There flat-out is no god.

[Tnerb]

You were right to assume that nature glaucon; I appreciate you for your strong sense of awareness in that aspect

 

[Tnerb]

Oh yeah, well, I just bought a box of magic cards!

And, well, I feel really selfistic.

So, that probably beats all ya'lls philosophy. So y-yah!

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

One doesn't need to fall to the 'qualia' notion to disrupt the self concept.
And I wouldn't say a construct torn from experience, rather, one that experiences.

This is an assumption. That experience needs a host.

I do indeed believe it to be a construct, but this hardly makes it arbitrary.

Notions of self between cultures and in different historical eras could make a good case that it is arbritrary.

A dynamic continuity is that which enables experience.

Continuity might be an illusion. I just read some gosh darned physicist who has put forward a theory that nows are all that exist and there is a illusion that the now are connected or are continuous.

The word "self" merely exists in a linguistic functional sense. Without it, expressing the totality of your experience would be impossible.

Sounds like you are an aselfist.

Neither.
The self cannot be experienced. Experience necessitates a self.

I disagree. Experience simply necessitates experience.


And just as you can be polytheistic, there are many polyselfists who see the self as not a monad by a plurality. Just to go in the other direction.

 

[glaucon]

This is an assumption. That experience needs a host.

Then provide an example of a non-hosted experiencer.

Notions of self between cultures and in different historical eras could make a good case that it is arbritrary.

Cultural differences are to be expected; the self is always contingent upon environment. That isn't arbitrariness.

Continuity might be an illusion. I just read some gosh darned physicist who has put forward a theory that nows are all that exist and there is a illusion that the now are connected or are continuous.

I agree.
In fact, in my undergrad thesis on Personal Identity, I argued that continuity is an epiphenomenal byproduct of the self.

Sounds like you are an aselfist.

Not at all. But ontologically, I fully agree with nominalism.
The self exists of necessity, but 'merely' as a mental notion.

I disagree. Experience simply necessitates experience.

Experience without an experiencer is not experience.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Then provide an example of a non-hosted experiencer.

There would simply be experience without experiencers. Perhaps all posited experiencers actually have no experiencers. An artificial split is made in experience and part of this is called the self.

Cultural differences are to be expected; the self is always contingent upon environment. That isn't arbitrariness.

It seems wildly flexible. Also some of these environments seem very much the same.

I agree.
In fact, in my undergrad thesis on Personal Identity, I argued that continuity is an epiphenomenal byproduct of the self.

There you go.

Not at all. But ontologically, I fully agree with nominalism.
The self exists of necessity, but 'merely' as a mental notion.

OK, that kind of necessity.

Experience without an experiencer is not experience.

Again, it is a habit - this is me being devil's advocate. You break down phenomena into 'out there' and imagine it entering a 'self', a receiver in which the experience takes place.

But I am going to drop this line. Heck, you've been an adherent since college. Go and challenge the comfort zones of the selfist atheists!

Me I believe in selves and other 'supernatural entities'. I am a selfist theist.

 

[glaucon]

There would simply be experience without experiencers.

That would be a contradiction.

Perhaps all posited experiencers actually have no experiencers. An artificial split is made in experience and part of this is called the self.

Not at all. There is no such split; the split is one between subject and object.

It seems wildly flexible. Also some of these environments seem very much the same.

And so it should be, as a product of so many variables.
Note: "environment" is not limited to the physical.

Again, it is a habit - this is me being devil's advocate. You break down phenomena into 'out there' and imagine it entering a 'self', a receiver in which the experience takes place.

Hey, I love the Devil's Advocate...

I make that break because it is the way things are.
You are always distinct from your environment. While you may be selective with respect to how much you 'receive', the simple fact that you do indeed do this, obviates the break.

But I am going to drop this line. Heck, you've been an adherent since college. Go and challenge the comfort zones of the selfist atheists!

An adherent that analyzes, as opposed to one of faith....

 

[Gustav]

oh my
very nicely done

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

That would be a contradiction.

It only seems that way because of a habit. Experience happens. Events happen. There are nows. In any case, the onus is on you not me, a la Ockham. You are positing more entities. I say there are undivided nows. Period. What is this extra entity you are bringing in to muddy the waters.

Not at all. There is no such split; the split is one between subject and object.

Oh, you mean that other way of framing an illusory split.

I make that break because it is the way things are.
You are always distinct from your environment. While you may be selective with respect to how much you 'receive', the simple fact that you do indeed do this, obviates the break.

There's no break in experience and there there's no break in the quantum foam. Events. Movements. Flow.

An adherent that analyzes, as opposed to one of faith....

All adherents analyze. There first tools are assumptions. And assumptions about which assumptions are safe and which are less likely. Assumptions about how their vantage can assess these levels of probability. Assumptions about what intuition is real pattern recognition and what is faith or guesswork. Assumptions that the way they break down these choices is better than others.

Faith is, in the hands of both theists and rationalists, either the useless monotheist concept - belief based on nothing - or a dangerous baby+bath that included intuition and faith and fails to adequately distinguish between them.

 

[greenberg]

I make that break because it is the way things are.

Okay, time-out.

Is the above your genuine stance, or is it part of your discussions/debate strategy?

Are you actually saying you know "the way things are"? Ie., are you actually saying you are omniscient, enlightened even?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

i am not religious. qualified... i do not think that one's beliefs should be institutionalized. i believe that everyone should think for themselves. experience life and be unafraid and open-minded and see what they learn, and share what they learn, and respect another's beliefs, for they are based on another's life and their experiences, none of which are the same. i think that the need to be a part of an institutionalized religion is co-dependency.

*************
M*W: Lori, I agree with you. Co-dependency is not a good thing. It weakens the will of both co-dependents. It leads to failure when one cannot stand alone. Co-dependency is a crutch, and it inhibits one to think on his/her own.

When a person is a religious co-dependent, as with all co-dependents, it usually comes about in the presence of an addiction. Religion can also be an addiction. A good example in today's news is the FLDS sect in Texas (and elsewhere). Those folks are addicted to their faith and their lifestyle which go hand-in-hand.

One of my biggest problems with religion is the "group dynamic." It grows through emotional breeding, and the more people involved (the co-dependents), the more scattered the tenets are and are often off the "beaten path." Like the FLDS as an offshoot of the LDS.

The more co-dependents involved in a religious situation, the more fear is produced. Then, of course, my god becomes greater than your god... yada yada yada.

Bottom line is that religion isn't necessarily tampering with one's faith but one's psyche.

I agree with you. Institutionalizing one's faith is nothing more than marketing and selling salvation. Nobody wants to be left behind. Nobody has been left behind. The more I understand the reality of religion (i.e. christianity), the more I can see that there is no god.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." ~ Olin Miller

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) for the Day:

"There is a better way to do it; find it." ~ Thomas A. Edison, 1847-1931, American Inventor

 

[glaucon]

It only seems that way because of a habit. Experience happens. Events happen. There are nows. In any case, the onus is on you not me, a la Ockham. You are positing more entities. I say there are undivided nows. Period. What is this extra entity you are bringing in to muddy the waters.

Call it a habit if you must. Kant called it an a priori synthetic. Regardless, for a single mind to operate in this material world, as we experience it, the subject/object distinction occurs. Ergo, my good friend Ockham does not apply: the rule is to not multiply entities unnecessarily.

And what is there besides what "seem"s??
Are you by chance assuming an objective ontological reality??

Now there.... Ockham's would apply...

Oh, you mean that other way of framing an illusory split.

As above, there is no illusion.
If you choose to call this illusory, then you must continue with your application of our inability to discriminate. That being the case, the logical end to this maneuver is that everything is illusory. You then of course end up in a nasty solipsism, which would be fine, with the exception that the very analysis that you made use of to get to that point itself cannot be validated........

There's no break in experience and there there's no break in the quantum foam. Events. Movements. Flow.

Incorrect. You never sleep??
All experience is fractured, even 18th Century philosophers like Hume knew this. The fact that our experience is not continuous is exactly what was the ultimate failure of Empiricism.

All adherents analyze.

"Faith analyzed" is a contradiction.

Faith is, in the hands of both theists and rationalists, either the useless monotheist concept - belief based on nothing - or a dangerous baby+bath that included intuition and faith and fails to adequately distinguish between them.

Which distinction is that??

 

[glaucon]

Okay, time-out.

Is the above your genuine stance, or is it part of your discussions/debate strategy?

Are you actually saying you know "the way things are"? Ie., are you actually saying you are omniscient, enlightened even?

It is my stance.

Mind you, I'm most likely using a different sense of the word "know" than you are:

Functionally, any theoretical element of a consistent predictive structure that has been of pragmatic use can be said to be "known".

 

[Tnerb]

Occam
Contradiction.
Distinction.
Objective.
Ontological.

Are some of glaucon's most used words. We should seriously watch this guy huh

 

[Tnerb]

The fact that our experience is not continuous is exactly what was the ultimate failure of Empiricism.

I must admit I liked the obvious remark here though.

Makes me sh ake in wonder at what shit I have konkocked'ed in my head.
But pardon me, just striking in to say hi.

 

[glaucon]

Occam
Contradiction.
Distinction.
Objective.
Ontological.

Are some of glaucon's most used words. We should seriously watch this guy huh

???

These are not odd words sis...

Every particular field of study has its own jargon....

 

[TheCareTaker]

4 words
There is a god

 

[Tnerb]

Not once did I say those were odd words glaucon. I was going to form a Glaucon dictionary, but got fed up with words that you use other than those listed....

 

[Tnerb]

4 words: There is no God outside this universe....

 

[Norsefire]

To the thread title, it is incredible! So, superluminal, you know everything there is to know about our universe? Wonderful, please, tell us more! Apparantly, if you know what is beyond death and beyond your senses, you must certainly know plenty.





Doesn't anyone understand? Nobody on Earth can decide if there is a God, because it is impossible for either side to find a shred of evidence to prove the existence or nonexistence of God AS WELL AS to make chances.

However, as faith plays an important role in society, in both culture and very social aspects, it is important to preserve the tradition.

 

[Norsefire]

As far as I am concerned, the theory of a greater intelligence is just that, a theory, and is equal to the theory of the big bang if not MORE plausible since the big bang requres something out of nothing.