| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Discourser" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 02:53:09 AM |
| Object: |
10-COMMANDMENT BELIEVERS IN SLAVERY |
10-COMMANDMENTS' BELIEVERS IN SLAVERY
"nor his manservant, nor his maidservant . . ."
READ THIS:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his *****, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
-- 10th Commandment of the 10 Commandments of Moses in the Bible
___________________________
Atheists and Humanist oppose mental and physical slavery in all of its
forms.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
28 Aug 2004 09:28:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:10:09 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
In addition, to me, atheist Buddhist is an oxymoron.
Are you saying all Buddhists believe in a god? That's the only way I can
get "oxymoron" out of it. But if you mean it's like saying something along
the lines of, for instance, a "purple drive" (i.e., a description of
something the quality has no relevance to - a drive doesn't have a color,
it's something you do), then I might understand. Just trying to clarify.
Thanks! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
28 Aug 2004 06:53:22 PM |
|
|
Uncle Dollar Bill <UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:10:09 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
In addition, to me, atheist Buddhist is an oxymoron.
Are you saying all Buddhists believe in a god? That's the only way I can
get "oxymoron" out of it. But if you mean it's like saying something along
the lines of, for instance, a "purple drive" (i.e., a description of
something the quality has no relevance to - a drive doesn't have a color,
it's something you do), then I might understand. Just trying to clarify.
Thanks! :-)
According to my current understanding, Buddhists believe in something
that's not naturally comprehensible. The metaphysical aspects of
life. I can't subscribe to that thought process because none of it
makes any sense to me, I can't perceive the process, though I can
imagine it. Buddhists are to be admired for the doctrine but none the
less, I think they are just a delusional as any theist. As far as I
can tell, "nonexistent" is a spiritual stance and the Buddha is a god,
perhaps not in the theistic realm, but a god none the less. Which
reminds me, "Dreamweaver".
The Buddha aspect is equivalent to the Gnostic "All".
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
irreligionist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 12:58:41 AM |
|
|
Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:10:09 -0400, AnotherObserver® wrote:
In addition, to me, atheist Buddhist is an oxymoron.
Are you saying all Buddhists believe in a god?
As in the gods that the teenaged Buddha talked to in his
garden one day? Or spirits as in ancestors and reincarnation?
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
30 Aug 2004 10:23:36 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Wilson's idea is that human nature is innate because of the extensive
evolution that humans have indured rather than because of the
institutions that have been established.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
30 Aug 2004 04:26:32 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10j6hjoh7meb64c@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers
to.
Wilson's idea is that human nature is innate because of the extensive
evolution that humans have indured rather than because of the
institutions that have been established.
That's not how it reads. Besides, creationism would say that everything that
science discovers was created by God. Thus "iron-age theology and mysticism"
becomes instantly updated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
30 Aug 2004 09:17:22 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10j6hjoh7meb64c@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.philosophy.humanism Marvin Edwards <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers
to.
Wilson's idea is that human nature is innate because of the extensive
evolution that humans have indured rather than because of the
institutions that have been established.
That's not how it reads. ...
That's not precisely at how the quote reads, but the intent of Wilson is
to create a new mysticism called scientific materialism. The quote is
claiming that evolution and DNA can explain more than the old religions
can.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 05:48:42 AM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10j7nti5hgki43a@corp.supernews.com...
That's not precisely at how the quote reads, but the intent of Wilson is
to create a new mysticism called scientific materialism. The quote is
claiming that evolution and DNA can explain more than the old religions can.
<
Your statement is more valid than his was!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 12:54:51 AM |
|
|
Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail,
than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by
the modern great religions ever dreamed." --Edward O.
Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not
sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world
doesn't.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 06:06:36 AM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D5KdnYPwPZ0x8qzcRVn-pw@sti.net...
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world doesn't. <
Ghosts don't exist, but feelings do. The fact that feelings change, and
sometimes swiftly, was attributed to spirits in ancient times. I believe I
read some place that this is how the word "spirit" came to refer to
feelings. The word is commonly used today in phrases like "angry spirit",
"joyful spirit", "spirited debate", "team spirit", etc. without implying
ghosts or anything supernatural.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 10:18:18 AM |
|
|
Marvin Edwards wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
That the material world exists and the "spiritual"
world doesn't.
Ghosts don't exist, but feelings do. The fact that
feelings change, and sometimes swiftly, was attributed to
spirits in ancient times. I believe I read some place
that this is how the word "spirit" came to refer to
feelings. The word is commonly used today in phrases like
"angry spirit", "joyful spirit", "spirited debate", "team
spirit", etc. without implying ghosts or anything
supernatural.
The term "spirit" has come to mean many things, but I was
referring to just the ghost part. Free Inquiry came out with
a list of over 200 words to use instead of "spirit" when
talking about something other than ghosts and gods. I wish I
had that list handy.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 11:38:40 AM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5tadnTS6qP8hbqzcRVn-uQ@sti.net...
The term "spirit" has come to mean many things, but I was referring to
just the ghost part. Free Inquiry came out with a list of over 200 words to
use instead of "spirit" when talking about something other than ghosts and
gods. I wish I had that list handy. <
Amen. But I'm going to keep it active so when I get in a discussion with
someone throwing it around I'll be able to explain to him/her what he/she is
actually saying. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 03:46:11 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<D5KdnYPwPZ0x8qzcRVn-pw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail,
than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by
the modern great religions ever dreamed." --Edward O.
Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not
sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world
doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive assertion? As
I have said previously, the world's top philosophers of mind (e.g.
David Rosenthal of the CUNY graduate center) agree that thus far no
one has put forth an adequate or satisfactory materialistic
explanation of consciousness. That does not prove dualism true, but it
shows that the materialistic view is not an obvious fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 04:15:25 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0409011246.3ec5278a@posting.google.com...
As I have said previously, the world's top philosophers of mind (e.g. David
Rosenthal of the CUNY graduate center) agree that thus far no one has put
forth an adequate or satisfactory materialistic explanation of
consciousness. That does not prove dualism true, but it shows that the
materialistic view is not an obvious fact. <
1) There are computer programs that can emulate consciousness. So we know it
is possible to store the same logic we use to solve a problem in an external
device which has "memory", "instructions", and "input/output devices".
2) Furthermore, science has identified mental functions as belonging to
specific areas of the brain, such that a person who has an injury to one or
more specific areas will experience consciousness differently (like in the
book "The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat").
There seems sufficient evidence to conclude that consciousness is tied to
material (specifically neurons and such in the brains of living creatures).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 05:29:13 PM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) said:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<D5KdnYPwPZ0x8qzcRVn-pw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail,
than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by
the modern great religions ever dreamed." --Edward O.
Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not
sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world
doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive assertion?
It's not an assertion, it's a definition. Maybe he did make an
assertion, but that's no one.
As
I have said previously, the world's top philosophers of mind (e.g.
David Rosenthal of the CUNY graduate center) agree that thus far no
one has put forth an adequate or satisfactory materialistic
explanation of consciousness. That does not prove dualism true, but it
shows that the materialistic view is not an obvious fact.
Materialism failed as an explanation for observations as soon as
electromagnetic fields became useful as an explanation for
observations of the natural world. Physicalism, which takes fields
(energy, basically) into account arose from the ashes of materialism.
Physicalism is a bit tougher target. Has it failed as an explanation
of consciousness?
Of course, the EM field was not an obvious fact, either, until a
couple of hundred years ago.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 05:00:20 PM |
|
|
In message <2c68d44e.0409011246.3ec5278a@posting.google.com>, Nico
Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> writes
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<D5KdnYPwPZ0x8qzcRVn-pw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail,
than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by
the modern great religions ever dreamed." --Edward O.
Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not
sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world
doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive assertion? As
I have said previously, the world's top philosophers of mind (e.g.
David Rosenthal of the CUNY graduate center) agree that thus far no
one has put forth an adequate or satisfactory materialistic
explanation of consciousness. That does not prove dualism true, but it
shows that the materialistic view is not an obvious fact.
There's possibly some confusion here. Spiritual is a tricky term: some
would argue that appreciation of nature and the arts is a spiritual,
not a material, experience, meaning only that it transcends the actual
sensory response.
Dualism, on the other hand, clearly suggests the need for "mind-stuff"
to supplement electro-chemical activity in the brain in order that we
may enjoy nature and the arts.
I do not know Mr. Rosenthal, nor how he defines an adequate physical
description of consciousness, but does he include the Penrose-Hameroff
quantum model? Does he think cats are conscious? If so, how does he
think their "mind-stuff" compares with ours?
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 12:48:00 PM |
|
|
ralph <ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> said:
In message <2c68d44e.0409011246.3ec5278a@posting.google.com>, Nico
Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> writes
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<D5KdnYPwPZ0x8qzcRVn-pw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail,
than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by
the modern great religions ever dreamed." --Edward O.
Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not
sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world
doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive assertion? As
I have said previously, the world's top philosophers of mind (e.g.
David Rosenthal of the CUNY graduate center) agree that thus far no
one has put forth an adequate or satisfactory materialistic
explanation of consciousness. That does not prove dualism true, but it
shows that the materialistic view is not an obvious fact.
There's possibly some confusion here. Spiritual is a tricky term: some
would argue that appreciation of nature and the arts is a spiritual,
not a material, experience, meaning only that it transcends the actual
sensory response.
Dualism, on the other hand, clearly suggests the need for "mind-stuff"
to supplement electro-chemical activity in the brain in order that we
may enjoy nature and the arts.
That is "substance dualism". There is also "property dualism",
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/substancedualism.html
And other sources talk about this.
I do not know Mr. Rosenthal, nor how he defines an adequate physical
description of consciousness, but does he include the Penrose-Hameroff
quantum model? Does he think cats are conscious? If so, how does he
think their "mind-stuff" compares with ours?
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 06:15:54 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful
detail, than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism
bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm
not sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual"
world doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive
assertion?
No, since that would entail shifting the burden of proof.
The believers in the "spiritual world" are the ones that
need to the proving and only dishonest people try to shift
the burden of proof to non believers.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 03:20:36 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oJCdnQNLMuK2xavcRVn-tw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful
detail, than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism
bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm
not sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual"
world doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive
assertion?
No, since that would entail shifting the burden of proof.
The believers in the "spiritual world" are the ones that
need to the proving and only dishonest people try to shift
the burden of proof to non believers.
The one shifting the burden of proof here is you bucko, as you're the
one who positively asserted that "the material world exists and the
"spiritual" world doesn't." The rule of thumb on these issues is he
who asserts must prove, and you have made an assertion, so guess who
the burden of proof falls on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 05:50:13 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Nico Demusopelous <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oJCdnQNLMuK2xavcRVn-tw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful
detail, than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism
bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm
not sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual"
world doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive
assertion?
No, since that would entail shifting the burden of proof.
The believers in the "spiritual world" are the ones that
need to the proving and only dishonest people try to shift
the burden of proof to non believers.
The one shifting the burden of proof here is you bucko, as you're the
one who positively asserted that "the material world exists and the
"spiritual" world doesn't." The rule of thumb on these issues is he
who asserts must prove, and you have made an assertion, so guess who
the burden of proof falls on.
Q: I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to. [I.e. what does materialism
refer to/mean?]
A: That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world doesn't.
Dave didn't assert anything. He simply answered the "question" that the
first person asked. He gave a definition of what materialism is. He didn't
say "and that's the way it is" (how many are old enough to ID that quote?)
But anyone who claims the spiritual DOES exist does incur the burden of
proving it. We can see the material and thus know that it exists without any
question.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 03:36:52 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<oJCdnQNLMuK2xavcRVn-tw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful
detail, than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism
bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm
not sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual"
world doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive
assertion?
No, since that would entail shifting the burden of proof.
The believers in the "spiritual world" are the ones that
need to the proving and only dishonest people try to shift
the burden of proof to non believers.
The one shifting the burden of proof here is you bucko, as you're the
one who positively asserted that "the material world exists and the
"spiritual" world doesn't." The rule of thumb on these issues is he
who asserts must prove, and you have made an assertion, so guess who
the burden of proof falls on.
We look around and we see the material world, the Universe, all
around us. No denying its there. Now, is there a nonmaterial world
that is to say, a supernatural would that is not dependent on this
material world?
Nobody sees any. Nor has science in dealing with understanding
the material world around us stumbled on anything at all that might be
called supernatural.
You think such a thing exists? prove it.
Its YOUR burden.
That we state the obvious, there is not a trace of such to be found and
thuse we can state that as such, it no more exists than fairies or
leprechauns is truth.
Not the slightest evidence exists for any supernatural world or entities,
or for that matter fairies or leprechauns.
It is your burden if you insist a non-material, spiritual, supernatural
reality actually exists.
When we say it does not, what that means is, there is not the slightest
iota of proof for any such claim and has not been for millenia such claims
have been made.
--
Bush added $2 trillion in national debt in three years. The
biggest addition of national debt of any president. There are
280 million Americans. That is $3,333 per American, $13,332
For a family of four. Bush wants to make the tax cuts that are
generating these vast debts permanent.Vote Kerry, we cannot
afford more massive debt.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
03 Sep 2004 01:30:13 AM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oJCdnQNLMuK2xavcRVn-tw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful
detail, than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism
bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm
not sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual"
world doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive
assertion?
No, since that would entail shifting the burden of proof.
The believers in the "spiritual world" are the ones that
need to the proving and only dishonest people try to shift
the burden of proof to non believers.
The one shifting the burden of proof here is you ...
No. Try again.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 04:17:39 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<D5KdnYPwPZ0x8qzcRVn-pw@sti.net>...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail,
than the Iron-Age theology and mysticism bequeathed us by
the modern great religions ever dreamed." --Edward O.
Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science
informs moral judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not
sure what "materialism" refers to.
That the material world exists and the "spiritual" world
doesn't.
Is David going to provide any evidence for this positive assertion?
No. Its not his burden of proof.
Evidence for the long claimed 'spiritual' or supernatural
world is totally lacking.
Thus, noting that is sufficient.
Science is the only diciplne that has explained anything
successfully about the natural world.
religion has a percet record when it comes to trying
to explain anything about the natural world. Goose egg,
zero, nothing. Its been wrong about everythings.
So has religion's sisters mysticism and occultism.
Why then, should we pay religion or mysticism or occultism
and attention at all?
If they cannot get things in this world we can check on right,
why should we trust their assertions on things that cannot
even be shown to exist, much less any details about these
things?
Words like sin, spirit, soul and the like are meaningless gibberish
with no evidence wjhat soever to prove they even exist, much less
we can know anything about them , much less anybody does know
anything about them.
And its not our burden of proof in any way,
We don't care about your rhetorical questions, your opinions,
empty assertions you make or relate to use others have made.
All that matters is hard evidence.
If you have no hard evidence about any of this you have no right
to open your mouth, much less demand we disprove your unproven
assertions.
As
I have said previously, the world's top philosophers of mind (e.g.
David Rosenthal of the CUNY graduate center) agree that thus far no
one has put forth an adequate or satisfactory materialistic
explanation of consciousness. That does not prove dualism true, but it
shows that the materialistic view is not an obvious fact.
That is his opinion and not much of one.
He hasn't shown us that such things like souls exist.
Or whatever he's boosting.
And it may well be he doesn't know dirt about materialism
for all I know. Its immaterial. Doubting materialism
doesn't prove its opposite.
Wheter you are boosting vitalism or soul (one as per Christianity
or three as per Egyptian religion) or idealism vs realism.
If you have evidence, fine, otherwise its not our burden to disprove
whatever theory you are boosting.
We see the Universe around us and energy and matter and chemistry
and nerve cells and synapses and we see that disrupted, by strokes or
disease or accident that brain effects thought.
In ways that non-materalism cannot and does not explain.
So, as everything else religion has touched, it is wrong about
this too. No surprise.
Adn as usual, rather than agreeing with the facts of the matter,
ignores it all and mewls and whines and tries to shift the burden of
evidence while ignoring factual infiormation.
And who cares? Religion has so far been wrong about everything it has
mouthed off about because it ignores facts and will not reason.
And so don't be surprised if your illicit burden shifting is slapped
away and and we say "Evidence talks, ***** walks".
The evidence is for materialism all the way .
You guys ain't got nuthing but a very bad track record.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
28 Aug 2004 03:08:45 PM |
|
|
Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it.
By 'moral judgement' are you refering to humans as a group rendering
jdgement on which behaviors are acceptable and which are not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
28 Aug 2004 06:32:20 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hD5Yc.250316$eM2.62661@attbi_s51...
By 'moral judgement' are you refering to humans as a group rendering
judgement on which behaviors are acceptable and which are not? <
Yes. (And remember that even the judgement that we should not judge others
is also a moral judgement).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
28 Aug 2004 05:39:04 PM |
|
|
In article <hD5Yc.250316$eM2.62661@attbi_s51>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it.
By 'moral judgement' are you refering to humans as a group rendering
jdgement on which behaviors are acceptable and which are not?
There are few, if any, issues on which humanity acts on anything as a
whole. The operation of the UN should be sufficient evidence of that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 08:19:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it.
I agree to that - Edward O. Wilson probably would too.
I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Goes all the way back to Democritus (sp?)
(proposed that everything is made of tiny invisible "atoms")
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec05.html
Everything is physical or based on the physical.
Instead of body and soul being separate substances - everything is
matter and energy.
So a living human being and every thought feeling and memory is
ultimately the movement of atoms and energy.
So when you die your soul doesn't leave for another realm - it's not a
seperate thing that exists apart from your flesh and blood - your soul
is a nice way of saying what happens when your flesh and blood are
behaving in an organised fashion called "life" - when you are dead
your soul doesn't drift off into the ethereal plane - your flesh and
blood are behaving in a differnt manner which we call "dead".
Not only is your hand and heart and head made of stuff - so is the
thought "What the heck is materialism?"
(Don't take that too far - your thoughts are not literally made of
atoms - but your brain is, and the thought is *ultimately* patterns of
energy moving about in your physical brain - which is a bunch of
atoms.)
Many people find that a shocking idea.
There are various "shades" of materialism but that's the basis.
A contrasting system of thought is "dualism" that there are two
"worlds" - two universes that exist - the material world of "stuff"
and the spirit world - that souls - even thoughts and feelings are
made of something called spirit.
Somehow (no one ever explains how) your potentially immortal soul
inhabits your flesh and blood body for a time and when you snuff it -
it floats off looking for somewhere else to be.
Christian theology is based largely on Dualistic philosophy - but
there are interesting exceptions.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 03:15:26 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:cmt8j0t12nc868na8i4gfg6ofs36glu6ui@4ax.com...
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/
Wow, cool link!
... your soul is a nice way of saying what happens when your flesh and
blood are behaving in an organised fashion called "life" ... <
And a nice definition...
Not only is your hand and heart and head made of stuff - so is the thought
"What the heck is materialism?" ... <
But that is "mixing metaphors". The "thought" may be set free, as you did
when you placed the message on the internet, or in a book, such that it
continues independently, even after the thinker ceases to exist. So a
"thought" is something other than a physical entity local to the neuron
mappings that held it in a particular brain. In fact the neuron mappings in
any number of other brains may be quite distinct, yet store and express the
same thought.
... A contrasting system of thought is "dualism" that there are two
"worlds" - two universes that exist - the material world of "stuff" and the
spirit world - that souls - even thoughts and feelings are made of something
called spirit. Somehow (no one ever explains how) your potentially immortal
soul inhabits your flesh and blood body for a time and when you snuff it -
it floats off looking for somewhere else to be. <
Well, we now have at least two universes: the organic brain storing the
thought in neuron pathways and a piece of paper storing the thought in
written words. And great men live on in history, which tries to capture
their soul, as an "eternal" example for others to emulate.
Christian theology is based largely on Dualistic philosophy - but there
are interesting exceptions. <
Oh...yeah, the ghost thing. Perhaps that is a third universe... :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 12:58:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
A couple of posters have presented materialism as also entailing some
further epistemological assertions. The above quote seems to be more
about discrediting certain topics than it is about making assertions.
While it is technically just a rather obviously likely assertion that
those that have spent their time studying the physical world have
discovered more about it than those that have not, it is supposed to
lead its reader to adopt an attitude that science is a much more
legitimate means of acquiring knowledge than the alternatives (or
perhaps than religion), in part by even setting up a dichotomy between
religion and science in the first place.
At any rate, as I have said many times in other threads, ontology (the
study of that which can exist) is a proper subset of metaphysics (the
study of the nature of reality). Materialism is an ontological
position. It doesn't entail a bunch of other assertions about reality
outside of the ontological position of what can *exist*. So, while
probably even almost every materialist would go on to say that only
that which exists is real, it takes more than just their materialism
to do so. And, this brings us back to moral philosophy and just
generally the issue of how ideas might be real but not exist. Ideas
could be real in that one can form true or false propositions about
them, but not exist in the sense of referring to a physical object.
And so, moral statements could be true and the ideas they express real
but nevertheless not be discussing aspects of that which exists. They
would be part of reality but not part of the world which is not to be
confused with existing immaterially.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 04:45:17 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:et24j05c03bbjitqcfs9t02aol781jc2o0@4ax.com...
... At any rate, as I have said many times in other threads, ontology (the
study of that which can exist) is a proper subset of metaphysics (the study
of the nature of reality). Materialism is an ontological position. It
doesn't entail a bunch of other assertions about reality outside of the
ontological position of what can *exist*. So, while probably even almost
every materialist would go on to say that only that which exists is real, it
takes more than just their materialism to do so. And, this brings us back
to moral philosophy and just generally the issue of how ideas might be real
but not exist. Ideas could be real in that one can form true or false
propositions about them, but not exist in the sense of referring to a
physical object. And so, moral statements could be true and the ideas they
express real but nevertheless not be discussing aspects of that which
exists. They would be part of reality but not part of the world which is
not to be confused with existing immaterially. <
Okay. I view morality as a "practical science" or "craft" or "art" of
achieving good and avoiding harm, for everyone. Philosophy as a whole is
about meaningful definitions and meaningful statements. Science as a whole
is about increasing knowledge. Religion as a whole is about spiritually
supporting morality. Morality as a whole is about achieving good an avoiding
harm, for everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
30 Aug 2004 07:29:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:45:17 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:et24j05c03bbjitqcfs9t02aol781jc2o0@4ax.com...
... At any rate, as I have said many times in other threads, ontology (the
study of that which can exist) is a proper subset of metaphysics (the study
of the nature of reality). Materialism is an ontological position. It
doesn't entail a bunch of other assertions about reality outside of the
ontological position of what can *exist*. So, while probably even almost
every materialist would go on to say that only that which exists is real, it
takes more than just their materialism to do so. And, this brings us back
to moral philosophy and just generally the issue of how ideas might be real
but not exist. Ideas could be real in that one can form true or false
propositions about them, but not exist in the sense of referring to a
physical object. And so, moral statements could be true and the ideas they
express real but nevertheless not be discussing aspects of that which
exists. They would be part of reality but not part of the world which is
not to be confused with existing immaterially. <
Okay. I view morality as a "practical science" or "craft" or "art" of
achieving good and avoiding harm, for everyone.
How do you account for the idea of law, then? I'm not talking about
the particular laws that we might find out in the world but rather
about the essence of what it means to be a law, in general. It would
seem that the idea of law is independent of and completely separate
from the notion of happiness or well-being. But, this notion would
seem essential to constructing a moral law. That is, it has to be
built into morality.
Philosophy as a whole is
about meaningful definitions and meaningful statements.
Are you saying that the role of philosophy is to clarify the meaning
of statements and definitions? Would you say it is limited to that?
What about moral philosophy, then? Is that limited to clarification
and the actually concluding is left to some other field? What field
would that be? Jurisprudence?
Science as a whole
is about increasing knowledge.
Well, only empirical knowledge.
Religion as a whole is about spiritually
supporting morality.
While religion often includes a great many moral propositions, I don't
think that morality is actually even essential to religion. You could
have religion without any reference to morality.
Morality as a whole is about achieving good an avoiding
harm, for everyone.
I think that morality is, if nothing else, a basis for law. For
instance, the most basic moral questions are such ideas as those
contained in criminal law such as that rape, murder, stealing, etc are
wrong. These particular ideas leading to even more specific actual
laws are based on yet more general notions. If you generalize these
particular laws more and more, I think that you end up at what can
only be moral statements that have almost nothing to do with such
things as welfare and well-being.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
