (moral quality of lying for personal benefit) as perceived by same person (Subject A) the action is both moral and immoral at the same time (since the act is not designated as time dependent and may be held at anytime).

(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Interesting.  As i would argue that a production of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena is imaginary in exactly the same sense as godhead.  The distinction being the "personhood" linguistic production is regards to phenomena of self where as the "Godhead" linguistic production is in regards to a more teleological subject.

(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: Well, I think you demonstrate further down the necessity of linguistic items such as "I" even if these items fail to describe anything with definite boundaries or objective existence, the same way that you might perceive the floor that presently sustains your body as a "solid plane" of "continuous magnitude" when we know in actuality that there are innumerable minute atoms surrounded by large gaps of empty space comprising every body in human perception. It's imaginary in the sense that it's one of many blunt conceptual aids used to describe phenomena between object and subject on a practical level, consistent with personal experience, but doesn't actually come close to truly representing the fundamental nature of beings and their surroundings. That's partly a problem of language, partly a problem of how brains process information received by the senses. When someone is able to establish "God" as a concept that approaches the same measure of necessity, or even utility, that you pointed out is involved in our sense of being continuous individual identities, I think you might have something of an argument for the benefits of deity as a concept, but still will not have offered anything in support of its objective existence.

Two this there are two responses:
1. Regarding the measure necessity or even utility of the "God" concept there are indeed any number of works which will far exceed anything I could write in a forum by men of far greater than intellect. Nearly every philosopher that is not trying to arguing God does not exists comes to the conclusion of the necessity of utility of God as at least a concept or the philosophical God.
2. As an atheist I expect the argument to the objective existence of God (I sort of wonder why you attempted the linquistic path you embarked upon). As stated repeatedly throughout this thread it is taken that by proof you mean direct explicit empirical proof rather than circumstantial implicit proof. I readily admit that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of God. However, I must further stress that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of anything which is not tautological (see the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant for greater explanation of actual and synthetic apriori and aposteriori). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: I didn't deny the existence of consciousness... that would be a bit difficult. I'm only denying the existence of self as it immediately appears to conscious beings.

I recognize that you did not deny the existence of consciousness. However, in accordance with the general Atheistic threshold of proof, what is your direct explicit empirical proof of consciousness? As I said several posts earlier, arguing a threshold of direct explicit empirical proof allows you to state that God does not exists for lack of proof, but it also negates the existence of everything you hold as proven to exist. You win the battle (god does not exist), but you lose the war (nothing exists).

(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: There's ample evidence for consciousness. You know, like the phenomenon of experiencing this present conversation, or the changes one undergoes with alternative brain states. That said, like libertarian free will, precisely defining---and then locating---the "I" of my thoughts, seems to be an entirely different matter. Btw, you do realize that difficulty in one subject that the sciences appear exclusively poised to address has no bearing on the validity or soundness of theology, right? So, are we just setting the god thing to the side to discuss a far more interesting topic or are you trying to make a (fallacious) argument here?

There is ample circumstantial implicit empirical proof of consciousness; like the phenomena of experience (change in brain activity is not indicative of consciousness, though it is indicative of physiological response to stimuli.) But as stated just above, circumstantial implicit empirical proof is not sufficient proof of the existence of a thing.

(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: I'm not advocating a dogmatic attachment to the self as a metaphysical entity with certain existence... I'm simply utilizing the best known means to continue living in an environment that contains others who are capable of thought and communication, and hopefully someone will eventually discover more as to what the relation is between mind and matter, concepts I think it would be nearly impossible to proceed without.

Ha ha!! As compelled by the Atheistic threshold of proof: "What proof do you have that the environment contains others capable of thought and communication?" other than reactionary meat responding to stimuli in a manner that implies thought and communication. "And hopefully someone will eventually discover"...You whipping out the faith card? Do you "believe" the day will come?

If the question doesn’t involve gods or entities of equal distinction, atheism - let alone "Atheism" - has nothing to do with it. Why is this so hard to grasp for you?

(May 30, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote: If the question doesn’t involve gods or entities of equal distinction, atheism - let alone "Atheism" - has nothing to do with it. Why is this so hard to grasp for you?

"You do take my house when you do take the proper which doth sustain my house. You do take my life when you do take the means whereby I live." - Shakespeare Merchant of Venice.

Thus, if your disbelief is based on lack of "proof" and the name of that disbelief is called Atheism so might I attribute the prop (lproof) that sustains your house (disbelief) as part of your house (disbelief) by calling it Atheistic.

Possible responses to your particular question:
1. Just as atheists tend to say theist apply god in everything so to might a theist say atheist apply atheism in everything.
2. Just as atheists call a theist bias for applying one set of requirements for god and another for not god so to might theist call atheists bias.
3. Just as atheists will not accept a theist answer of because for belief in god so to might a theist not accept because for atheists disbelief.
4. Just as atheists will critique theist reasons for belief by application to non-theist entities so might a theist do the same for atheist disbelief.

As I said earlier, "This villainy you teach me I will execute!! And it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction!!"

To continue along the vein of the Merchant of Venice, "Until you can rail the seal from off my bond thou but offend'st thy lungs to speak so loud. Repair thy wit, good youth, or it will fall to cureless ruin." I stand here for proof!!

Disbelief in god claims. Not disbelief in everything. You really are making heavy weather of this.