Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Love]

Ask a silly question: get a silly answer.

It was actually a perfectly reasonable question that was asked specifically in the context of the conversation in which I was engaging with "thesummerqueen".

Also, it is not a silly answer; the answer is correct, but it was plagiarised.

[Creed of Heresy]

Oh look a poison the well fallacy, how adorable. Whatever, this sad sack isn't worth my time, anyways. Clearly "love" hasn't got anything relevant, new, interesting, or remotely tangible to say, regardless, and I'm going to go out on a limb and just say that the REAL reason Mr. Love isn't going to respond is because, again, he's a coward who can't face what I just said or defend himself, so he pulls the usual Christian forum-Crusader tactic of "RUN AWAAAAY!" when beaten into submission. There are Christian missionaries who go to Africa with barely any "modern comforts" to preach and spread their religion but this creampuff can't even handle a few hard, painful truths being tossed his way? I reiterate: COWARD.

[pocaracas]

Yes, I understand your perception of philosophy, which really just comes across to me as ignorant and lazy. Being dismissive about it will not help you when you're confronted by people who have studied philosophy, and the profound impact that it can have on how a person perceives reality.

How a person perceives reality is of no concern to reality itself.
Reality doesn't care if there is any one here to perceive it.
Heck, reality has no consciousness, so it can't even care.

Why do you care? Why do you posit such a high regard for "how a person perceives reality"?
What you call rationality seems to me to be the asking of "how reality is".
Of course, one can influence the other, but science (rationalism) endeavors to keep human subjective perception to a minimum.

[Creed of Heresy]

And you say "plagiarised." I say "quoted."

[Love]

I can see why you think that. Though, I think it is irrelevant.
Your opinion of Creed shouldn't lead you to disregard his arguments, because they may be valid.

Right is right; regardless of whether or not you like the person.

I agree that his arguments may be valid. If he would like to discuss the matter courteously, I am happy to address any questions/points. However, he has a remarkably vile attitude, in which case I have absolutely no desire to waste my time on him.

[Faith No More]

I wasn't being vile. Can you respond to my reply?

[Creed of Heresy]

There's my answer, Love. *Goes off to another thread to find something more interesting to talk about.*

[Love]

I wasn't being vile. Can you respond to my reply?

Sorry Faith No More. I am trying to get through the questions, but I am obviously massively outnumbered.

You have raised some interesting points about the love you feel for your family. You stated that "I would never dream of claiming that it was anything outside of my own mind". This is a good point; however, it inevitably leads to the "problem of consciousness". As I have stated, science is not anywhere near being close to understanding consciousness.

Watch this Richard Dawkins video from 4:40 (Why can't we understand the basis of consciousness?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLgNWp7_cg8

It is my contention that human consciousness, including love, is beyond the scope of reason. There is a very interesting speculation that the brain is actually a receiver of consciousness as opposed to being the generator of such. The philosophy of mind is extremely complex and is something that I am presently reading about.

Of course a rationalist would probably make the immediate sweeping statement of "consciousness cannot exist without a brain". However, this simplistic way of viewing such a complex topic would be ridiculed in an academic environment.

[Faith No More]

I don't have time to watch that video and give an in-depth reply, but I will in the future, promise. As for now, I will simply say that being beyond the scope of human reason does not mean that something is of supernatural origin.

[Esquilax]

It is my contention that human consciousness, including love, is beyond the scope of reason. There is a very interesting speculation that the brain is actually a receiver of consciousness as opposed to being the generator of such. The philosophy of mind is extremely complex and is something that I am presently reading about.

Of course a rationalist would probably make the immediate sweeping statement of "consciousness cannot exist without a brain". However, this simplistic way of viewing such a complex topic would be ridiculed in an academic environment.

Incidentally, the reverse theory, that consciousness can exist absent a brain, would also be ridiculed, unless you can provide any evidence of it. You've made, or at least alluded to, this claim; care to take us through your reasoning for thinking so? Given that, as you say, a number of the functions of the mind/brain are still beyond science, how would you go about proving that one can exist without the other?

Also, for something you claim is beyond reason, science sure has learned a lot about concepts like love and the brain states that evoke such feelings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

I wouldn't be so quick to declare what is and isn't within the purview of science; history has a habit of proving people who talk like that wrong.