patrick.net

Your analogy is false One cannot be 'agnostic' for one god, and believe in another.

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims, are unknown or unknowable.

The people you describe below are not agnostic, even though you describe them as such.

Dan8267 says

Their agnostic about the Judeo-Christian god because their tribe is full of people who accept this god, but they aren't agnostic about Native American gods, African gods, Asian gods, Aboriginal gods, etc. That double standard smacks of racist and cultural prejudices. It is hardly honest or open-minded.

SoftShell says

But I am debating "consciousness", not the "D" series of statements.

Than spawn a new thread entitled something like "The Nature of Consciousness" and then present your thesis there.

No need to get this thread further off track.

Wow. I really really thought you were some kind of computer wizard, but what you state below makes me wonder if you are a registered user of "Pc Matic"...

Please tell me why you would have to "redownload them" when they are stored on hard disk in browser cache?

And that is not my argument, it's your response.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

BTW, your statement below is flawed.

Once downloaded, web pages ARE stored on your computer hard disk and for some time in memory cache.

Wrong again. Local caching of web pages is irrelevant since your argument is that the web pages can be restored by redownloading them. If you're going to make an analogy -- which by the way is the weakest form of debate -- then at least be consistent.

SoftShell says

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims, are unknown or unknowable.

The people you describe below are not agnostic, even though you describe them as such.

Then there are no real agnostics in the world. No so-called agnostic believes that Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, or Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and orgies, may or may not exist and we cannot or do not know for sure.

All so-called agnostics are highly selective in their agnosticism.

The computer/browser/storage comments were a response to your initial analogy.
I agree that my response does not prove an afterlife. It was not meant to.

Dan8267 says

In any case, local caching of web pages has nothing to do with the human brain and consciousness. Your analogy does not prove or even remotely suggests an afterlife.

1 or 2 examples?

Dan8267 says

All so-called agnostics are highly selective in their agnosticism.

Reality says

Actually he was an atheist for all practical purpose. He was very anti-clerical, but delayed an outright purge of the church probably pending his military victory in all of Europe, which never came. All the people closest to him, from Speer to Goebbles to Bormann wrote in their notes and diaries that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

Hitler gave the Church free reign and continued the state subsidies of Catholic Church in return for a promise of support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

Abbot Herwegen told the meeting:

What the liturgical movement is to the religious realm, fascism is to the political realm. The German stands and acts under authority, under leadership - whoever does not follow endangers society. Let us say 'yes' wholeheartedly to the new form of the total State, which is analogous throughout to the incarnation of the Church. The Church stands in the world as Germany stands in politics today."."[45]

...

On 20 August 1935 the Catholic Bishops conference at Fulda reminded Hitler that Pius XI had:

exchanged the handshake of trust with you through the concordat - the first foreign sovereign to do so..Pope Pius spoke high praise of you...Millions in foreign countries, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, have overcome their original mistrust because of this expression of papal trust, and have placed their trust in your regime."[42]

In a sermon given in Munich during 1937 Cardinal Faulhaber declared:

At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat, expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.[42]

This agreement brokered by Hitler is still in force, by the way.

The treatment of Jews, the retarded, political dissenters, unions, etc. was all well known at the time, so ignorance is not an excuse. The Church only insisted that conversos not be molested.

Reality says

Cost-effectiveness, my friend. Not the list of gigantism.

The simpler explanation is that they couldn't afford, or organize, well equipped standardized armies, not even on a smaller scale than the Roman. The classic image of the mounted and plate-mailed Knight belongs to the later Middle Ages, not the Dark Ages.

If infantry was so terrible, how did Charles Martel fend off the Arab invaders of France? With heavy infantry in a shieldwall against the predominantly light cavalry of the Arabs. Hastings was determined by infantry - the cavalry, like in most ancient battles, only came up after the other side broke. Did the Vikings have cavalry? They occasionally stole ponies to plunder inland, but when they fought they dismounted. Cavalry is much more expensive than infantry. Knights don't need one horse, they need several. Horses eat a lot of fodder, land that could be used to raise cattle or plant wheat.

The Vikings were so dangerous because medieval Europe had neither a standing navy nor a standing army to oppose them; by the time the local lords got their levies raised, the Vikings were elsewhere.

Roman Armies could campaign in all seasons. Medieval Armies could only campaign in the heart of summer between planting and harvest.

We can keep debating, I'm certainly having fun - but maybe we should open a new thread as the main topic is moving pretty quickly...

SoftShell says

no one can say with absolute certainty what happens to it upon the death of the body.

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.

So would you accept we can say with quasi-certainty that consciousness doesn't survive death?

You are making a big deal of "absolute certainty" but most knowledge about the world is never absolutely certain. It doesn't mean it is not knowledge from a practical point of view.

Dan-You've come a long way from a confused little boy force fed catholic lies. You understand the concept of taking full responsibility for yourself. The adults (who were there to guide, comfort her in her grief and lead her to look forward to her future) around the 12 year old girl weren't enough in whatever way to stop her in her rightful decision to take her own life. All sorrow is with those left behind.

The catholic position is extreme with clear black and white delineations, and atheism is extreme on the other side of the pendulum. Can you see how it is possible to swing, looking at life as bipolar? Maybe, just maybe there is ground somewhere in the middle that's been rejected because of the trauma experienced through the "religious" programming as a child?

I know this is stretching it, but maybe consider there is a "consciousness" out there that also takes 100% responsibility for itself, and is committed to all others with consciousness to also experience it? Or call it a universal law. We are fully responsible for ourselves, it is just that most people do not understand the depth of what that really means.

You don't have to carry the burden of personal responsibility on your own, because it saps joy from life. Knowing there is assistance and support and that you are on the path to even greater understanding is a true joy to the heart and mind. No religion required.

Reality says

I'm not promoting any brand of religion. I'm simply against putting down religions. I'm especially wary about the government cult, and those falsely promoting the government cult/religion.

Of course you are. You spent the entire thread condoning manipulating people for societal control.

Not only that's a profoundly immoral and pernicious way to lead people (and that makes your position immoral), it's also the exact same pattern you are worried an atheist secular state would practice.

Not to mention organized religion has always lived in close symbiosis with centralized states. That's what we saw with monarchy, that's what we saw with fascism in the 20th century, that's what we saw with Bush and others in the US. The two working together, are essentially free of moral limitations and rulers are typically above the rules taught to the masses. As such they are no different than a secular state enforcing conformity through propaganda.

Reality says

Most atheistic critic of religion consider religion being a social control tool.

Which they don't condone.

Reality says

However, atheistic political movements have proven to be catastrophic in human history.

The only example of that you quoted is communism, which was catastrophic for very different other reasons.

He was also a Momma's Boy who exaggerated his "sinfulness" post-conversion.

Reality says

promoting atheism as the new social norm thereby letting government-worship becoming the default faith, without any check from an organized moral authority (which is usually played by religions) is tantamount to collective suicide for the society.

In essence you are saying that morality in society can only come from religion. That implies that atheists, taken in groups, are incapable of morality. This is so stupid it doesn't even need an argument.

No, because we don't have enough of a definition of what it is to apply the term 'survival'.
I can say with quasi-certainly that consciousness appears to emanate from the mind.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

no one can say with absolute certainty what happens to it upon the death of the body.

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.

So would you accept we can say with quasi-certainty that consciousness doesn't survive death?

I do not say that what we do know about consciousness is not "knowledge from a practical point of view".

I just don't subscribe to the absolute point of view that it 'dies' with the body.
How can one take that point of view with something that we cannot define or describe how it may be created.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Hopefully our knowledge will expand to the point where we have enough data to make the appropriate judgement. For me, that means:
Defining what C. is with broad scientific support
Determining how C. is 'created' with the body, or just inhabits the mind, or something else...
Possibly, once defined, creating consciousness in the laboratory.

Heraclitusstudent says

You are making a big deal of "absolute certainty" but most knowledge about the world is never absolutely certain. It doesn't mean it is not knowledge from a practical point of view

4 hour statue of limitations has expired.
I win.
Case Closed.

SoftShell says

1 or 2 examples?

Dan8267 says

All so-called agnostics are highly selective in their agnosticism.

See the snake hating sun god example above. I can't keep repeating myself.

SoftShell says

4 hour statue of limitations has expired.

Some of us have day jobs.

Therein lies the inoperable portion of your cerebral cortex.
Agnostics do not take the stance that "something could possibly exist".

Their position is that if something cannot be proven, given humanity's gross lack of universal knowledge, we default to "I don't know", instead of the fundamentalist/atheist viewpoint of "I know".

Please think hard before you say "something could possibly exist" is equivalent to "I don't know". It is not.

Dan8267 says

Don't give me the bullshit that any agnostic thinks that maybe Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, plausibly could exist. No agnostic puts Garuda on equal footing to Yahweh in terms of possibly existing.

SoftShell says

Their position is that if something cannot be proven, given humanity's gross lack of universal knowledge, we default to "I don't know", instead of the fundamentalist/atheist viewpoint of "I know".

You don't understand what knowledge is.

Knowledge of the universe around us is never 100% logically certain. Knowledge can always prove to be wrong and has to be constantly refined.

Take simple facts like "Obama exists". Since I never met Obama and only saw him on pictures and TVs, there is way to prove me logically that this was not an artificially created Hollywood studio character. There is always that tiny chance that in fact, he is.

Now lets say you see your buddy John in the street. Surely you recognize him and that proves it's John, right? Wrong: How can you prove logically that he didn't have a twin brother Zac from whom he was separated at birth, and that happens to wear similar clothes? There is no way to prove this. Just because 2 things look the same doesn't prove they are the same. Plato showed long back that identity can not proven by the senses alone. Identity is logical induction.

The mind assesses the source of information, the degree of closeness and decides based on that. Knowledge is not made of pure logic deduction.

In the exact same way, we know the feathered serpent or Zeus don't exist, and this is not a fundamentalist position, it's practical knowledge of the world, just like recognizing your buddy John. And of course it can be wrong. Knowledge is the map, not the territory. It can always prove to be wrong and has to be constantly refined.

So the best thing that can be said about agnosticism, is that it is logically valid. It doesn't mean that it is a practical understanding of the universe.

SoftShell says

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Hopefully our knowledge will expand to the point where we have enough data to make the appropriate judgement. For me, that means:

Defining what C. is with broad scientific support

Determining how C. is 'created' with the body, or just inhabits the mind, or something else...

Possibly, once defined, creating consciousness in the laboratory.

How do I know my car is not a sentient being?
If you can't give us a 100% absolute proof it isn't, that means it may survive the crusher.

Maybe it can't, maybe it can.... Until sentience is well understood with broad scientific support, we can't know for certain.

Jeez... thanks for the argument.

Heraclitusstudent says

How do I know my car is a sentient being?

If it leaks oil after being dusted by the 335xi, that's proof enough.

If you can't give us a 100% absolute proof it isn't, that means it may survive the crusher.

Who says the crusher kills the car? The crusher just takes away the car's mobility.

Maybe it can't, maybe it can.... Until sentience is well understood with broad scientific support, we can't know for certain.

agreed.

Jeez... thanks for the argument.

Why do you hate bliss?

SoftShell says

Therein lies the inoperable portion of your cerebral cortex.

Agnostics do not take the stance that "something could possibly exist".

To take the stance that it is unknowable whether or not X exists is to take the stance that it is possible that X exists. You're really not that smart, are you?

To take the stance that it is unknowable whether or not X exists is to take the stance that it is unknowable whether it is possible that X exists.

You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Therein lies the inoperable portion of your cerebral cortex.

Agnostics do not take the stance that "something could possibly exist".

To take the stance that it is unknowable whether or not X exists is to take the stance that it is possible that X exists. You're really not that smart, are you?

Heraclitusstudent says

promoting atheism as the new social norm thereby letting government-worship becoming the default faith, without any check from an organized moral authority (which is usually played by religions) is tantamount to collective suicide for the society.

In essence you are saying that morality in society can only come from religion. That implies that atheists, taken in groups, are incapable of morality. This is so stupid it doesn't even need an argument.

You chopped off the half sentence in front of the quote above, namely "a significant proportion of the human population has a psychological need for faith." People who choose to be atheists in a mostly religious society obviously are obviously not those kind of people.

So despite your claim of "doesn't even need an argument," you not only presented an argument, but in fact searched for a point of contention that wasn't even there to begin with.

Most people are capable of applying morality to oneself through logic and tradition . . . but there are different degrees of sociopathy that a functional society has to deal with. Let's say those various degrees of sociopaths comprise 20% of the population. A typical law enforcement system can only catch about 20% of criminals. That means, if logic is the only safeguard, fully 16% of the population would be out there committing crimes with impunity! If 80% of those 20% sociopaths can be convinced of some kind of religion that induces them to self-police, that 16% number would be dropped down to 3%! It's not the other 80% well adjusted people that we have to worry about, but how to deal with the dysfunctional ones! cost-effectively!

SoftShell says

You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.

Actually I don't think his post was purely ad hominem.
He was certainly pointing out that someone who claims to believe that Dionysus and Quetzalcoatl could in fact exist or that my car could actually be sentient is either not serious or fairly delusional.

Basically you are denying the obvious that most people would agree on.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

However, atheistic political movements have proven to be catastrophic in human history.

The only example of that you quoted is communism, which was catastrophic for very different other reasons.

The various brands of communist states were the most recent and most drastic samples. There were more than a dozen different varieties of "communist states" with various different forms of state worship and personality cult attempting to replace traditional religions. The term "only example" is simply untrue. The previous experiments during the French Revolution did not fare well either.

thunderlips11 says

The simpler explanation is that they couldn't afford, or organize, well equipped standardized armies, not even on a smaller scale than the Roman.

The Romans couldn't really afford the professional standardized imperial army either. The Roman Imperial army was a ponzi scheme just like any bureaucracy: the bulk of the pay was in the pension plan: a promise of a plot of land to settle on the frontier after certain number of years of service. Of course, that promise could only really be kept when the empire was expanding so there was a new frontier for retired veterans to settle. That's why late Roman Empire had so many army mutinies after the empire had already expanded to the maximum size that the available transportation technology would allow; there simply wasn't enough money to pay the standing professional army and retain their loyalty for long. Eventually people lost all faith in the Roman army pension with benefits model, which had to be replaced by the 1099 independent contractor model, aka Feudalism: bring your own tools to do the work of chopping up people in cold blood.

thunderlips11 says

If infantry was so terrible, how did Charles Martel fend off the Arab invaders of France? With heavy infantry in a shieldwall against the predominantly light cavalry of the Arabs.

The decisive factor was the arabs not having winter clothing, so they had to finish the campaign before the pending winter. Otherwise, they could easily bypass Chuck's stationary defense, and they should have (from a pure tactical/strategic point of view). Also, the greedy invaders were loaded down with loot from previous victories.

Hastings was determined by infantry - the cavalry, like in most ancient battles, only came up after the other side broke.

Harold lost at Hastings in the classic way infantry loses to cavalry: lack of mobility. Harold's infantry did not break initially because of losing, but breaking ranks in order to pursue what they thought was easy victory, and got easily picked off piece meal by Will's combined arms forces.

Did the Vikings have cavalry? They occasionally stole ponies to plunder inland, but when they fought they dismounted. Cavalry is much more expensive than infantry. Knights don't need one horse, they need several. Horses eat a lot of fodder, land that could be used to raise cattle or plant wheat.

The Vikings were so dangerous because medieval Europe had neither a standing navy nor a standing army to oppose them; by the time the local lords got their levies raised, the Vikings were elsewhere.

In other words, Vickings were the Cavalry of the Sea, engaging in hit-and-run cost-effective cavalry tactics.

Knights were heavy cavalry, which provided cover for light cavalry to do the real plundering work. The Dark Ages was a lower temperature period. Much of the land was better used for grazing than for planting anyway. They didn't have potato yet back then or corn. The grain species they had were mostly the warmer weather varieties.

Roman Armies could campaign in all seasons. Medieval Armies could only campaign in the heart of summer between planting and harvest.

Roman armies campaigned in a higher temperature period in mostly lower latitude lands. The Medieval Armies that you talk about worked in a lower temperature period in earth's history and at higher latitude lands. For the crusader kingdoms in the Mediterranean, comparable in latitude to the Roman's Med empire, campaigns did go on year-round.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

I'm not promoting any brand of religion. I'm simply against putting down religions. I'm especially wary about the government cult, and those falsely promoting the government cult/religion.

Of course you are. You spent the entire thread condoning manipulating people for societal control.

Not societal control, but crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior. Of course I did not promote any particular brand of religion. In order for religion(s) to serve its function for the society as a guard rail and alternative power base, the state has to be agnostic about religions, welcoming/tolerating almost all religions while promoting none.

Not only that's a profoundly immoral and pernicious way to lead people (and that makes your position immoral), it's also the exact same pattern you are worried an atheist secular state would practice.

Not lead people, but bringing up the rear (the different degrees of sociopaths that always exist in any society).

Atheist secular states do the exact opposite: without any check and balance from an effective organized base for alternative voice, atheistic regimes tend to commit the worst excesses of misrule.

Heraclitusstudent says

Not to mention organized religion has always lived in close symbiosis with centralized states.

Not always. The alternative power center function provided by the church may well explain why Western Europe never centralized after the fall of Rome and before the 20th century.

That's what we saw with monarchy,

Monarchy existed before the invention of monotheism; the Monarch was imply deified instead of having to rely on divine mandate. Monarchy even exist in atheist states like North Korea, where the monarch is once again deified.

that's what we saw with fascism in the 20th century,

The Nazis were anti-clerical, as were the Italian fascists. The Japanese fascists promoted Emperor-worship.

that's what we saw with Bush and others in the US.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The two working together, are essentially free of moral limitations and rulers are typically above the rules taught to the masses. As such they are no different than a secular state enforcing conformity through propaganda.

That I agree with you. The atheistic state is like the worst kind of religous state (theocracy): concentration of power in both cases. What I advocate is an agnostic state, where the state stays the heck out of religions, neither promoting nor suppressing, but simply tolerating and welcoming to religions.

Reality says

The previous experiments during the French Revolution did not fare well either.

Really? The French revolution started with General States that included low clergy. The "Déclaration des droits de l'homme" includes freedom of religion, and while the revolution was accompanied by a rise of anti-clericalism, it was certainly not centered on it, and many of the revolutionary including Robespierre insisted on the respect of religion.

No, the French revolution was just chaos created by a power void and an institutional void, and ended by a military coup. We see something similar now in Egypt, with reversed position of the religious. Nothing about it was predestined to failure based on an imagined atheism.

Reality says

The alternative power center function provided by the church may well explain why Western Europe never centralized after the fall of Rome

Really? It was not because it was divided in smaller parts with different languages and cultures? and none of which was powerful enough to control the others? and with geographical barriers between England, France, Spain and Italy that historically were the main countries?

I want to hear your logic chain that goes from the existence of a church to separate countries remaining separate.

If anything a common religion should have unified them.
Instead of course, the religion itself split creating civil wars.

Everything you are saying is a bizarre rewrite of history that seem based on American conservatism vision of what is best.

Reality says

Not societal control, but crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior.

That's called enforcing conformity and of course it is societal control.

Organized religion, btw, uses the exact same techniques that propagandists rediscovered later: Commitment, repetition, authority, granfalloon , phantoms, etc...

As you have dismissed the motif of an earnest spiritual pursuit, and since morally can safely be shown to exist independently, all that remains from organized religion is a propagandist belief system that serves essentially no other purpose than the perpetuation of the power of the religious structure itself. Your preference for this particular system of populace manipulation over an atheist one is unfounded. They are basically the same.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The previous experiments during the French Revolution did not fare well either.

Really? The French revolution started with General States that included low clergy. The "Déclaration des droits de l'homme" includes freedom of religion, and while the revolution was accompanied by a rise of anti-clericalism, it was certainly not centered on it, and many of the revolutionary including Robespierre insisted on the respect of religion.

No, the French revolution was just chaos created by a power void and an institutional void, and ended by a military coup. We see something similar now in Egypt, with reversed position of the religious. Nothing about it was predestined to failure based on an imagined atheism.

Notice I said "the previous experiment during French Revolution," not the French Revolution in its entirety. The atheist zealots are knee-jerkers just like the religious fanatics.

Heraclitusstudent says

Really? It was not because it was divided in smaller parts with different languages and cultures? and none of which was powerful enough to control the others? and with geographical barriers between England, France, Spain and Italy that historically were the main countries?

Of course geography was a major factor too; however, England, France, Spain and Italy were unified under Rome previously, despite the geographical barriers.

I want to hear your logic chain that goes from the existence of a church to separate countries remaining separate.

If anything a common religion should have unified them.

Instead of course, the religion itself split creating civil wars.

Before you go off on some idealized kumbalaya religious community, what I wrote was:

Reality says:

The alternative power center function provided by the church may well explain why Western Europe never centralized after the fall of Rome

The church was an alternative power center with self-interest for preserving its own independence. It played the role of balance of power just like Britain would later do for continental Europe. A classic case was inviting the far away Otto I to Rome to reduce the local warlords controlling lands around Rome, preventing the rise of a Rome based reunification power.

Everything you are saying is a bizarre rewrite of history that seem based on American conservatism vision of what is best.

You are out of your mind if you think the American Conservatism vision is into agnosticism. You find fault with my writings because you are a knee jerk faith zealot lacking reading comprehension skills and basic understanding about calculated human actions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Not societal control, but crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior.

That's called enforcing conformity and of course it is societal control.

So what's your great idea for crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior among the 20% of the population that suffering from various degrees of sociopathy?

Organized religion, btw, uses the exact same techniques that propagandists rediscovered later: Commitment, repetition, authority, granfalloon , phantoms, etc...

Shouldn't that be: the atheist propagandists later use the same techniques as the previous propagandists working for theocracies? Goes to show that enforced Atheist regimes are just another type of theocracy.

As you have dismissed the motif of an earnest spiritual pursuit, and since morally can safely be shown to exist independently, all that remains from organized religion is a propagandist belief system that serves essentially no other purpose than the perpetuation of the power of the religious structure itself. Your preference for this particular system of populace manipulation over an atheist one is unfounded. They are basically the same.

Once again, what's your pres cription for crime prevention and sociopathy mitigation for the 20% of the population that suffer from various degrees of sociopathy?

My answer for how to prevent one organized religion from gaining too much hold on the other 80% of the population is quite simple: let many different religions thrive and prosper in the same society, so there is no particular religious mono cultural conformity bias for the bulk of the society. This is one heck lot more sophisticated and elegant solution than what the militant atheist blowhards offer: that you are a fool and should be disenfranchised unless you conform to atheism.

Most people at one time believed the earth was flat.
How'd that work out for them?

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.

>

Basically you are denying the obvious that most people would agree on.

Why not?
It meets Dan's definition of the brain.
All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

SoftShell says

Why not?

It meets Dan's definition of the brain.

All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

Of course a computer system in a car could be sentient, but that does not mean that any car today is remotely sentient.