Page 10 of 10 « First<678910
Topic Options
#60636 - 10/30/11 05:06 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Interesting. So why is the brain inventing metaphors at all?


Because those that did, had better odds at survival than those that didn't.

You're looking at a current state of evolution and think there's "magic" involved but if you look down the path it took, you see nothing but evolution.


Top
#60637 - 10/30/11 05:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Perhaps we have a problem of language barrier in this discussion. I claim that the mind / psyche is not a subject of natural science. But it is, of course, the subject of the sciences of the mind. (Or, like we call it in Germany, Geisteswissenschaften. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft )


I doubt that very much since neuroscience, which is natural science, revealed us much more about the "I" than Geisteswissenschaft ever did.

Top
#60638 - 10/30/11 05:20 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Interesting. So why is the brain inventing metaphors at all?


Because those that did, had better odds at survival than those that didn't.


So why had brains that invented the "metaphor" "I" better odds at survival?

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You're looking at a current state of evolution and think there's "magic" involved but if you look down the path it took, you see nothing but evolution.


I see no problem for the co-existence of evolution and magic. Evolution is a natural phenomenon, magic is a cultural one.


Edited by Iskander (10/30/11 05:20 PM)

Top
#60639 - 10/30/11 05:22 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Perhaps we have a problem of language barrier in this discussion. I claim that the mind / psyche is not a subject of natural science. But it is, of course, the subject of the sciences of the mind. (Or, like we call it in Germany, Geisteswissenschaften. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft )


I doubt that very much since neuroscience, which is natural science, revealed us much more about the "I" than Geisteswissenschaft ever did.


Neuroscience revealed much about the brain and hardly anything about the I. If you can show me any proof of your thesis, please do so.

Top
#60641 - 10/30/11 05:26 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3740
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.



Do you not see what is broken about this statement? While it is true our science can not explain everything about the natural world(although it advances every day), what you are saying requires one to accept there is a reality 'outside' of nature, which is a matter of religious faith...nothing more nothing less.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60643 - 10/30/11 05:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.



Do you not see what is broken about this statement? While it is true our science can not explain everything about the natural world(although it advances every day), what you are saying requires one to accept there is a reality 'outside' of nature, which is a matter of religious faith...nothing more nothing less.


If this was true, then everyone who makes a distinction between nature and, for example, culture, would be "religious". On the other hand, there are many religious scientists out there.

Your definition of "nature" is too abstract, and your definition of religion is ... strange.

Top
#60647 - 10/30/11 06:16 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Amazing you ask me proof for my "thesis" but totally ignore it for your views.

First the metaphor. It isn't hard to understand why thinking has better odds at survival than merely reacting. It's all about problem solving and the better one is at it, especially when able to do it before something happens, the better the odds at survival.

You'll even find this evolution in great apes and many other animals. This does not imply we're still not simply reacting but in a quite complex manner. But again, the fact that we think or have an "I" does not imply any duality. Great apes are no different in this even when differently evolved.

Why neuroscience explained more than philosophy or such isn't hard is it. Philosophy is like looking at a tree and then trying to imagine how it functions. No matter what you come up with, in the end you got nothing but an assumption and still no clue about the tree besides how it looks. Neuroscience looks into the tree and even when they might no be able to explain all, they can explain how it functions and what happens when.




Top
#60653 - 10/30/11 10:07 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3740
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander




If this was true, then everyone who makes a distinction between nature and, for example, culture, would be "religious". On the other hand, there are many religious scientists out there.

Are you saying that culture isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon? That it requires some sort of supra-rational explanation? If not then this statement is neither here nor there.

 Quote:

Your definition of "nature" is too abstract, and your definition of religion is ... strange.

Not at all. ' nature' is everything that is, everything that happens. To say otherwise is to draw a distinction that would require a better justification than has been offered (read:none)

As for religious faith, the very drawing of this distinction you seem to be basing your case on, in the absence of evidence, requires it. Not so strange..sort of obvious really.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60654 - 10/30/11 10:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Culture is nature. It's not because Chimps don't debate about Wittgenstein or play in heavy metal bands that they do not posses culture. There's evidence enough out there showing their culture and one can hardly claim there's anything unnatural about them.
Top
#61434 - 11/16/11 10:27 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Magnussa Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/10/11
Posts: 8
Loc: New York, NY, USA
Wow. You sound pretty pissed. I guess a lot of people give you the "I'm neither one or the other" stance.

I identify as an Atheist. I truly don't believe any deity exists. Like you said though, nobody knows. I'll always be unsure, and people try to classify me as Agnostic because of it. It's annoying as all hell. I think whether you're an Atheist or a Theist depends WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Believe =/= know.

Top
#61464 - 11/16/11 03:51 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Magnussa]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3051
 Quote:
I truly don't believe any deity exists. Like you said though, nobody knows. I'll always be unsure, and people try to classify me as Agnostic because of it. It's annoying as all hell. I think whether you're an Atheist or a Theist depends WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Believe =/= know.

The problem I'm having with such a statement is this factor of "belief" involved. I find the greater part of Atheists a bunch of the same mindless sheep as the ones who do have a belief in a deity.

A religionist, how illogical their statements might even be, still has a reason to believe which he or she finds good enough. Most Atheists simply believe there is no god. Some might refer to philosophies they tend to live by or are simply christians with god and the whole mythos stripped away from it. But in the end, I never really saw someone who could go a bit further then "I believe there isn't" or "Science has..".
Those are quite some valid responses but they always seem to be parroted and not really experienced.

As an example everyone calling Mozart a "genius" because of his classical workings that is being globally accepted as "quite a genius" and parroted all over the place. I do know he is a genius stemming from my musical background since I find it already hard to write out in musical notes for 4 instruments a whole play of 12 minutes with just one instrument nearby, and making it sound fit. I can imagine doing that for an entire orchestra would be a hell for a job. (Naturally once having a basic on one instrument, the rest will follow a bit more fluently.. but still.)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 10 of 10 « First<678910


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.025 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 24 queries. Zlib compression disabled.