Christianity Continues Decline in America: Pew Survey Results

[Jumi]

Loll Zoroastrians, that's funny

Indeed. Such is how I feel being compared to Leninist, Stalinist, Marxists.

I am not pinning the communist atrocities on modern atheism, I am saying in some ways they hold similar positions and that they both devalue the unique nature of human life.

From my perspective many religions devalue the unique nature of life, living for the next life. "Kill them all, let God be the judge who is a heretic and who isn't" like a Bishop once said. I think it's more to do with a groups values and ethics than their position on the theism-atheism scale what leads to atrocities.

I am also saying that given sufficient power, ANY organization or religion will commit atrocities.

Probably. It's a good thing then that modern atheists are far from organized. I prefer to keep it that way.

Even Buddhists are committing atrocities in the world. It's just that since atheists believe morality is relative and that human beings are dispensible and without special meaning, the atrocities will be pretty bad.

I'm pretty sure that's not the way it goes. First enemies are dehumanized, then atrocities happen. Look at what happened to the Armenians, the Jews, the Native Americans.

 

[MD]

And yet it is solipsism that you are proposing, to the degree that we are expected to claim to have a soul that has literally no discernible consequence for being.

In other words, it is glorified make-believe.

How do you know you are not a p-zombie? Is there any evidence at all for that, or do we have to simply trust your word on that?

Because I see colors. I feel things. I understand languages. I hear sounds and taste food. These all don't exist in physical reality.

You are trying to devalue my own being for your worldview, which is something many people in the computer field do.

 

[lovemuffin]

Re: empiricism

I think it's at least possible, and probably useful, to distinguish between "empiricism" in the sense tied to modern naturalistic methodology, and the root meaning of the word. Scientific empiricism emphasizes not only the idea that we learn something by practice and by experience (rather than Plato's anamnesis or remembrance), but also requires a methodology which involves quantification, objective measurement, repeatability of experiment, falsifiability, and etc.

Yet "spirituality" can be empirical in the first sense (that we learn by experience). Mysticism emphasizes experience at least in the sense that a transcendent imposes itself on our perceptions. The "revelation" of various religious traditions, that which is heard, is empirical in this non-scientific sense. Much of religious tradition emphasizes a practice, a knowledge gained from practice, which is the root meaning of εμπειρία, (empeiria; from which we get empirical) So I think from the theistic side of the debate, it might do more to confuse the issue than to clarify it to suggest that religion or spirituality rejects "empiricism" entirely. Rather I think there is a disagreement about the nature of experience and the faculties of experience and their referents. That is, a naturalistic anthropology might admit of two distinguishable human faculties, the senses and the reasoning mind, the processes of physical, sensible, perception, and rational reason. In the western traditions, theists speak of a third faculty, the "spirit", not that spiritual experience is entirely separate from the senses or from reason, but that there is an element in human perception that transcends them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because I see colors. I feel things. I understand languages. I hear sounds and taste food. These all don't exist in physical reality.

You are trying to devalue my own being for your worldview, which is something many people in the computer field do.

If someone is, it is not me. I am puzzled that you are so enthusiastic to run into a corner.

Robots may distinguish colors and react to sounds. How do you explain that? How does your explanation differentiate them from p-zombies and supposedly different, true human beings?

You seem to be attempting to focus on subjective perceptions, which is fair enough. But you must realize that sounds, at least, are actually physical phenomena.

 

[MD]

If someone is, it is not me. I am puzzled that you are so enthusiastic to run into a corner.

I'm not running into anything. I know that I myself am not a p-zombie, and thus by extension the physical world is not all there is.

Now get your point across

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is where your argument falls apart.

I find that rather stupid, that evidence comes from sensory experience. How can evidence come from sensations itself, when sensations are transformed into perceptions? And when perceptions themselves cannot be defined objectively, how can the theory claim to have all the answers?

Empiricism says that evidence is a very important aspect of knowledge, and since there is 0 evidence that or anyone else has subjective experience, it kind of nullifies the theory itself in the study of the mind. Empiricism is useless for studying the very topic of subjectivity itself, under which religions and God/Gods/Karma also fall.

It's great for studying objective things, but it fails with subjectivity.

I don't agree. We can obtain evidence for all manor of different things. When we talk about god and experiences that are subjective if we have evidence that people have the same subjective experience with Allah as they do Jesus and Buddha then that allows us to draw some conclusions based off of that. We can also empircally look at the claims made by these different religions and determine if they are correct or not.

In terms of pure subjectivity empiricism is the concept of obtaining evidence. There is a way to gain empirical evidence (that I have described already) which involves recording with as much accuracy as we can the subjective experiences of different people under the different circumstances. For example we understand what love is. In part because we ourselves have experienced it. We can also observe the changes made to others with it. We can even look at the chemical process of it within the brain. Empirical evidence suggests that the subjective experience of love, anger, ect are real and relevant.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not running into anything. I know that I myself am not a p-zombie, and thus by extension the physical world is not all there is.

Now get your point across

I added to the post, but the core matter is: is it even possible to know one is not a p-zombie? If you managed it, how did you?

 

[MD]

I don't agree. We can obtain evidence for all manor of different things. When we talk about god and experiences that are subjective if we have evidence that people have the same subjective experience with Allah as they do Jesus and Buddha then that allows us to draw some conclusions based off of that. We can also empircally look at the claims made by these different religions and determine if they are correct or not.

In terms of pure subjectivity empiricism is the concept of obtaining evidence. There is a way to gain empirical evidence (that I have described already) which involves recording with as much accuracy as we can the subjective experiences of different people under the different circumstances. For example we understand what love is. In part because we ourselves have experienced it. We can also observe the changes made to others with it. We can even look at the chemical process of it within the brain. Empirical evidence suggests that the subjective experience of love, anger, ect are real and relevant.

This is where you are wrong and why you need to educate yourself. Just because you're an atheist, doesn't automatically you right contrary to what you believe.

Like I said, we do not understand subjectively what love is. We understand objectively, but even so in a very poor way. We have neural correlates in the brain but that is not love because there is no causal link between physical correlates of love to the feeling of love itself. In this view, there is no evidence. There is only inference.

 

[MD]

I added to the post, but the core matter is: is it even possible to know one is not a p-zombie? If you managed it, how did you?

I know I'm not a p-zombie as I experience things that are not in physical reality.

And no there is no way for me to ever prove this to you, which is why I think science, materialism and empiricism has its limits.

I'm not saying atheism is wrong and I'm right. I'm saying that some concepts are impossible to prove and theists who experience some sense of God might have as much legitimacy to their beliefs as someone else experiencing love.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is where you are wrong and why you need to educate yourself. Just because you're an atheist, doesn't automatically you right contrary to what you believe.

Like I said, we do not understand subjectively what love is. We understand objectively, but even so in a very poor way. We have neural correlates in the brain but that is not love because there is no causally link between physical correlates of love to the feeling of love itself. In this view, there is no evidence. There is only inference.

You may be right. But that doesn't actually mean that there is any other way to obtain knowledge about it. You seem to be under the delusion that just because we aren't able to crack open consciousness (yet) and fuddle around inside to see whats up that your subjective answers are correct or even remotely reliable. Empiricism is the one and only method that has a history of obtaining accurate and correct new information about the world around us. Add in some logic and critical thinking and you have an impressive start to science.

So if I can give to you the face that consciousness itself isn't fully understood (yet) do you claim that empiricism has a fundamental inability to do so and are you of the train of thought that it simply cannot be known or do you think there is another way to obtain this information?

 

[MD]

You may be right. But that doesn't actually mean that there is any other way to obtain knowledge about it. You seem to be under the delusion that just because we aren't able to crack open consciousness (yet) and fuddle around inside to see whats up that your subjective answers are correct or even remotely reliable. Empiricism is the one and only method that has a history of obtaining accurate and correct new information about the world around us. Add in some logic and critical thinking and you have an impressive start to science.

So if I can give to you the face that consciousness itself isn't fully understood (yet) do you claim that empiricism has a fundamental inability to do so and are you of the train of thought that it simply cannot be known or do you think there is another way to obtain this information?

Dude, I think consciousness is another separate part of the universe. I think Empiricism has met its limits.

Empiricism works wonders for us, like medicine and cars and spacecraft. But I think it has its limits and I think we will one day in the far future need a new methodology to study consciousness.

You can't study thermodynamics with subjectivity and you can't study feelings with empiricism. That's my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

 

[MD]

If someone is, it is not me. I am puzzled that you are so enthusiastic to run into a corner.

Robots may distinguish colors and react to sounds. How do you explain that? How does your explanation differentiate them from p-zombies and supposedly different, true human beings?

You seem to be attempting to focus on subjective perceptions, which is fair enough. But you must realize that sounds, at least, are actually physical phenomena.

Robots are p-zombies or I think they are. I cannot know for sure, but there have been some very complex theories which have stated that digital machines cannot be conscious. I cannot differentiate them from true human beings, but I can infer since these human beings have similar neural structures to my own that they are conscious.

Sounds are not actual physical phenomenon. Sounds are compressions in the air, picked up by the inner ear and then via varying frequencies of the hair cells in the organ of corti, within the cochlea, are transferred via impulses to the brain. Here somehow sounds are formed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dude, I think consciousness is another separate part of the universe. I think Empiricism has met its limits.

Why do you believe this to be true?

Empiricism works wonders for us, like medicine and cars and spacecraft. But I think it has its limits and I think we will one day in the far future need a new methodology to study consciousness.

Such as? And you litterally cannot have a methodology that doesn't work on evidence. We already are breaking free from this pure concept of "sensory information". In fact we already have. We use tools all the time now and it s still empirical.

You can't study thermodynamics with subjectivity and you can't study feelings with empiricism. That's my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

We can disagree but the legitimacy of each of our opinions is based upon the evidence at hand.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know I'm not a p-zombie as I experience things that are not in physical reality.

And no there is no way for me to ever prove this to you, which is why I think science, materialism and empiricism has its limits.

I'm not saying atheism is wrong and I'm right. I'm saying that some concepts are impossible to prove and theists who experience some sense of God might have as much legitimacy to their beliefs as someone else experiencing love.

Fair enough, but it does work both ways. Science has its limits. But so does the authority of utterly subjective experiences. They may be shared, or they may be rejected or doubted basically at will.

 

[MD]

Why do you believe this to be true?

Because there is no other way to explain how consciousness arises from matter.

Such as? And you litterally cannot have a methodology that doesn't work on evidence. We already are breaking free from this pure concept of "sensory information". In fact we already have. We use tools all the time now and it s still empirical.

The tools work pretty well to study objective phenomenon from the outside, but fail to capture inner subjective states.

We can disagree but the legitimacy of each of our opinions is based upon the evidence at hand.

What I'm saying has a lot of consensus in neuroscience and even some in the AI world. I don't know why you just don't read up on it instead of being arrogant.

 

[MD]

Fair enough, but it does work both ways. Science has its limits. But so does the authority of utterly subjective experiences. They may be shared, or they may be rejected or doubted basically at will.

I've never called for a theocracy or a society ruled by my religion or any religion. Heck, my religion is tiny.

But I do know that everything has its limitations, and movements stating that their version is the real 'truth' always make me a little suspect.

 

[LuisDantas]

Robots are p-zombies or I think they are. I cannot know for sure, but there have been some very complex theories which have stated that digital machines cannot be conscious. I cannot differentiate them from true human beings, but I can infer since these human beings have similar neural structures to my own that they are conscious.

Robots are indeed p-zombies, if not even more restricted than those. The question is not so much whether they can be conscious but rather whether there is consciousness as such. We often believe that we do, but there is really very little to show for it. The concept is not even very clear except for a rather vague association with a sense of individuality - which, again, is actually conditioned by physiological states, rather strongly implying that it has a physical as opposed to metaphysical nature.

Sounds are not actual physical phenomenon. Sounds are compressions in the air, picked up by the inner ear and then via varying frequencies of the hair cells in the organ of corti, within the cochlea, are transferred via impulses to the brain. Here somehow sounds are formed.

Sound, in most uses of the word, is the actual physical movement in air or another medium (hence "speed of sound", "sound-proofing", etc). You seem to be wanting to talk about its perception, not about the sound itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've never called for a theocracy or a society ruled by my religion or any religion. Heck, my religion is tiny.

But I do know that everything has its limitations, and movements stating that their version is the real 'truth' always make me a little suspect.

Fair enough.

 

[MD]

Robots are indeed p-zombies, if not even more restricted than those. The question is not so much whether they can be conscious but rather whether there is consciousness as such. We often believe that we do, but there is really very little to show for it. The concept is not even very clear except for a rather vague association with a sense of individuality - which, again, is actually conditioned by physiological states, rather strongly implying that it has a physical as opposed to metaphysical nature.

The very fact that subjective experiences exist, means that consciousness exists. Those who wish to claim that consciousness do not exist are simply trying to push the problem away, and are unwilling to accept its existence as it threatens their own philosophical views.

Sound, in most uses of the word, is the actual physical movement in air or another medium (hence "speed of sound", "sound-proofing", etc). You seem to be wanting to talk about its perception, not about the sound itself.

Sound is a perception, like color and taste. Sound has no meaning in objective reality. The speed of sound requires a human observer to hear it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because there is no other way to explain how consciousness arises from matter.

False. All kinds of false. We already have theories that you have simply thrown out that could be true. And even if they turn out not to be true there is no reason to assume that the answer is simply just another part of the universe. This is a fallacy as well.

The tools work pretty well to study objective phenomenon from the outside, but fail to capture inner subjective states.

Actually thanks to internal brain imaging we are getting pretty good at that too. We've even observed a memory being created. There has even been a study where incredibly vague pictures (as this is a rudimentary advancement) that was recreated from brainwaves. Its literally decoding the brain.

What I'm saying has a lot of consensus in neuroscience and even some in the AI world. I don't know why you just don't read up on it instead of being arrogant.

Again I have read up on it. No one in neuroscience and AI are claiming that empiricism cannot be used. They have claimed that there are issues and questions they don't know how to answer yet but your claims seem to be all your own.