Why I am an athiest

@Olivier5,

I didn't say they didn't have free will.

Quote:

ge·net·ic
/jəˈnetik/
Adjective
Of or relating to genes or heredity.

Heredity may include their ability at free will, only limited by their environment.

Quote:

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Please explain this premise.

Science is a set of thoughts. If thought does not exist, science does not exist. It is based on the belief in a productive dialogue between empiric observation and reason, i.e. in the capacity of the human mind to make sense of things through testable theories. If reason is an epiphenomenon, theories too, and experience / experimentation too. Hence science has no validity whatsoever.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

OK, but where does the idea 'thoughts don't exist' come from? Did I say that? Did I claim anything outside of immediate experience does or doesn't exist? If not, how is that a appropriate analogy?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Science is a set of thoughts.

No it's a set of rules and theories, that, for the most part, can be tested.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

No it's a set of rules and theories, that, for the most part, can be tested.

Rules and theories are thoughts.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

OK, but where does the idea 'thoughts don't exist' come from? Did I say that?

You "pointed" at material determination of thought being touted or explored by neurosciences. That's when I said you are pointing at a paradox, remember?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Sure, but where does the idea that "thoughts don't exist" come from?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I didn't say [animals] didn't have free will. [...] Heredity may include their ability at free will, only limited by their environment

True for us too. We are animals anyway. That much is clear.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

A scientist saying: "real, independent, free thought does not exist" is also saying: "science does not exist

From the quote above I guess? I see a link between free will and the existence of thought as an agent, rather than as an epiphenomenon. Science is premissed on the idea that human thought is an agent capable of discovery.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yeah, I saw that, but who besides you is making that statement? It looks like a straw man as well as a non sequitur. Have any scientists said that thoughts don't exist? Have I? Are you equating/conflating "real, independent, free thought" with all thought?

Here's an informed perspective, but please don't assume that by posting it I am necessarily agree with every statement or detail:

By attributing thought to causality, he is not denying that thoughts exist. I'm not sure how you derived that from anything I've written.

2 Replies

@FBM,

I don't care about some dude's "informed opinion", especially if you who are posting it don't care about it either...

Of course it is possible to entertain any sorts of ideas, but just because one guy thinks one way or another does not make it true, or even logically coherent. My point is about logical incoherence of the thought that "all thoughts are determined by matrer". Ergo this particulat thought is determined by matter too (reflexivity). Ergo it is not a thought based on a careful examination of the pros and cons of a case and freely chosing the side that's supported by evidence. Rather the idea that "all thought is determined by matter" is the product of the senseless huming of neurotransmettors in some dude's brain.

All Cretans are liars, said the Cretan...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

So you're determined to ignore what scholars say and stick doggedly to your straw man fallacy? No problem. I still don't know why this topic has (apparently) upset you so. I don't think I was being overly aggressive to you, but there seems to be an edge of hostility and/or derision in your posts, so I'm fine with dropping it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Notwithstanding, your definition is so vague, it's almost meaningless.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You wrote,

Quote:

Sure, but where does the idea that "thoughts don't exist" come from?

From the same idea where gods came from. It's a nonsense claim that can't be proved to those who "believe." Most children believe in Santa Clause. Many learn later in their life that Santa is a fictional character, because he's a figment of somebody's imagination who "invented" him.

Gods are different, because people's "faith" keeps him alive with any evidence to the contrary.

"Thoughts don't exist," but "god exists." It's the same side of the coin.

You can't convince people who are already sold on those ideas of their opposition.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That sounds about right. My point was that that idea didn't come from me. It's a false analogy molded into a straw man. Or maybe the other way around.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

your definition is so vague, it's almost meaningless.

It's not a definition. It's a fact: science is composed of thoughts and premised on a faith in reason. Ergo science cannot logically demonstrate the absence of reason. It'd be like the guy sawing the branch on which he sits.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

So you're determined to ignore what scholars say and stick doggedly to your straw man fallacy?

What fallacy is that?

The work of scholars is like the work of priests, for somebody like you who does not believe in science or reason or anything... Why do you quote them so much if you don't believe anything they say?

I am personally very interested in neuroscience and have listened to that interview you linked to. But why someone like YOU would be interested in science beats me.

Quote:

I still don't know why this topic has (apparently) upset you so. I don't think I was being overly aggressive to you, but there seems to be an edge of hostility and/or derision in your posts, so I'm fine with dropping it.

I am not angry. Opinionated is a better term. I just find your philosophy a bit sad, contradictory, and a tiny bit hypocritical. It strikes me as more of a posture than the result of a real thought process. But then, you don't believe in real thought processes so I suppose that at least is coherent.

As I usually say to my chess opponents: "you can abandon at any time"... :-)

1 Reply

This thread has become a circle jerk.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

My point was that that idea didn't come from me.

Does that mean you do NOT dispute the idea that reason is a (partially) free agent?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

No ****.

0 Replies

Why I am an athiest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know