Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grek]

I am a a hylozoist. This is because I think assuming "All matter experiences qualia to some degree." is the best solution to the mind-body problem.

I find the propostion that matter experiencing qualia is the result of a universe without any sort of guiding agency difficult to believe, as qualia are non-physical qualities that are determined soley by material inputs. There is no reason for such things to exist.

Thus, I am a theist. I beleive that there was some guiding agency behind the creation of the material universe or the addition of qualia to the material universe.

I find it difficult to believe that a benevolent guiding agency would make qualia which are disliked by the entity experiencing the qualia occur or add qualia to a universe which would require such qualia to fuction.

I believe that such has to have occured.

Thus, I beleive that the guiding agency of the universe is not benevolent.

Thus, I am a maltheist.

[Golgath]

Crazy talk!

Seriously, I didn't catch any of that.  Qualia?  What in the name of Armok is that?  Maybe if I understand what you mean with that word, the rest of that post will be comprehensible. 

[RAM]

I am not familiar with the term qualia, I assume it is some form of qualities. I looked it up on wiktionary and it suggested a quality that cannot be expressed numerically. But just reading it I can guess that it is probably some reference to a spirit and/or will of some sort...

So... this is my effort to translate the post in question"

I think that 'All matter has spiritual elements' is the best solution to the perception of spiritual elements.

Spiritual elements make no sense in the absence of a guiding agency.

Therefore god exists.

The nature of existence is hostile to its spiritual elements, therefore the guiding agency is not benevolent."

But this is just guessing, I don't want to try to speak on other people's behalves.


My problem is that I am more familiar with christianity than anything else, so I am more able assess it. If anyone contributes a justification then I would be happy to debate its merits...

I think the reason people believe G-d exists is this:
"When I die, I will still live. Dying is a scary thought."

But that really doesn't correlate to a god at all. If you believe that you have elements that will persist after you die than you should attempt to improve those elements, not simply bind yourself to some arbitrary dogma...
 What part of common human experience suggests that doing what something tells you to do now will cause it to look after you forever? And why are so many people willing to accept being looked after in this way when it pretty much ensures that they will lose all freedom?

Hinduism-a pantheon of gods, many of which are semi-animals with many arms! Plus when you die, you come back as something/someone else based on your karma!'

Based off of that alone...
Okay, so there are a bunch of bestial gods, am I supposed to care about this for some reason?
So I die and become a cockroach, or a microbe, with no knowledge at all about any alternatives. That doesn't sound so bad...

Buddhism-no gods, just spiritual enlightenment (nirvana). Reincarnate until you reach this point.

I thought that buddhism included a whole bunch of stuff, some of which accepted the existence of gods. But going from this description, it sounds to me like buddhists are trying to jump the queue. I prefer a bit more morality in my religion...

Shintoism-mystical spirits inhabit all things, and if you treat them well will give you luck, etc.

Or you can treat them badly and make vast sums of money and hire people to kill everyone you don't like. I would be more convinced if they made more of an effort to make ignoring them a bad idea...

Atheistic Satanism- believe Satan is a symbol of human traits, not a deity. Focuses on empowering yourself to live a better life instead of preparing for a better afterlife.

Something more specific than "better" would be nice...
No matter how much better you make your life, the entirety of your existence will be insignificant.

Try and tell me you have anything against THESE religions. I'm pretty sure you only have problems with Judeo-Christians.

As I say, I don't have much experience with these and other religions, but if anyone wants to try to justify them, I would be glad to try to justify them to myself...

[Chutney]

I've had experiences too, the trick is knowing that your brain is an unreliable chunk of meat that gets fooled real easy.

There is no reasonable basis besides

"When I die, I will still live. Dying is a scary thought."

that one. Other than that, it is entirely a personal matter.

That's not a reasonable basis, that's wishful thinking. Or in other words appeal to consequences fallacy, a proposition is desirable therefore it is true.

How isn't that reasonable? Are you saying it's unreasonable to not want to cease existing? Then why, and I don't mean to sound like a channer here, don't you just kill yourself? According to you, it's unreasonable to live. (Disclaimer: I am NOT seriously advocating this. It's reductio ad absurdum. please do not go kill yourself!!)

[RAM]

Because according to my understanding, desirability has no correlation to truth, so "I want it therefore it is true" is not a result of reason, so is not reasonable.

Why would you not want to cease existing? What advantages does existence have over the alternative?

Killing yourself is an action towards a goal. Just because you don't want to live is no reason to want to die. Why can't all alternatives be unbearable, life, death, and everything else besides?

If there is no reason to pursue something, than it is unreasonable, no matter how beneficial it may feel...

[Grek]

Seriously, I didn't catch any of that.  Qualia?  What in the name of Armok is that?  Maybe if I understand what you mean with that word, the rest of that post will be comprehensible. 

Qualia is the pural of quale. Quale is a philosophical term for a subjective quality experienced by a  consciousness. Examples include Redness, Sweetness, Pain, Happiness and other sensations. It describes the sensation itself, not the set of physical properties or interactions which cause a sensation.

The Mind-body Problem is basically "Where do qualia come from? Why is it that objective events such as the interaction of certain wavelengths of light with the retina result in completely subjective sensations?"

I find the idea that natural events would produce subjective sensations like Pain and Red out of totally objective things like nerves firing to be utterly ridiculous. Thus, I propose some being caused that to happen.

[Sordid]

I don't quite qualia are a valid concept. Where you experience redness, somebody vision imaired may experience grey or some other color, depending on their particular impairment. Thus the answer to the question of where the quale comes from is quite obviously "from one's mind, based on one's sensory apparatus". It's nothing more than a mental construct built from what our sensory organs tell us, and the mind is shaped by the structure of the brain, which in turn is a product of evolution.

As for consciousness, it took me some time to realize that consciousness isn't an entity, it's not a thing. It's a process. Hence why people are pronounced dead when there's no more brain activitiy. It's the activity that makes the person.

How isn't that reasonable? Are you saying it's unreasonable to not want to cease existing?

No, I'm not. If you have trouble understanding what I'm saying, read what I wrote again. It's perfectly reasonable to want there to be a God. It's unreasonable to believe, on that basis alone, that there actually is one.

[RAM]

To be fair, I suspect that most of the qualifications for being pronounced dead are based upon reaching a state at which the medical profession can no longer restore functions. Someone whose heart is not beating and lungs are not breathing is clearly not a functional human, but is not considered dead until it is deemed that the state is irreversable. Although it does address the issue somewhat in cases of apparent mental degradation, which some people believe is a valid justification for 'assisted suicide'. It is also used as a justification for the person involved to be deemed incapable of orchestrating their own affairs, which points out the inherent flaws in suicide. But the whole suicide debate is probably best left to itself...

[Leafsnail]

Because their mum taught them to.

Actually a good number of people have personal experiences or revelations. These people I consider to be truly religious.

If there's a believer here who disagrees, I invite them to try and present their reasonable basis for belief in God.

There is no reasonable basis besides

"When I die, I will still live. Dying is a scary thought."

that one. Other than that, it is entirely a personal matter.

At least such is my experience so far.

My experience, just a trend I see, is a good number of the hardcore atheists (ranging from "kill all religious people to solve world violence" to "relentlessly destroy peoples faith and lives"/"don't leave anyone alone as if they're under threat of death") were originally taught religion by their mums and that was completely destroyed by another atheist. They don't exactly stop being religious the way I see it, just completely flip from one side of the spectrum to the other with the same intensity.

Noone has ever been killed in the name of atheism.  Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion.  I don't think these "hardcore atheists" actually exist.  Even Dawkins, a "Militant atheist" would never kill or hurt someone over their religion.

How isn't that reasonable? Are you saying it's unreasonable to not want to cease existing? Then why, and I don't mean to sound like a channer here, don't you just kill yourself? According to you, it's unreasonable to live. (Disclaimer: I am NOT seriously advocating this. It's reductio ad absurdum. please do not go kill yourself!!)

I've never understood this argument.  It goes like this:
"You atheists only get one life to live!  Why not kill yourself?"
Because we don't have an imaginary parachute called "heaven".  All my memories, all that makes me who I am, is stored in my brain.  Therefore, on the death and subsequent decay of my brain, I lose my memories.  Perhaps my consciousness moves onto someone else; I don't know.  But any way you look at it, my "Self" is gone, and therefore I should enjoy being myself while alive.

Just because you don't want to die doesn't make it so that you won't.  Hence believing in heaven for this reason is fallacy.

[Il Palazzo]

Noone has ever been killed in the name of atheism.  Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion.  I don't think these "hardcore atheists" actually exist.

Communism.

[Sordid]

I've never understood this argument.  It goes like this:
"You atheists only get one life to live!  Why not kill yourself?"

Heh, yeah. Exactly because of that.

Noone has ever been killed in the name of atheism.  Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion.  I don't think these "hardcore atheists" actually exist.

Communism.

Only in the era of dictators with a cult of personality, and people who actively foster such cults around themselves don't want to worship God, they want to be God. Not very atheistic IMO.

[Leafsnail]

Noone has ever been killed in the name of atheism.  Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion.  I don't think these "hardcore atheists" actually exist.

Communism.

They were killed in the name of communism, as opposed to atheism.  Apply that logic and every war started by a religious person was caused by religion.

[Il Palazzo]

Soviet persecution of religious groups was based on communism's atheistic stance. In the same fashion, wealthy land owners were persecuted due to communism's economic ideals.

[Sordid]

Soviet persecution of religious groups was based on communism's atheistic stance.

Yeah, that's what Leafsnail said.

[Il Palazzo]

Eh, no, not really. See, when e.g. a clergyman was forced to get the hell out of his church, because it's going to be used for some other purpose now, he wasn't told that it's because he's not a communist. He was told that belief is damaging the society and there's no need for religion anymore.
Communists were in fact doctrinal, hardcore atheists.