Is materialism a real theory? Do most atheist believe in it?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
But you dont "know" stuff, you are but a student of "stuff"...and ridicule those that have both life experience and qualifications to discuss "stuff".
In other words Breezy you are a tyro, immature and set in your beliefs. One can only hope that the students I work with are representative of their generation, and not unpleasant fixed idees perpetual students like yourself.
Ironically, the majority of science papers I've shared and topics I've touched on, we've already covered in class. I know stuff precisely because I'm a student, and you guys can know stuff too by reading through the papers I've shared and engaging in discussion.
John, you wrote, “and you guys can know stuff too by reading through the papers I've shared and engaging in discussion.”
That’s a fascinating comment. It appears to me that many, many folks here do indeed ‘know stuff.’ I wonder if you said that because you consider folks ignorant os ‘stuff’ if they don’t agree with you.
I already made a distinction between the hecklers and the thinkers. My comment is in reference to the hecklers which hide behind their ignorance.
I agree many folks know stuff, if I didn't think so I wouldn't waste my time on here. Ironically, you always question my threads on the basis that nobody here is a biologist or smart enough to answer. Its typically you which looks down on the members.
"I already made a distinction between the hecklers and the thinkers."
That's an apropos analogy actually, the thinkers of course would be all the scientific experts globally who over the last 160 + years have validated evolution, by having their work scientifically validated. The hecklers by comparison would be the creationists like you, a student pretending his claims are scientifically valid, but really heckling a subject they aren't even qualified in, in an atheist chatroom.
"Ironically, the majority of science papers I've shared and topics I've touched on, we've already covered in class."
Are you saying your classes teach you that species evolution is not a valid scientific fact?
"I know stuff precisely because I'm a student,"
You're a student of psychology John, who is laughably claiming to know better than all the best scientific experts in evolution and biology over the last 160 years, and you're doing it in an atheist internet chat room.
"by reading through the papers I've shared and engaging in discussion."
Please cite any one of those papers that is peer reviewed, and shares your core denial of species evolution? Lets discuss that, only every time I ask you if they do **it is you who avoids all further discussion**. If the papers are peer reviewed, and the authors conclude as you do, that species evolution is not a scientific fact, it is odd the world seems to have missed this paradigm shifting event. Medical science for example might like to know, before they invest any more time and effort into research based on the erroneous idea of shared ancestry, and species evolution through natural selection.
You have to admit it's massively ironic that he sneers at atheists who acknowledge they're not qualified to discuss certain scientific ideas, but then ignores the fact (when it's pointed out) that his creationist spiel is in direct contradiction with all the best scientific experts in that field globally? Why isn't he sneering at them in scientific forums and publications?
I'm just an uneducated, unqualified rube, but I think I may know the answer to this one.
Sheldon, you wrote, “I'm just an uneducated, unqualified rube, but I think I may know the answer to this one.”
I won’t look down on you for it. ;)
And don't think it's not appreciated. ;-)
Besides the idea a deity only wants to save intellectual heavyweights is pretty absurd. If the evidence isn't plainly and objectively valid to everyone, then that would be a pretty shitty deity.
Don't be proud of your lack of knowledge. You may enjoy the comfort of ignorance but I do not; thus why I don't see being a student or not having a nobel prize as an excuse to not think, or explore areas outside my field.
I don't claim intellectual superiority; rather, you guys love claiming intellectual inferiority, and I just refuse to waddle in such a muddy ground despite your constant invitation for me to join..
Breezy Brain: I don't claim intellectual superiority;…
Yet the opposite of this is exactly what your arrogant Religious Absolutist mind is always doing. Your complete arrogance of your own intellectual superiority is in everything you write. However, all you have ever proven is to be as stupid and ignorant as the "hecklers" you claim us all to be.
EDIT: changed a word for clarity
The only one exhibiting pride in their ignorance is you John, with your relentless creationist verbiage, and no amount of ad hominem will change that.
"I don't see being a student or not having a nobel prize as an excuse to not think, or explore areas outside my field."
You're not exploring ideas outside your field John, you're espousing creationist superstition, by dishonestly denying known scientific facts.
"I don't claim intellectual superiority; "
You claim you have found what every expert in biology and evolution over the last 160 years, even Darwin himself, has missed, so this is another risible claim from you John.
"you guys love claiming intellectual inferiority,"
To the best experts in those scientific fields over the last 160 years? How can you deny this and then make the asinine claim that you "don't claim intellectual superiority"? You are funny John.
"I just refuse to waddle in such a muddy ground despite your constant invitation for me to join."
You refuse to offer an valid scientific facts for your claims, but insist you have valid objections to established scientific facts that you claim falsify an entire scientific theory validated over 160 years of scientific scrutiny, and on which the entire science of biology is now impossible to understand. Again your claims are risible John.
However I like clarity myself, so tell us John, how old do you think the earth is? How old do you think the universe is? If humans didn't evolve roughly 150k years ago, where are you claiming they came from and how did this happen, and when are you claiming this happened, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for these beliefs?
"You claim you have found what every expert in biology and evolution over the last 160 years, even Darwin himself, has missed, so this is another risible claim from you John."
Every time a paper is published, a scientist is presenting a finding that nobody else has considered or found. Journals are biased toward novel findings. Looking for things others have missed is what we do; welcome to my profession.
But you are NOT in a profession of any kind. You are a self-professed student of psychology who seems to have much less understanding of psychology than a person who has specialized in geology and volcanology. Hmm...
There is an unfortunate hook-up between science’s methodological need to seek out areas of ignorance in order to target research, and Intelligent Design’s need to seek out areas of ignorance in order to claim victory by default. — paraphrased from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
It is precisely the knowledge that Intelligent Design has no evidence of its own to back up its preposterous claims and thrives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, like crabgrass in the cracks of sidewalks, that drives Absolutists to such hatred against those who have a different argument that IS supported by hard empirical evidence. — paraphrased from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
People of a Religious Absolutist bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they wish to be true. — paraphrased from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Definition of CHRISTIAN: Knowing the facts, seeing the facts, but still believing the lies. No matter how hard you may believe in the Hypothesis of The God Delusion, You Christians could be wrong!
Cut and Paste:
Audience Member: “How would you define religion?”
Religion was recognized by somewhat intelligent men who already had megalomaniacal tendencies as a method that could be used to control the masses through totalitarian tyranny. These megalomaniacs came up with rituals and ceremonies to help hide their megalomania. They rewrote scripts to make it appear to be the “holy word of god.” They rewrote scripts to make the masses support these “religious” maniacs with the best of the best through “sacrifices” given to god. These maniacs figured out a way that they would not have to do any true real work, yet be supplied with the best food and treasures by saying they are “sacrifices demanded by the Lord God so they may continue to prosper.”
— arakish, transcribed from "Has Religion Outlived Its Purpose" live debate, Q&A Session.
However, I have to admire one thing about you. If you are a student, you are doing as I said to me nephew while we were flying from Honolulu to San Francisco:
“There is no shame in being self-taught, searching for knowledge for yourself. The only shame is in not seeking learning and knowledge in the first place.” — RMF Runyan
Me "You claim you have found what every expert in biology and evolution over the last 160 years, even Darwin himself, has missed, so this is another risible claim from you John."
"Every time a paper is published, a scientist is presenting a finding that nobody else has considered or found."
You're not a scientist John, and you've had nothing published. That is the point you keep missing here, you're just a student with risible delusions of grandeur.
"Looking for things others have missed is what we do; welcome to my profession."
Now that is fucking hilarious, your profession indeed. So what have you found that every expert in the field of evolution and biology, including Darwin himself, has missed? When and where were your findings published john? I'm looking all over the internet and there are no breaking news stories about a student in psychology falsifying evolution?
Do behave John you're being ridiculous. Do you really believe what you're saying, or do you think you can bluff us?
John, you wrote, “Sadly, hecklers usually flood the comments, forcing those that know stuff to retreat.”
What methodology did you use to measure that?
"What methodology did you use to measure that?"
His usual method, a mixture of truculent petulance, and pure ego. The real hilarity was John claiming he never disagrees with anyone, I don't think I have stopped laughing yet, and it's been months.
"To prove consciousness originated from matter, you need to tell me why a primitive ant with 5 neurons has consciousness but a super computer not - they both are made out of matter"
A biological brain is complex and flexible. It doe snot follow the same result every time the same input arrives. A computer is just a counting machine. A really fast counting machine, but just that. It requires software to perform, and it does nothing else, and is incapable of doing anything else. An ant's brain and a computer have little in common, and your attempt to compare the two is really frantic.
I'm not sure why flexibility and complexity should factor into consciousness. Certainly, a computer is a computer and a brain is a brain; but if consciousness emerges out of matter, then why should it be limited to specific types of matter; why not emerge out of the circuits of a computer.
An ants brain and a computer have the only thing they need to have in common for dxm's question to be valid: matter.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your argument from ignorance fallacy, it remains a fallacy. I have not claimed for a start that consciousness originated from matter, this is a straw man you are using as shield to evidencing your claim that it cannot. It is a fact that matter exists, it is a fact that organic life exists, it is an objective fact that life evolved, and it is a fact that some organic life possesses consciousness.
Now if you are saying something else is required then you have a burden of proof, and here we are, back where we started when you first used your argument from ignorance fallacy, and now you'll ignore this and demand I prove a contrary claim to the one you can't evidence, even though I haven't made that claim, and even though it is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
It seems you're not content with just circular reasoning, you want to keep making a merry go round of the specious claim, and having put your wheezing clapped out pony behind your card, demand everyone prove why it is wrong.
No evidence for your claim and we're done, them's the rules.
There is no proof that consciousness disappears forever. We only know that our bodies are no longer conscious.
I wasn't aware that materialism claims that consciousness comes from matter. Indeed, I wasn't aware that materialism is a theory.
Beliefs exist in material form.
If you know of any experiment that can demonstrate this, you should be publishing your findings, not fooling around here.
the placebo effect, neuroplasticity, etc.
Perhaps you could explain in detail how these violate the laws of physics. Perhaps you could start by telling us which law.
"materialism - the claim that consciousness comes from matter."
Sigh, another argument ad ignorantiam fallacy. Matter exists as an objective fact, so does consciousness, in every example we have of consciousness a material brain is present, and even more compelling when the brain is damaged consciousness is affected, different areas of the brain being damaged correspond directly to the parts of our consciousness that is affected. Best of all in every instance we have objectively examined consciousness has never once survived the death of the physical brain.
So if you're going to claim consciousness doesn't come from matter, but from somewhere or something else, then you will have to demonstrate objective evidence for that claim, and it will need to be as compelling as the example of every human who has ever lived, had a material brain and consciousness, and then dies and that consciousness was never objectively evidenced again.
You've got our attention, off you go...
I totally agree with your first paragraph - it's great for refuting solipsistic ideas. And yet, you also have consciousness influencing matter - neuroplasticity, the placebo effect, etc. Matter does have power over consciousness, and consciousness does have power over matter. Taking quantum physics into consideration here, none of them can be said to exist without the other.
The fact that consciousness requires matter in order to exist in no way proves that it came from matter. For example in Buddhism, consciousness and matter are said to be like 2 leafs that support one another. No consciousness without matter, no matter without consciousness.
"""""""So if you're going to claim consciousness doesn't come from matter, but from somewhere or something else, then you will have to demonstrate objective evidence for that claim, and it will need to be as compelling as the example of every human who has ever lived, had a material brain and consciousness, and then dies and that consciousness was never objectively evidenced again."""""""
No I don't. That would only be required if I wanted to prove some solipsistic ideas to be right, which I don't. My claim is that matter and consicousness are like 2 leaves supporting one another. None can exist without each other.
And what exactly to refute ? There is no theory out there, no explanation about how could such a thing as consciousness arise from matter. Try thinking about it for 10 minutes on the coach, maybe you can come with some attempted explanation.
"none of them can be said to exist without the other."
Almost as if they evolved simultaneously.
"The fact that consciousness requires matter in order to exist in no way proves that it came from matter."
Do you have any examples of a consciousness existing without a material (**EVOLVED*) brain?
"And what exactly to refute ? There is no theory out there, no explanation about how could such a thing as consciousness arise from matter."
And you're back to argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Not having a full explanation of how human consciousness evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve, and again we have zero exampled of consciousness without an evolved brain, and in every single instance that consciousness disappears when the brain dies.
"My claim is that matter and consicousness are like 2 leaves supporting one another. None can exist without each other."
You think rocks have consciousness? Or are you claiming they are immaterial?
If you want a real "brain twister" like you said "consciousness" is just a philosophical idea on of itself. The fond idea that humans have consciousness that somehow magically elevates it above sophisticated instruction set for a highly complex electrochemical "computer" per say, is just that: a philosophical idea that may just be pure unsupported fantasy.
We may not have a consciousness at all, but instead much like a computer (albeit a very complex one!) we run on a self modifying instruction set that reacts to sensory input. It is possible that even "free will" is an illusion. Perhaps a scary thought, but we just do not know one way or another, it is all just philosophical ideas that are widespread.
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
I'm not spending ten minutes on a coach unless they shower and buy me dinner first; and they are not allowed to bring their whistle!