A****** is a bad word?

[Cris]

sam,

Aren't you the one who believes minds can be downloaded into computers for putative immortality?

I hope you can see the difference between a belief (a conviction that something is true) and an endeavor to achieve something worthwhile where we are unsure if it can be done.

Most scientists and technologists on the leading edge of new innovations operate in this arena of attempting to achieve new things where they are uncertain that it can be done. These are not the actions born of baseless beliefs of certainty as we see with religion but are based on knowledge (often incomplete), ideas, imagination, and concepts, where we see potential possibilities.

And the concept is mind uploading where the idea is that if we can digitize the neural patterns of a human brain and transfer that into a processing mechanism that can replicate brain function then that person could persist in a more durable medium rather than stay in the fragile realm of biology. I don't know if it can be done yet. In my lab I only have a 256 processor system and I will need several thousand and of much greater power before we can begin to consider the concept achievable.

I have no delusion that I know it can be done, just a hope that it might be possible.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you do believe that a mind can be downloaded into a computer.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove its main contention to other people who may or may not agree.

I am a skeptic in that

 

[Cris]

sam,

So you do believe that a mind can be downloaded into a computer.

“ Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove its main contention to other people who may or may not agree. ”

No, it is an hypothesis; a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

No, it is an hypothesis; a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

Ah so you don't believe it. Sorry.

 

[Cris]

sam,

Ah so you don't believe it. Sorry.

Do you think that a hypothesis is a statement of belief or unbelief then? I'd hope not. The question of belief is not an issue. How would you define the process of seeking while retaining a position of neutrality regarding the issue of belief/unbelief? One does not have to believe or disbelieve something in order to pursue a line of enquiry.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

Do you think that a hypothesis is a statement of belief or unbelief then? I'd hope not. The question of belief is not an issue. How would you define the process of seeking while retaining a position of neutrality regarding the issue of belief/unbelief?

I'm not the one who linked a****** to skepticism

Personally I do not believe that belief and empiricism are interchangeable

 

[Cris]

Sam,

I'm not the one who linked a****** to skepticism

But I didn't, I linked it to your OP "What is the politically correct term for those who do not believe in God?"

The term a***** is the issue in dispute and which has an ambiguous meaning.

Personally I do not believe that belief and empiricism are interchangeable

An opinion which is pretty much irrelevant if the final product actually functions. A condition that cannot be applied to the supernatural where nothing can be shown as real, true, or functional.

 

[lightgigantic]

Indeed and also one of the last places you would expect to encounter a person that isn't a formula 1 driver would be on a forum discussing formula 1. :bugeye:

You are so naive lg, it's just not funny. Needless to say, many people have an interest in these things, golf included, without actually believing in or partaking in the event. I've never hit a golf ball in my life but I do discuss golf with friends. I am not a footballer but I do discuss football with friends. And yes, I also discuss Star Trek with friends even though I don't believe Klingons exist.

Please, desist with your foolishness.

sure - I even crack a few jokes about football and golf
but I wouldn't say I dedicate any vast (or even partial) reservoirs of time or energy in illuminating others on the facts of football or golf
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
frankly, at the time, it seemed more like an issue for theists and ex-atheists to mull over
”
Or someone interested in what causes people to be irrational (or to "suspend rationality") in some areas of their life and not others.

“
if a person simply wasn't interested in anything remotely religious, there would be little impetus
”
One can merely just be interested in rational / irrationality - and religion seems to be where the latter is most evidently lacking (if that's not an oxymoron).

“
moreso than persons who have absolutely no interest in golf
”
Sure - but then does the atheist discuss the religion or the rational / irrational nature of belief in general - something in which those who do post have an interest.

“
politicians aren't the only one's interested in politics
”
So you admit that having an interest in something does not mean you are that thing? So a person interested in religion doesn't have to be a theist?

“
all I can do is talk of my experience as an atheist
”
And generalise so massively based on that? Come on, you're better than that, aren't you?

I think you should back track to greenberg's offerings of "atheist", "ex-theist" and "theist"

 

[lightgigantic]

An opinion which is pretty much irrelevant if the final product actually functions. A condition that cannot be applied to the supernatural where nothing can be shown as real, true, or functional.

what do you offer as a model for ascertaining how something is real, true or functional?
Frequently we hear the charge that theism is false/delusional.
Rarely do we hear of such persons offering a model for discerning something real/truthful that is complete.

 

[superluminal]

non-believer

 

[SnakeLord]

I even crack a few jokes about football and golf
but I wouldn't say I dedicate any vast (or even partial) reservoirs of time or energy in illuminating others on the facts of football or golf

Ok, so you crack some jokes about certain sports. Why are you reflecting what you do on everyone else? I can assure you there are many many people here that almost constantly talk about football while not being football players. There are also many many people that love talking about golf without being golf players.

Once again I am forced to ask you to desist with such naive foolishness.

 

[Cris]

lg,

what do you offer as a model for ascertaining how something is real, true or functional?
Frequently we hear the charge that theism is false/delusional.
Rarely do we hear of such persons offering a model for discerning something real/truthful that is complete.

Practical influence.

If you can't show that something exerts an influence in the world then the question of whether it exists or not is largely irrelevant.

Simply put -

(1) if you believe a god exists then show something that it does or has done that cannot have an alternative explanation.

(2) if you believe souls exists then show something that they do or have done that cannot have alternative explanations.

This approach is based on the premise that any effect can only ever have a single unique cause.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok, so you crack some jokes about certain sports. Why are you reflecting what you do on everyone else? I can assure you there are many many people here that almost constantly talk about football while not being football players. There are also many many people that love talking about golf without being golf players.

Once again I am forced to ask you to desist with such naive foolishness.

its not so much about being/not being a practitioner
Its about how much one dedicates to it

for instance if I asserted that I held no interest in golf yet spent 50% of my online time telling others on golf forums about it, its clear I am a hypocrite.

In the same way, the more that you try and drive home that you have an absence of belief about god on religious forums, the more you are asserting your faith

This seems to be a primary difference between your experience as an atheist and my experience as an atheist

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Practical influence.

If you can't show that something exerts an influence in the world then the question of whether it exists or not is largely irrelevant.

Simply put -

(1) if you believe a god exists then show something that it does or has done that cannot have an alternative explanation.

(2) if you believe souls exists then show something that they do or have done that cannot have alternative explanations.

This approach is based on the premise that any effect can only ever have a single unique cause.

check out the pseudoscience threads if you are after alternative explanations ....



if reality can be determined by one's ability to produce alternative explanations we are in grave difficulty

 

[SnakeLord]

for instance if I asserted that I held no interest in golf yet spent 50% of my online time telling others on golf forums about it, its clear I am a hypocrite.

Ok that's not a problem but then... I don't see one person here espousing that they have no interest in the subject matter. Do you? If there are any take it up with them.

Speaking for myself: I have a very deep interest in mythology and ancient superstition. I have a great interest in looking at why humans believe such things, why humans continue to believe in such superstitions given how far we have come, am very interested in looking at its impact on society and doing my bit to prevent such nonsense, (if it helps I refer merely to the other gods.. the ones you would agree are also nonsense), from being forced upon the young. The list is actually quite extensive so I shall leave it here.

the more that you try and drive home that you have an absence of belief about god on religious forums, the more you are asserting your faith

Not at all - this is a serious error on your part.

(Note: I dont speak for everyone): I would state that most of us here are actually quite science minded, (this is after all a science forum). Generally speaking when someone makes a claim to something we are not the kind of people that just say "ok" and leave it there. We want to know why, we want to see the evidence, we want answers, we need to question those claims. Saying "yeah whatever" is doing a disservice - to both you and us.

If you were perhaps a little less religious minded and a little more science minded you would understand this. There is the problem between us. The very core of god belief rests on "yeah ok" and nothing more. That is not how the scientific mind works and so there is instantly a vast bridge between us. We don't say "yeah ok", or in theist words "god did it". That's just not good enough.

This seems to be a primary difference between your experience as an atheist and my experience as an atheist

I contend that you never were, (other than in the form of your continual atheism with regards to say Thor etc). Of course I have been an atheist since my birth quite a few decades ago and so yes, there will be differences - but then there are differences between every person be they theist, atheist or golf player. You as a theist differ from every other theist here. Why would you use shrug emoticons with regards to something that is completely normal? We're not the Borg.

 

[superluminal]

In the same way, the more that you try and drive home that you have an absence of belief about god on religious forums, the more you are asserting your faith

Why would a clearly intelligent person say such a silly thing?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

for instance if I asserted that I held no interest in golf yet spent 50% of my online time telling others on golf forums about it, its clear I am a hypocrite.
”
Ok that's not a problem but then... I don't see one person here espousing that they have no interest in the subject matter. Do you? If there are any take it up with them.

they do espouse that issues of religion/god do not offer an influencing contribution to their personal lives though ...

Speaking for myself: I have a very deep interest in mythology and ancient superstition. I have a great interest in looking at why humans believe such things, why humans continue to believe in such superstitions given how far we have come, am very interested in looking at its impact on society and doing my bit to prevent such nonsense, (if it helps I refer merely to the other gods.. the ones you would agree are also nonsense), from being forced upon the young. The list is actually quite extensive so I shall leave it here.

hence trying to redefine your designation as a "non-theist" seems more like a valued ideal than a deserving title

“
the more that you try and drive home that you have an absence of belief about god on religious forums, the more you are asserting your faith
”
Not at all - this is a serious error on your part.

(Note: I dont speak for everyone): I would state that most of us here are actually quite science minded, (this is after all a science forum). Generally speaking when someone makes a claim to something we are not the kind of people that just say "ok" and leave it there. We want to know why, we want to see the evidence, we want answers, we need to question those claims. Saying "yeah whatever" is doing a disservice - to both you and us.

If you were perhaps a little less religious minded and a little more science minded you would understand this. There is the problem between us. The very core of god belief rests on "yeah ok" and nothing more. That is not how the scientific mind works and so there is instantly a vast bridge between us. We don't say "yeah ok", or in theist words "god did it". That's just not good enough.

problems arise when the inquiring mind is curtailed by pre-existing beliefs

“
This seems to be a primary difference between your experience as an atheist and my experience as an atheist
”
I contend that you never were, (other than in the form of your continual atheism with regards to say Thor etc). Of course I have been an atheist since my birth quite a few decades ago and so yes, there will be differences - but then there are differences between every person be they theist, atheist or golf player. You as a theist differ from every other theist here. Why would you use shrug emoticons with regards to something that is completely normal? We're not the Borg.

my point is that your position as an atheist is more diametrically opposed to theism than mine was
this isn't a problem
what is a problem is when you clamour for a definition of atheism being the non-belief of god, when your (virtual) behavior indicates the exact opposite
(meaning an anti-belief in god)

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In the same way, the more that you try and drive home that you have an absence of belief about god on religious forums, the more you are asserting your faith
”
Why would a clearly intelligent person say such a silly thing?

if I spent 50% of my recreational online time on golf forums asserting that golf doesn't offer a controlling element in my life, what would that suggest?

 

[Michael]

Why do unbelievers object to being called unbelievers?

"unbeliever" is a loaded term.

Imagine giving a speach to a group of white supremestis - people who are more than willing to kill for their beleif and refering to people from the middle east as rag-head sand niggers. Then saying "arent-chya proud `O being a rag-headed nigga. What`s the politcal correct word for "sand-nigga"?

Or refering to homosexuals as fagotts and then saying aren`t you proud of being a fag.


People disagree with one another and people are naturally xenophobic. It`s part of our evolutionary characterists. An insightful AND good hearted person would NEVER play off peoples inherent biggotted nature.

If it doesn`t make sense then I suppose all I can say is think on it.

Michael