10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

[iceaura]

if they had no familiarity, they couldn't begin to lodge a rebuttal

And so they don't. Your point ?

You have persons in AI telling persons in biology what is and is not possible (and not on the strength of "how")

What is and is not possible where ? In biology ? In AI ? In brains ? In computers ?

And what's the point, anyway? Another example of the problems that enter scientific fields when people from outside come in and start philosophizing is hardly needed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
if they had no familiarity, they couldn't begin to lodge a rebuttal
”
And so they don't. Your point ?

well if they don't actually begin to lodge a rebuttal, you cannot begin to tell them they are out to lunch

“
Originally Posted by LG
You have persons in AI telling persons in biology what is and is not possible (and not on the strength of "how")
”
What is and is not possible where ? In biology ? In AI ? In brains ? In computers ?

once again - never encountered scientists using models of a computer to explain how the mind works?

And what's the point, anyway? Another example of the problems that enter scientific fields when people from outside come in and start philosophizing is hardly needed.

that is the substantial offering of Weizenbaum
he is indicating a fault of philosophy

I am not offering anything new

 

[iceaura]

well if they don't actually begin to lodge a rebuttal, you cannot begin to tell them they are out to lunch

My gosh.

Let's take it as a challenge: can I corner LG on even one minor point ? OK: They claim to be offereing rebuttals. They are not even beginning to do that, going astray right at the basics, in the very first step. The reason seems to be they have no familiarity with science (other explanations: They are stupid. They are liars. etc). That seems to be because their philosophical background includes little or no exposure to science.

If they were not claiming to be dealing in relevancies, I would have no basis for telling them they are out to lunch. But they make such claims.

Scientists much more rarely make such basic, beginning, clueless errors in philosophy. A likely explanation for that is their relatively larger experience with philosophy.

once again - never encountered scientists using models of a computer to explain how the mind works?

I answered that. It's your turn to answer a question.

I am not offering anything new

Or answering any questions. So no surprises.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

“
Originally Posted by LG
well if they don't actually begin to lodge a rebuttal, you cannot begin to tell them they are out to lunch
”
My gosh.

Let's take it as a challenge: can I corner LG on even one minor point ? OK: They claim to be offereing rebuttals. They are not even beginning to do that, going astray right at the basics,

hence they are beginning to offer rebuttals
It tends to indicate that they have some degree of knowledge on the subject - arguably more than say a physicist setting out to elaborate on discourses within philosophy

“
Originally Posted by LG
once again - never encountered scientists using models of a computer to explain how the mind works?
”
I answered that. It's your turn to answer a question.

I did
specifically an influence of AI in a field of biology, despite a complete absence of any connection of "how"
“

Originally Posted by LG
I am not offering anything new
”
Or answering any questions. So no surprises.

Weizenbaum elaborates on what you seem to indicate doesn't happen in science since it no longer donning the shackles of philosophy

 

[iceaura]

It tends to indicate that they have some degree of knowledge on the subject - arguably more than say a physicist setting out to elaborate on discourses within philosophy

No. They wouldn't do stuff like that if they knew what they were doing in the slightest. And the rarity of physicists attempting any such foolishness, coupled with their competence at handling the limited philosophical issues they do face, indicates greater familiarity with the issues involved.

I did
specifically an influence of AI in a field of biology, despite a complete absence of any connection of "how"

Random commentary is not an answer. The question needs answering.

Weizenbaum elaborates on what you seem to indicate doesn't happen in science since it no longer donning the shackles of philosophy

What I assert is rare in science, for exactly that reason. And unfortunate, when it does occur, as we see. When scientists (we are assuming these AI engineers are scientists, although a biologist might object) play philosophers, they do no better than the real thing in telling other scientists what to think and do.

So are we agreed, then ?

 

[lightgigantic]

No. They wouldn't do stuff like that if they knew what they were doing in the slightest. And the rarity of physicists attempting any such foolishness, coupled with their competence at handling the limited philosophical issues they do face, indicates greater familiarity with the issues involved.

I take it you have fundamental differences with dawkins then

Random commentary is not an answer. The question needs answering.

maybe you could try and ask the question again in a different manner since from my side it appears to have been answered

What I assert is rare in science, for exactly that reason. And unfortunate, when it does occur, as we see. When scientists (we are assuming these AI engineers are scientists, although a biologist might object) play philosophers, they do no better than the real thing in telling other scientists what to think and do.

as far as I am aware, mechanistic views of consciousness influenced by ideas promulgated by AI have not just superficially appeared in a few places of neuroscience

So are we agreed, then ?

I'm not completely sure just yet

 

[iceaura]

I take it you have fundamental differences with dawkins then


maybe you could try and ask the question again in a different manner since from my side it appears to have been answered

I lose again. Shoot.

as far as I am aware, mechanistic views of consciousness influenced by ideas promulgated by AI have not just superficially appeared in a few places of neuroscience

So ? They probably know what they need, for their research.

 

[lightgigantic]

So ? They probably know what they need, for their research.

according to Weizenbaum, there could be other than just simply the needs of good ol fashioned empirical rhetoric ....

 

[iceaura]

according to Weizenbaum, there could be other than just simply the needs of good ol fashioned empirical rhetoric ....

Or not, depending on whether you buy into his description of all those biologists thinking human extinction would be jsut fine if they can get computers to think.

I've never met one such biologist.

btw: Rhetoric is not even in the subject field.

 

[fusion4577]

Having been around these boards on and off for a couple of years now, I wanted to pose 10 question which I feel summarize the bulk of conversations on these boards. The following questions were taken from a list compiled on from tektonics.org, and I'm curious to hears the responses.

10 Questions for Atheists:​

1. Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
   
   
2. Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
   
   
3. Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
   
   
4. Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
   
   
5. Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
   
   
6. How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
   
   
7. Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
   
   
8. Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
   
   
9. Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
   
   
10. And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?

not all atheist belive in wht you suggest and to convert me, it is as simple as have god say hi to me and tell me he is god

 

[Gently Passing]

I believe Atheism is currently popular because the old religions (namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all rely on visions of the Universe that have been irretrievably demolished by Science - take for instance the age of the Earth.

Christianity tells us it's 3,500 years old.

Given the clear failure of these systems to survive scientific investigation people do what they naturally do - run the other way as fast as they can.

But they will drift toward the middle again, leaving a few fringe Atheist Extremists wondering what happened to all their friends...

Ultimately "God" or whatever we call it, will remain a part of the cultural picture for the foreseeable future, but it is likely to take a form that is more in line with Science and with experience.

Two systems seem to provide a fairly consistent model already, and their increasing popularity suggests a philosophical shift:

Buddhism and Vedanta (a Hindu sect) where "God" is more of a fundamental aspect of our beings and life is simply a process of evolving to higher and higher levels of awareness.

Atheism, ironically, is a bit too rigid to last as it suffers the same flaw as any Extremist religious viewpoint: it is just too restrictive, too far out there and does very little for people in their everyday lives.

Extremism is a reactionary response, and with the dissolution of whatever we are reacting to, Extremism inevitably withdraws as well.

Put out the flame and the animals return to the forest.

 

[Enmos]

I believe Atheism is currently popular because the old religions (namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all rely on visions of the Universe that have been irretrievably demolished by Science - take for instance the age of the Earth.

Christianity tells us it's 3,500 years old.

Given the clear failure of these systems to survive scientific investigation people do what they naturally do - run the other way as fast as they can.

But they will drift toward the middle again, leaving a few fringe Atheist Extremists wondering what happened to all their friends...

Ultimately "God" or whatever we call it, will remain a part of the cultural picture for the foreseeable future, but it is likely to take a form that is more in line with Science and with experience.

Two systems seem to provide a fairly consistent model already, and their increasing popularity suggests a philosophical shift:

Buddhism and Vedanta (a Hindu sect) where "God" is more of a fundamental aspect of our beings and life is simply a process of evolving to higher and higher levels of awareness.

Atheism, ironically, is a bit too rigid to last as it suffers the same flaw as any Extremist religious viewpoint: it is just too restrictive, too far out there and does very little for people in their everyday lives.

Extremism is a reactionary response, and with the dissolution of whatever we are reacting to, Extremism inevitably withdraws as well.

Put out the flame and the animals return to the forest.

I honestly don't think so. I think more and more people will leave their faith, but most of all, more and more people will never become part of any religion to being with.

 

[davewhite04]

I believe Atheism is currently popular because the old religions (namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all rely on visions of the Universe that have been irretrievably demolished by Science - take for instance the age of the Earth.

Christianity tells us it's 3,500 years old.

There are two main viewpoints within Christianity.

The Creationists who believe the Universe(and Earth) is around 6000 years old, as they take the genesis account literally and use the geneology of the people in the Bible to get this age.

Then there is the theistic evolutionists who don't take some of the Bible literally and they fully embrace the evolution theory including cosmic evolution etc.

I have no idea where you got the 3,500 year old date from.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I believe Atheism is currently popular because the old religions (namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all rely on visions of the Universe that have been irretrievably demolished by Science - take for instance the age of the Earth.

Christianity tells us it's 3,500 years old.

*************
M*W: You've got to be kidding. Right? If the Earth is only 3,500 years old, that would take us back to only 1492 BC. Christianity would then prove that David, the shepherd boy, would have been one of the first men. Adam and Eve would not have existed. Abraham and Sarah would not have existed. Ishmael and Isaac would not have existed. Lot and his daughters would not have existed. Let's not forget Noah, Ham, Shem and Japeth either, the Serpent in the Garden, the Garden, the apple tree nor god would have existed. The indigenous peoples of the Americas were just a fairy tale, I guess. It would also eliminate half of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, and the mummies they found were fake. There would be no pyramids, no Hebrews, no Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses, had he lived, would have been about 99 years old when the world began. There would have been no cave paintings, no goddess relics, no Aztecs, no Incas, no angels.

I'm an atheist, and there is not much ado about god or religion that I believe. You should think about what you're saying. Your world must be very bleak, and I pity you for your ignorance about your own beliefs.

~ M*W

 

[davewhite04]

I don't think he thinks the world is 3,500 years old.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I don't think he thinks the world is 3,500 years old.

*************
M*W: Even if it was a typo, he'd still be wrong!

 

[Enmos]

*************
M*W: Even if it was a typo, he'd still be wrong!

No, it was a typo. He meant to write 4.54 billion years

 

[davewhite04]

Then that would make his whole post nonsensical, so he would be in good company

 

[Enmos]

This whole thread is nonsensical. I can't believe the stupidity I have seen here.. :bugeye:

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

Having been around these boards on and off for a couple of years now, I wanted to pose 10 question which I feel summarize the bulk of conversations on these boards. The following questions were taken from a list compiled on from [LINK], and I'm curious to hears the responses.

10 Questions for Atheists:​

1. Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?

1. 
   The same reason you choose to not believe the followers of other religions, it seems as if the others are insane, you do not believe them because you have not personally seen "Him".
   

   [*]Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?

   Not only do Christians insist they are true, they insist that EVERY OTHER(non Christian) PERSON IN THE WORLD IS WRONG. Atheists, or at least I, do not blindly insist that they are right, most atheists that I have talked to are willing to believe in God if given any sort of proof.
   

   [*]Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?

   Is it blind faith to believe that I am not God even though you have no proof whether I am God or whether I am not?
   

   [*]Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

   I HAVE MADE A CALCULATOR, I DO NOT KNOW ANYONE THAT HAS MADE A ME.
   

   [*]Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?

   Do you honestly believe no scientist has ever explored the ideas of creationism and/or intelligent design?
   

   [*]How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?

   Well, hate to be picky but the old testament DID condone slavery, a main cause late in the Civil War... But its not like LACK of religion has caused those wars, just they weren't caused by religion. Good job, you can list wars you didn't start??
   

   [*]Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?

   N/A
   

   [*]Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?

   All depends on how each party says what they have to say.
   

   [*]Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?

   I don't claim to know the truth, but, with all evidence presented, Atheism is the clear choice.
   

   [*]And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?

   Too sparse to know specifics, such as the birth date of ONE man and what he did with his life two thousand(ish) years ago...