The existence of God

[Jehanne]

Science can't prove that The Force does not exist; you may someday meet a true Jedi.

You cross the line from skepticism to cynicism with enthusiasm. You're what has been described as a pseudo-skeptic. All the calories, but half the taste.

I believe that my views are typical among scientists and other scholars.

P.S. Stating it differently, I consider myself to be a mainstream atheist.

[Ahriman]

You cross the line from skepticism to cynicism with enthusiasm.  You're what has been described as a pseudo-skeptic.  All the calories, but half the taste.

I believe that my views are typical among scientists and other scholars.

P.S.  Stating it differently, I consider myself to be a mainstream atheist.

Booooooo. Do your own thing.

[Jehanne]

I believe that my views are typical among scientists and other scholars.

P.S.  Stating it differently, I consider myself to be a mainstream atheist.

Booooooo. Do your own thing.

This message board is referred to as "Atheist Forums" for a reason, hon.

[Angrboda]

You cross the line from skepticism to cynicism with enthusiasm.  You're what has been described as a pseudo-skeptic.  All the calories, but half the taste.

I believe that my views are typical among scientists and other scholars.

P.S.  Stating it differently, I consider myself to be a mainstream atheist.

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Intentionality and qualia are nothing like any of those examples. You do see that, right?

They are certainly more complex. But then, the brain is more complex than a container of gas.

Are they different in a way that leads us to suspect they can't be emergent from the brain processes? No.

In fact, ALL the evidence that we have is precisely that all conscious events are, in fact, brain events.

And, frankly, I think that 'qualia' is too vague a term to be useful. Nobody seems to be able to agree exactly what it means.

Sorry, but most of what you said is pure assertion. If in your opinion qualia is vaguely defined it is because of its irreducible immediacy. And no, there is no obvious way to reduce intentionality, what systems are about, to purely physical causes. Sure there are many approaches attempting to do so. Which means there is robust debate in an area you are professing certainty.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sorry, but most of what you said is pure assertion. If in your opinion qualia is vaguely defined it is because of its irreducible immediacy. And no, there is no obvious way to reduce intentionality, what systems are about, to purely physical causes. Sure there are many approaches attempting to do so. Which means there is robust debate in an area you are professing certainty.

Rubbish 

[Ranjr]

Sorry, but most of what you said is pure assertion. If in your opinion qualia is vaguely defined it is because of its irreducible immediacy. And no, there is no obvious way to reduce intentionality, what systems are about, to purely physical causes. Sure there are many approaches attempting to do so. Which means there is robust debate in an area you are professing certainty.

At least we can agree to refuse pure assertions any certainty.

[HankMoody316]

From reading the last 5-10 comments, may I ask what atheists consider to be a "mainstream atheist"?

[LadyForCamus]

From reading the last 5-10 comments, may I ask what atheists consider to be a "mainstream atheist"?

May I ask, how does a mormon end up a fan of a show like Californication?

[arewethereyet]

From reading the last 5-10 comments, may I ask what atheists consider to be a "mainstream atheist"?

I haven't heard the term 'mainstream atheist' till it fell from Ahriman's mouth.  Therefore, it's really not wasting a lot of time worrying about.  I have never been mainstream anything, so there's that.