patrick.net

Reality says

Where does that analogy leave you with trains if you insist on religion is to blame for killing people

See Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.

Preachers like Pastor Charles Worley call for the deaths of "queers and homosexuals" and rallies their flocks to hate. Tens of millions of Americans follow "conservative" preachers like this one. This is why Christians picket funerals with "God hate fags" signs and oppose gay marriage, something required by equality under law.

And all these things, from the ancient to today, are intrinsic to religion. The hatred of gays, the torturing of religious opponents, the destruction of knowledge, the suppression of women are all done specifically because the religion demands it. In contrast, Stalin's and Mao's evil was solely due to imperialistic greed, not atheism, and is not supported by atheists or even acknowledged as atheist philosophy.

So the fact that Stalin was an atheist is as relevant as the fact that he had a mustache. But when the pope persuades millions of Africans not to wear condoms or Charles Worley incites men to murder gays and lesbians, religion is at the very center of those actions.

I've done that issue to death. You are offering nothing new.

Reality says

I learned Algebra 1 at the start of Junior High, as in 7th grade, not High School. At the "shitty high school" where I went to, my 9th grade math class was Calculus 1, you moron.

You lying sack of shit.

Dan8267 says

Communism is not an atheistic political movement. It is an economic and political philosophy.

Of course it was. The "communist" movement was the biggest atheistic political movement in world history.

This is an atheistic political movement.

How many people have been murdered by Richard Dawkins?

Dawkins doesn't have much of a political movement.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

I learned Algebra 1 at the start of Junior High, as in 7th grade, not High School. At the "shitty high school" where I went to, my 9th grade math class was Calculus 1, you moron.

You lying sack of shit.

Just because you are a moron, don't under-estimate others. Math happened to be one of my fortes when I was young, as you can probably guess by now.

Reality says

Of course it was. The "communist" movement was the biggest atheistic political movement in world history.

You lying sack of shit.

Still trying to poison the well. You might as well argue that "communism" was the biggest mustache movement in history.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the fact that the afterlife is a lie and unless you accept that murdering babies is a good thing, you don't really believe in the afterlife.

Reality says

Just because you are a moron, don't under-estimate others. Math happened to be one of my fortes when I was young, as you can probably guess by now.

I call bullshit on you, especially since you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of proof by contradiction.

Dan8267 says

In contrast, Stalin's and Mao's evil was solely due to imperialistic greed, not atheism, and is not supported by atheists or even acknowledged as atheist philosophy.

What imperialistic greed? Neither Stalin or Mao was particularly expansionistic. In fact, rather restrained in dealings with foreign powers in order to preserve their domestic control. Stalin and Mao were power maniacs who built personality cults around themselves. Those personality cults were made possible by suppression of previously existing religions.

Not supported by other atheists? What do you think their subordinates were? theists? Who cares if you acknowledge them as atheist philosophy . . . they used atheism for personal political gains, just like many other people used religions for personal political gains.

While I personally enjoyed Dawkins' books on evolution and I have quite a few atheist friends, given that the vast majority of the population have a psychological need to have faith in something, 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. The world history has already witnessed quite a few of those episodes.

I can't wait to go to Satan after I die.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Of course it was. The "communist" movement was the biggest atheistic political movement in world history.

You lying sack of shit.

Still trying to poison the well. You might as well argue that "communism" was the biggest mustache movement in history.

Except all the communist regimes engage in anti-religion and anti-clerical purges, whereas none of them engage in mustache promotion or purging.Dan8267 says

In any case, it is irrelevant to the fact that the afterlife is a lie and unless you accept that murdering babies is a good thing, you don't really believe in the afterlife.

Nonsense. Do you not accept that terminally ill patients suffering from pain are better dead than staying alive and suffering? Heck, some may even think baby with Down's Syndrome would be better not born. Yet it is not your right to decide for other people's parents and kids.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Just because you are a moron, don't under-estimate others. Math happened to be one of my fortes when I was young, as you can probably guess by now.

I call bullshit on you, especially since you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of proof by contradiction.

I learned A => B as logically equivalent to !B => !A in 7th grade Geometry and Logics.

Reality says

Except all the communist regimes engage in anti-religion and anti-clerical purges, whereas none of them engage in mustache promotion or purging

Ah, but the converse of that statement is not true. Communist regimes engage in purging all political opposition, including religious authorities. That is intrinsic to centralized power, not atheism. Ironically, religion is a form of centralized power that does the exact same thing: kill the competition.

However, you see all the so-called militant atheists killing off the religious in our society do you?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jDZPviIq6D4

Yeah, Harry Potter is a stone cold killer.

Reality says

Do you not accept that terminally ill patients suffering from pain are better dead than staying alive and suffering?

I accept that the only person who has the right to make that decision is the terminally ill. And I strongly support euthanasia rights and the death with dignity movement.

But the web pages do remain, in infinity as defined by every computer/server/backuptape cache/wifi signal generated and lost into space.

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain. Your browser has the ability to capture and contain the web page for some time, such as the mind captures and contains consciousness in like manner.

If your turn off the body, consciousness loses the ability to express itself through that particular medium. Fortunately, their are trillions of other mediums available for expression in this universe.

Your issue is you only take your logical conclusions as far as your computer background allows.

You do not allocate room for unknown parameters, even though they are in a constant state of discovery.

The human race unfortunately does not have the entire playbook. We only have possibly sketched out the first two plays of the game...

Dan8267 says

Think about it this way, you don't have to understand anything about system memory, arithmetic logic units, logic gates, direct memory access, machine language, or anything else about your computer to understand that the web browser you are using is being generated and maintained by that computer. If you turn off the computer, the web browser does not remain.

SoftShell says

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain.

Your analogy is flawed. Web pages are stored external to your computer. Your consciousness is not stored external to your brain.

I am not arguing about afterlife, religion, heaven/hell, pink unicorns. They are simply your projections as driven by your very human "need to know for sure".

I am simply saying
1- Our level of understanding the universe, how/if it was created, etc... is miniscule
2- Given our inability to define how consciousness is created in humans, or what it is for that matter, coupled with #1 above, no one can say with absolute certainty what happens to it upon the death of the body.

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.
Agnostics, intellectually honest with the ability to simply say: "I don't know".

Heraclitusstudent says

Except of course there are numerous observations that can lead you to think the earth is not flat, but none - zero - that can lead you to believe there are unknown physical behaviors that are required to explain consciousness.

Except of course it's emotionally more satisfying to think you and loved ones will survive body death.

According to the same logic you could believe there is a pink unicorn living in NYC subway and bending the laws of physics to remain undetected - and be sure it will be proved one day.

Given your inability to describe how consciousness is created and maintained, coupled with our minuscule knowledge of the workings of our universe, your statement below is mere speculation.

For all we know at this point, consciousness is not 'stored' at all. Humans and other beings may simply be conduits of expression of consciousness in this universe( speculation, but as valid as yours ).

Human consciousness may be one entity expressing itself through billions of humans, or the exact opposite.

Unless you can come up with a viable understanding of what consciousness is, how/if it is created for each individual, and the inner workings of it, everything in this thread about consciousness is just speculation based on incomplete observations from people with a minuscule skill set of the laws of this particular universe that we occupy.
Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain.

Your analogy is flawed. Web pages are stored external to your computer. Your consciousness is not stored external to your brain.

BTW, your statement below is flawed.

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

One could also speculate, once borne, consciousness, or a part of it, uses the human mind as a conduit to this universe, until the body is "turned off".

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain.

Your analogy is flawed. Web pages are stored external to your computer. Your consciousness is not stored external to your brain.

SoftShell says

- Our level of understanding the universe, how/if it was created, etc... is miniscule

Irrelevant to the argument D3. If you reject the idea that the girl made the right decision to kill herself, then by logical necessity, you reject the premise that led to that decision, i.e., the afterlife life.

SoftShell says

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.

Agnostics, intellectually honest with the ability to simply say: "I don't know".

Atheists are not fundamentalists. Atheists are skeptics. They insist on being convinced by evidence. Fundamentalists refuse to be convinced by evidence. Those are polar opposites.

Have your god come to one of my tea parties and I'll be completely convinced.

Furthermore, the statement "I don't know" is honest only if it is true. Feigning ignorance is not honesty. I do know the Earth is round. It would not be honest for me to say, "Well I don't know for sure whether the Earth is round or flat and supported by an infinite tower of turtles.".

So no, agnosticism is not the most easily defendable position, especially when you include the honest reality that so-called agnostics are highly selective about what they are agnostic about, to the point of being racist. 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.

Possibly.
But I am debating "consciousness", not the "D" series of statements.
So your statement "irrelevant to the argument" is correct.

But as an outside observer to the 'argument', there appears to be a lot of holes in your statement below, as exposed by the numerous posts.

My thought is, unless you are physically there and have a personal understanding of what is going on in the mind of this child, there is no way to know for certain why she self destructed.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

- Our level of understanding the universe, how/if it was created, etc... is miniscule

Irrelevant to the argument D3. If you reject the idea that the girl made the right decision to kill herself, then by logical necessity, you reject the premise that led to that decision, i.e., the afterlife life.

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.

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.

More importantly, if you truly accept the Christian afterlife then you must accept that the girl made the right decision to kill herself. Do you accept that conclusion?

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.