Exposing Atheistic Myths

[DBT]

Mind. Soul. Free will. Autonomy. Call it what you like.
I think these are the product of God's creativity.

These are just words. When you say 'soul,' what exactly are you talking about? What is the composition of this thing called 'soul?' Spirit stuff?....What is Spirit? How does Spirit interact with matter?

Did the Female spirit/soul accidently inhabit a male body in your example?

Souls are ghosts. Pretty easy to understand, abracadabra stuff and all that.

So it seems. It's easier to say that a female soul is trapped in a male body than to determine what is actually happening, perhaps a chemical imbalance, which is known to alter mind and consciousness, or some life changing event in the formative years.....oh, no, it can't be physical, it has to be soul related.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Souls are ghosts. Pretty easy to understand, abracadabra stuff and all that.

So it seems. It's easier to say that a female soul is trapped in a male body than to determine what is actually happening, perhaps a chemical imbalance, which is known to alter mind and consciousness, or some life changing event in the formative years.....oh, no, it can't be physical, it has to be soul related.

Ah! So all those port calls, no one actually got 'drunk,' because there's no way physically polluting the body could affect the soul, causing an otherwise mild-mannered person to pick a fight with another ship's crew, another nation's ship's crew, pretty much the entire shore patrol... rather, the soul chose to punish the body for the crime of taking all that sinful alcohol into the bodily temple.

Except, why wasn't the soul involved in that decision, too?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ooh, edited to add.....

Looks like this youtube poster agrees with the point.

Who gives a shit?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. (Dictionary)

I find it extraordinary that atheists are now denying materialism and immaterialism.

Is there no end to the insanity? Please explain (as an atheist) what else you believe exists besides matter.

Ideas, concepts, emotions, empty space, mathematics, forces, etc. etc.

Then who the hell came up with materialism? And why do atheists describe themselves as such?

What an odd, odd complaint.
Halfie insists that all atheists are materialists.
Atheists here do not meet her working definition of materialist.
Halfie proceeds to bitch about the atheist failure to live up to the strawman....

 

[skepticalbip]

Ooh, edited to add.....

Looks like this youtube poster agrees with the point.

Who gives a shit?

But surely you would consider the opinion of someone who relies on youtube cartoons for their understanding of reality to be on a par with the opinion of someone like maybe Richard Feynman wouldn't you?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Then who the hell came up with materialism? And why do atheists describe themselves as such?

What an odd, odd complaint.
Halfie insists that all atheists are materialists.
Atheists here do not meet her working definition of materialist.
Halfie proceeds to bitch about the atheist failure to live up to the strawman....

I don't think Halfie is comfortable with his physical reality. There's probably some psychological lesson there.

 

[DBT]

Souls are ghosts. Pretty easy to understand, abracadabra stuff and all that.

So it seems. It's easier to say that a female soul is trapped in a male body than to determine what is actually happening, perhaps a chemical imbalance, which is known to alter mind and consciousness, or some life changing event in the formative years.....oh, no, it can't be physical, it has to be soul related.

Ah! So all those port calls, no one actually got 'drunk,' because there's no way physically polluting the body could affect the soul, causing an otherwise mild-mannered person to pick a fight with another ship's crew, another nation's ship's crew, pretty much the entire shore patrol... rather, the soul chose to punish the body for the crime of taking all that sinful alcohol into the bodily temple.

Except, why wasn't the soul involved in that decision, too?

Drink up! Enjoy. Being Spirit stuff, being immaterial, nothing can effect the personality of your soul.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ooh, edited to add.....

Looks like this youtube poster agrees with the point.

Who gives a shit?

But surely you would consider the opinion of someone who relies on youtube cartoons for their understanding of reality to be on a par with the opinion of someone like maybe Richard Feynman wouldn't you?

I would have, until i noticed that people offer support and criticism of books on A,azon, that have not been released, based solely on the title, the author, or whether the book supports or attacks their cherished superstition.

So, i hold youtuber comments as stunning examples of free speech,mand Thomas Jefferson's concern that too wide a definition would also "end up protecting gibberish, fruitcakes, and lies." His own youtube comments have borne up well over the passing years.

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophical terms like materialism always have multiple variations to the point of being useless unless you explicitly define the parameters of what you mean.

The bane of philosophers, explicitly define what you mean.

I am a Neo Post Modern Quasi Materialist. Our numbers are small but we are growing.

 

[Rhea]

Immaterialism:
"Belief that only mental entities are real, so that physical things exist only in the sense that they are perceived.

Immaterialism means that there is nothing material... no matter how many people hold a mental sense of it.

Right and you believe in materialism, which you have yet to prove that things ARE made of material substances called matter.

This is why materialism requires MORE EVIDENCE than immaterialism. Evidence you can't ever provide.

I believe I already have told you the evidence I see and that it is enough for me.

Consilience. The fact that a million people can independently view the Washington Monument and it is the same for each of them.

That is significant EVIDENCE that it is not merely in each of the million minds, but objectively real for all million of them to observe the same material thing.

That’s not enough for a navel gazer like Berkeley, if he ever addressed it (you haven’t quoted him doing so) because it spoils his parlor trick. And it’s not enough for you because your belief in magic falls apart without it, so you won’t want to see it.

But it is enough for me, for the million other people who viewed the Washington Monument this year, for the Park Service who maintains it, and for the separate scientists who independently discover the same physical phenomena over and across the sciences.

It is enough for me because it WORKS to usefully describe the world that I encounter.

Yours and Berkeley’s model is achingly not-useful. It is unreliable, unpredictive and useless. All it does is give you world salad that makes you feel less of an idiot for believing in magic.


I know you’ll ignore this and once again claim, “No one has addressed this! Aha! You are all secret believers!” But I have addressed it, as have others. Your theory has no use beyond a parlor. The materialistic theory is very useful for medicine, commerce, invention, science, human interaction, music, art, and ecology. That is the proof that allows me to dismiss your navel gazing as fluff.

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophical terms like materialism always have multiple variations to the point of being useless unless you explicitly define the parameters of what you mean.

The bane of philosophers, explicitly define what you mean.

I am a Neo Post Modern Quasi Materialist. Our numbers are small but we are growing.

That has always been my contention. Demand that philosophers clearly and precisely define their terms (like science demands) and arguments that have gone on for years if not centuries are quickly resolved.

 

[Rhea]

As we've already seen, Berkeley accounted for the persistence of bodies in terms of god's continuing perception of them. The causal regularities we observe in the natural world rely upon the same source. God's mind is an orderly one, and the apparent structures of space, time, and causality are nothing more than our awareness of the divine provision for our welfare.

AS we’ve already seen, Berkeley needed to account for this consilience that is easily explained by materialism, but he couldn’t do it without making up a magic sky daddy that can transmit its mind into the physical reality of others.....



Are ya kidding? That sounds reasonable to you?

 

[Half-Life]

As we've already seen, Berkeley accounted for the persistence of bodies in terms of god's continuing perception of them. The causal regularities we observe in the natural world rely upon the same source. God's mind is an orderly one, and the apparent structures of space, time, and causality are nothing more than our awareness of the divine provision for our welfare.

AS we’ve already seen, Berkeley needed to account for this consilience that is easily explained by materialism, but he couldn’t do it without making up a magic sky daddy that can transmit its mind into the physical reality of others.....



Are ya kidding? That sounds reasonable to you?

Berkeley did account for that. He said that things are real because God is observing them. 100 people see the same monument because God is observing that monument.

Without anyone perceiving that monument, you have no clue what "that monument" is anymore. It can't exist independent of perception. To be is to be perceived. For example, a yellow banana doesn't exist independently of perception because yellow is only perceived through minds. So to say "this yellow banana exists independently of perception" is meaningless. And since all qualities of things fall into this category, it makes no sense to say, "things can exist independently of perception." This would require you to leave your mind and truly observe what is out there. But, we can't do that. So, immaterialism is the default.

Try this video, guys.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0azrs_yPvg[/YOUTUBE]

He explains it very well.

 

[skepticalbip]

He explains it very well.

That is really sad. You actually rely on some self-obsessed youtube vloger for your understanding of what Berkeley wrote when I gave you a link to Berkeley's paper so you could read what he himself said rather than having to listen to what someone thinks or claims he said.

 

[Rhea]

As we've already seen, Berkeley accounted for the persistence of bodies in terms of god's continuing perception of them. The causal regularities we observe in the natural world rely upon the same source. God's mind is an orderly one, and the apparent structures of space, time, and causality are nothing more than our awareness of the divine provision for our welfare.

AS we’ve already seen, Berkeley needed to account for this consilience that is easily explained by materialism, but he couldn’t do it without making up a magic sky daddy that can transmit its mind into the physical reality of others.....



Are ya kidding? That sounds reasonable to you?

Berkeley did account for that. He said that things are real because God is observing them. 100 people see the same monument because God is observing that monument.

Yes, I got that. That’s what I said. He had a couple of choices in accounting for consilience, and between, “well, the things actually exist,” versus, “”well if I make up a magic sky-daddy that transmits its observations into the minds of people...”.

And he (and you) think the latter is a good answer

Without anyone perceiving that monument, you have no clue what "that monument" is anymore. It can't exist independent of perception. To be is to be perceived. For example, a yellow banana doesn't exist independently of perception because yellow is only perceived through minds.

LOL. Thousands of little kids in Lego First Leagues across the globe program their mindless sensors to detect “yellow” so reliably, too.
And you think there’s a little pixie-god inside every Lego Sensor kit?

So to say "this yellow banana exists independently of perception" is meaningless.

Assertion without evidence.
It is not meaningless to people who are growing bananas and have an expectation of finding them out in the orchards the next season.

This is so silly and useless. OOooh, I need to THIIIINK about my crops in order to have them!

And since all qualities of things fall into this category, it makes no sense to say, "things can exist independently of perception."

Assertion without evidence.
All things do not fall into this category. Prove me wrong.

This would require you to leave your mind and truly observe what is out there. But, we can't do that. So, immaterialism is the default.

Still not true. There are lots of things that are observed without a mind present. They don’t pop into existence. The Voyager probe has a camera and sensors and senses things. Days later (Weeks?) the images and data arrive at earth and are first viewed by a mind. All the things sensed by the equipment suddenly pop into existence?

This sounds SO STUPID. How can you embrace it? It’s a claim without a shred of evidence.

Try this video, guys.

He explains it very well.

Still not watching videos. No matter how much I try to create it with my mind, I still don’t have broadband internet.
See if YOU can “explain it very well.”

 

[Half-Life]

He explains it very well.

That is really sad. You actually rely on some self-obsessed youtube vloger for your understanding of what Berkeley wrote when I gave you a link to Berkeley's paper so you could read what he himself said rather than having to listen to what someone thinks or claims he said.

He doesn't agree with Berkeley. He just gives a great summary that might make you understand it better.

But, great job jumping to conclusions about him.

 

[Half-Life]

Berkeley did account for that. He said that things are real because God is observing them. 100 people see the same monument because God is observing that monument.

Yes, I got that. That’s what I said. He had a couple of choices in accounting for consilience, and between, “well, the things actually exist,” versus, “”well if I make up a magic sky-daddy that transmits its observations into the minds of people...”.

And he (and you) think the latter is a good answer

Without anyone perceiving that monument, you have no clue what "that monument" is anymore. It can't exist independent of perception. To be is to be perceived. For example, a yellow banana doesn't exist independently of perception because yellow is only perceived through minds.

LOL. Thousands of little kids in Lego First Leagues across the globe program their mindless sensors to detect “yellow” so reliably, too.
And you think there’s a little pixie-god inside every Lego Sensor kit?

So to say "this yellow banana exists independently of perception" is meaningless.

Assertion without evidence.
It is not meaningless to people who are growing bananas and have an expectation of finding them out in the orchards the next season.

This is so silly and useless. OOooh, I need to THIIIINK about my crops in order to have them!

And since all qualities of things fall into this category, it makes no sense to say, "things can exist independently of perception."

Assertion without evidence.
All things do not fall into this category. Prove me wrong.

This would require you to leave your mind and truly observe what is out there. But, we can't do that. So, immaterialism is the default.

Still not true. There are lots of things that are observed without a mind present. They don’t pop into existence. The Voyager probe has a camera and sensors and senses things. Days later (Weeks?) the images and data arrive at earth and are first viewed by a mind. All the things sensed by the equipment suddenly pop into existence?

This sounds SO STUPID. How can you embrace it? It’s a claim without a shred of evidence.

Try this video, guys.

He explains it very well.

Still not watching videos. No matter how much I try to create it with my mind, I still don’t have broadband internet.
See if YOU can “explain it very well.”

That's the whole point. The Voyager pictures work because God is always observing the planets and the whole universe. If a mind never accessed those pictures, would you be able to describe the pictures?

 

[Half-Life]

LOL. Thousands of little kids in Lego First Leagues across the globe program their mindless sensors to detect “yellow” so reliably, too.
And you think there’s a little pixie-god inside every Lego Sensor kit?

I see something as yellow. A colorblind person sees it as red for example. Does this mean the banana is both completely red and completely yellow at the same time? Of course not. The law of non-contradiction refutes this. So, colors are only in our minds. Likewise, length, size, distance, hot, cold, touch, smell are also only in the mind. So to imagine something as "independent of perception" is meaningless because there are no properties if no one is there to observe them.

You really haven't given this much thought.

 

[skepticalbip]

He explains it very well.

That is really sad. You actually rely on some self-obsessed youtube vloger for your understanding of what Berkeley wrote when I gave you a link to Berkeley's paper so you could read what he himself said rather than having to listen to what someone thinks or claims he said.

He doesn't agree with Berkeley. He just gives a great summary that might make you understand it better.

But, great job jumping to conclusions about him.

You are once again arguing against your own assumptions. I did not claim he agreed with Berkeley and I did watch until he got too absurd with his off-the-cuff explanations as to what Berkely meant. Like with blogs you offer, I find them worthless because there is no way to offer a correction or have them justify some absurd expansion offered to 'clarify'.

Again, I encourage you to actually read the link I gave you so you will know what Berkeley actually said rather than the nonsense you have been reading (and watching). Berkeley is bad enough all by himself without the added nonsense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So to imagine something as "independent of perception" is meaningless because there are no properties if no one is there to observe them.

....which you still only can assert, not support.
And this still violates Occam's Shaving Kit, thus it is the less efficient explanation for consilience.

I don't think you have given this much thought beyond liking the vonclusion.