I Support Jesus
Offline Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.
I don't support worship of Jesus, nor do I support ritual cannibalism of Jesus.
But I support his message.
He was a smart motherfucker. Smart, but also brave. He carried a message and that message was his life.
He did not worry about his social position, nor what the neighbours might think.
He did not pay any particular attention to whatever was the will of the politicians of the time.
He told his disciples to be honest and to not compromise their honesty with lies of convenience.
Jesus was a revolutionary. Possibly even a Marxist. Certainly an anarchist.
But was he the son of God? No.
Or yes. In any case, no more so that you or me. He was an example.
If, as a Christian, you live by that examole, I respect you. You get it.
However, if, as a Christian, you worship the Bible, I spit on you. You are a dog. Worthless.
All that matters is what you do. What you do. This minute, this hour; and every moment of every day.
What you do determines what you are - which is what you shall be judged by.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
Offline ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material.
consciousness is not a "thing." it's an abstract concept we use to describe the sensory phenomena resulting from electrical and biochemical reactions in our brains.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline So we are NOT strict materialists in Paisley's sense - we do NOT believe everything up to and including consciousness is "composed of material".
Consciousness is a manifestation of a complex process taking place in our brains, as billions of neurones interact in complex ways. Just like simple things like sound waves in air are not "composed of material", they are patterns of movement of material (air), propagating thru the air, but not involving any net movement of air with the sound wave. All that is moving from your mouth to my ear is a pattern of pressure variations, not a material object. If you like, it can be described as "information", another concept that totally eludes Mr P. Information is a scientifically defined concept, which can be measured, stored, and transmitted from place to place. But it is not "composed of material". For someone using a computer to deny the reality of such a concept is both sad and funny.
Paisley also doesn't understand 'emergence', where the whole may be much more than a simple 'sum' of its parts. He demonstrates his total ignorance of this core principle of modern science in his assumption that we are asserting that any complex collection of material MUST automatically give rise to some significant emergent phenomenon.
Obviously, of the vast number of different ways a collection of proteins, DNA, and other assorted chemical compounds could be assembled together, only a tiny fraction would be likely to display the characteristics of a living organism. It requires some process like stepwise variation and evolutionary selection on self-replicating components ( the Darwinian algorithm) at the very least, to lead to something significant.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline What does this mean? It means that the materialist believes that the only thing that exists is MATTER and that ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material."
Yes, I agree with that, but I don't agree that consciousness is a "thing." That has always been the disagreement here, hasn't it?
See? The definition says, "all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions." So, consciousness, according to materialism, is the result of material interactions, but is not itself composed of materials.
Now, you have already stated in this particular thread that consciousness is OBVIOUSLY not physical. Thus you have made an argument that serves to bolster my contention that our first-person perspective provides evidence for the existence of the immaterial soul.
Well, just because it's not composed of materials doesn't mean it necessarily supports the existence of the immaterial soul. We're talking about three different ideas. We have material entities, immaterial entities, and immaterial products and abstractions of material entities. The third category cannot exist without the first. Immaterial souls can exist independent of our physical bodies, whereas most of the people on this forum would argue that our consciousness will disappear forever after brain death.
And, I'm not sure what this has to do with the first-person perspective.....
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline I specifically employ the term "atheistic materialism" for the following reasons:
1) Atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism) is an ideology that is being imposed on our educational systems.
2) Atheistic materialism is really the only worldview that is incompatible with any kind of spiritual outlook. Dualism and idealism are not.
3) The term enables me to weed out those individuals who are professing to be atheists but actually have some kind of lurking God-belief and/or spiritual worldview.
4) It places the atheist on the defensive. (The atheist desires to have the luxury of attacking the theistic worldview without subjecting his own worldview to the same scrutiny. I do not permit atheists to have this luxury.)
So...
1. You're angry because people are taught science in science classes.
2/3. You like to play the "Atheists believe in God - they're just in denial/rebellion" game. You believe that God is the Universe and is in the Universe. Unless you are going to tell me that the universe is composed of non material substances, I'm going to start calling you a theistic materialist. You OK with that?
4. Atheism is not a worldview so we can look at actual worldviews and disagree with them
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go out and not collect stamps. It's a hobby of mine.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline What evidence do you have paisley that the immaterial exists without that material, besides your personal views about, what evidence do you have that the conscious exists without the brain, because to date, you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE. So Paisley, your materialism view, is well daft. Even though I am what you call a materialist, I can accept that the conscious and abstract thoughts are immaterial processes of a material functions. I don't agree with your spiritual view simply because you have no evidence to back up your claims.
Show me that the conscious can exist without any material process/entity.
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material.
consciousness is not a "thing." it's an abstract concept we use to describe the sensory phenomena resulting from electrical and biochemical reactions in our brains.
Agreed. Consciousness is not a thing. It's "thingless" (i.e. nonphysical). However, materialism holds that consciousness is physical.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material.
consciousness is not a "thing." it's an abstract concept we use to describe the sensory phenomena resulting from electrical and biochemical reactions in our brains.
Agreed. Consciousness is not a thing. It's "thingless" (i.e. nonphysical). However, materialism holds that consciousness is physical.
But NOT matter.
Dualists are the ones who claim consciousness is some kind of alternative, ethereal 'stuff', rather than the abstraction ( 'process' ) that we see it as.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline What's the difference between material and physical?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline So we are NOT strict materialists in Paisley's sense - we do NOT believe everything up to and including consciousness is "composed of material".
Correction! You are not materialists according to the definition provided by the Wikipedia article on "materialism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Consciousness is a manifestation of a complex process taking place in our brains, as billions of neurones interact in complex ways. Just like simple things like sound waves in air are not "composed of material", they are patterns of movement of material (air), propagating thru the air, but not involving any net movement of air with the sound wave.
The sound wave or "pattern" (on this view) reduces to the movement of individual gas molecules (i.e. air). This is the actual materialistic and reductionistic description. IOW, the sound wave is not really viewed as an immaterial process by the materialist - no more than a water wave crashing at the seashore is.
All that is moving from your mouth to my ear is a pattern of pressure variations, not a material object. If you like, it can be described as "information", another concept that totally eludes Mr P. Information is a scientifically defined concept, which can be measured, stored, and transmitted from place to place. But it is not "composed of material". For someone using a computer to deny the reality of such a concept is both sad and funny.
I understand both terms. Patterns and information are mental abstractions that have no existence independent from the mind performing the abstraction. If you are arguing that the abstraction is immaterial, then you are making an argument that consciousness is immaterial. Either that, or you are arguing that immaterial abstractions are floating in the void.
By the way, I am not denying the reality of the immaterial. Perhaps I should refresh your memory, I am neither an atheist nor a materialist.
Paisley also doesn't understand 'emergence', where the whole may be much more than a simple 'sum' of its parts. He demonstrates his total ignorance of this core principle of modern science in his assumption that we are asserting that any complex collection of material MUST automatically give rise to some significant emergent phenomenon.
I understand the notion of emergence and I also understand the difference between weak emergence and strong emergence (evidently, you do not). Weak emergence (which holds that the whole can be reduced to its parts) is what is typically employed in science, not strong emergence (which holds that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). That something emerges which is greater than the sum of its parts sounds a little like a free lunch. IOW, it smacks of magic. I believe your scientific worldview precludes the invocation of magic as a rational explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Hyrdogen and oxygen (both gases) merge (based on condensation) to form H2O (water). The new physical property that emerges is a liquid (from a gas). We lower the temperature to 32 F and the new physical property that emerges is a solid. Note that the new emergent property that emerges in each case is physical.
"Emergent materialism" holds that consciousness emerges from a complex electro-chemical process. However, the new emergent property is still physical, not nonphysical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_materialism
You appear to be suggesting that you believe that consciousness is a new emergent property that can be characterized as nonphysical. If this is so, then you are actually describing "emergent dualism." William Hasker (philosopher of mind and theist) wrote a book entitled "The Emergent Self" (I read the book) in which he espouses emergent dualism and free will (based on strong emergence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hasker
http://www.amazon.com/Emergent-Cornell-studies-philosophy-religion/dp/0801487609/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263586599&sr=1-1
It requires some process like stepwise variation and evolutionary selection on self-replicating components ( the Darwinian algorithm) at the very least, to lead to something significant.
I read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained." We have already covered this. Either he was espousing pantheism (he ascribed intentional acts to self-replicating molecular systems) or eliminative materialism (i.e. the view that subjective experience is purely illusory). The former is actually a form of theism (i.e. a belief in some kind of God-concept); the latter is complete irrationality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline What are you trying to say, theistic materialist?
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:What does this mean? It means that the materialist believes that the only thing that exists is MATTER and that ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material."Yes, I agree with that, but I don't agree that consciousness is a "thing." That has always been the disagreement here, hasn't it?
See? The definition says, "all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions." So, consciousness, according to materialism, is the result of material interactions, but is not itself composed of materials.
No, I don't see. A tornado is the result of material interactions - a funnel cloud formed by fast rotating air molecules. The "tornado" (a thing) is composed of "air molecules" (things).
On the materialistic view, consciousness (a thing) is composed of fast moving electro-chemicals (things).
Well, just because it's not composed of materials doesn't mean it necessarily supports the existence of the immaterial soul. We're talking about three different ideas. We have material entities, immaterial entities, and immaterial products and abstractions of material entities. The third category cannot exist without the first. Immaterial souls can exist independent of our physical bodies, whereas most of the people on this forum would argue that our consciousness will disappear forever after brain death. Now, you have already stated in this particular thread that consciousness is OBVIOUSLY not physical. Thus you have made an argument that serves to bolster my contention that our first-person perspective provides evidence for the existence of the immaterial soul.
Whether an immaterial soul can exist independent of our physical body is a different issue from whether the immaterial soul actually exists in and of itself. In philosophy of mind, the view that nonphysical phenomena (i.e. the processes of the mind) supervene (that's the technical term) on underlying physical phenomena (the processes of the body) is actually a dualistic position because it posits the reality of an immaterial entity (i.e. the mind). And if you believe that you have free will (which is supported by your first-person perspective of your own self-determination or agency), then you believe in an immaterial entity that has causal-efficacy. We call such immaterial entities exhibiting causal-efficacy souls.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:I specifically employ the term "atheistic materialism" for the following reasons:
1) Atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism) is an ideology that is being imposed on our educational systems.
2) Atheistic materialism is really the only worldview that is incompatible with any kind of spiritual outlook. Dualism and idealism are not.
3) The term enables me to weed out those individuals who are professing to be atheists but actually have some kind of lurking God-belief and/or spiritual worldview.
4) It places the atheist on the defensive. (The atheist desires to have the luxury of attacking the theistic worldview without subjecting his own worldview to the same scrutiny. I do not permit atheists to have this luxury.)
So...
2/3. You like to play the "Atheists believe in God - they're just in denial/rebellion" game. You believe that God is the Universe and is in the Universe. Unless you are going to tell me that the universe is composed of non material substances, I'm going to start calling you a theistic materialist. You OK with that?
No, this is not true. I have stated before that I subscribe to panentheism. On this view, God is both transcendent and immanent.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material.
consciousness is not a "thing." it's an abstract concept we use to describe the sensory phenomena resulting from electrical and biochemical reactions in our brains.
Agreed. Consciousness is not a thing. It's "thingless" (i.e. nonphysical). However, materialism holds that consciousness is physical.
But NOT matter.
Dualists are the ones who claim consciousness is some kind of alternative, ethereal 'stuff', rather than the abstraction ( 'process' ) that we see it as.
I would argue that viewing the physical as an abstraction process composed of interacting abstractions qualifies as ETHEREAL. 
ethereal 2 a : lacking material substance : immaterial, intangible
(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline What's the difference between material and physical?
I'm basically using them as synonyms.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Paisley wrote:I specifically employ the term "atheistic materialism" for the following reasons:
1) Atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism) is an ideology that is being imposed on our educational systems.
2) Atheistic materialism is really the only worldview that is incompatible with any kind of spiritual outlook. Dualism and idealism are not.
3) The term enables me to weed out those individuals who are professing to be atheists but actually have some kind of lurking God-belief and/or spiritual worldview.
4) It places the atheist on the defensive. (The atheist desires to have the luxury of attacking the theistic worldview without subjecting his own worldview to the same scrutiny. I do not permit atheists to have this luxury.)
So...
2/3. You like to play the "Atheists believe in God - they're just in denial/rebellion" game. You believe that God is the Universe and is in the Universe. Unless you are going to tell me that the universe is composed of non material substances, I'm going to start calling you a theistic materialist. You OK with that?
No, this is not true. I have stated before that I subscribe to panentheism. On this view, God is both transcendent and immanent.
My apologies - you claim the universe is in God. This means that your God has material components which still makes you a theistic materialist.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Correction! You are not materialists according to the definition provided by the Wikipedia article on "materialism."
yeah, well, judging from my heavy reading of books on the subject, i feel confident in saying that at least marx would be satisfied with my materialist credentials, which is good enough for me. wikipedia can shove it up its cybernetic ass.
then again, in this postmodern world, it seems like there's just no place for an old partisan like me, whose hands still touch paper more than the molded plastic of a keyboard....
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:No, this is not true. I have stated before that I subscribe to panentheism. On this view, God is both transcendent and immanent.
My apologies - you claim the universe is in God. This means that your God has material components which still makes you a theistic materialist.
When did I claim that the universe is in God? Please cite the quote and I will respond to it.
Incidentally, traditional Christianity holds that "God the Son" has a physical body. This is called the doctrine of the Incarnation. In fact, Catholics literally believe they are consuming the physical body of Jesus Christ during the communion service or mass. This is called the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Also, Judaism, Christianity, Islam - all three Abrahamic religions - believe in the "resurrection of the dead" (this implies a physical body) and the creation of a new world (this implies a physical universe). In addition, dualism does not deny the reality of the physical. You seem to be under the impression that it does. Finally, I am familiar with one Christian theologian (Nancey Murphy) who actually identifies herself as a "theistic materialist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancey_Murphy
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Correction! You are not materialists according to the definition provided by the Wikipedia article on "materialism."
yeah, well, judging from my heavy reading of books on the subject, i feel confident in saying that at least marx would be satisfied with my materialist credentials, which is good enough for me. wikipedia can shove it up its cybernetic ass.
then again, in this postmodern world, it seems like there's just no place for an old partisan like me, whose hands still touch paper more than the molded plastic of a keyboard....
Does this mean that you will not be purchasing the Kindle anytime soon?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material.
consciousness is not a "thing." it's an abstract concept we use to describe the sensory phenomena resulting from electrical and biochemical reactions in our brains.
Agreed. Consciousness is not a thing. It's "thingless" (i.e. nonphysical). However, materialism holds that consciousness is physical.
Wrong again Paisley, consciousness occurs because of physical interaction, consciousness cannot exist without the physical brain for it to occur in. You grossly mis-understand the concept of what many materialists have stated in the past and the whole subject of the consciousness.
Reality Paisley you just pick definitions and really use only part of it, never really bothering to understand the full concepts and how they are actually used in the real world.
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Agreed. Consciousness is not a thing. It's "thingless" (i.e. nonphysical). However, materialism holds that consciousness is physical.
Wrong again Paisley, consciousness occurs because of physical interaction, consciousness cannot exist without the physical brain for it to occur in. You grossly mis-understand the concept of what many materialists have stated in the past and the whole subject of the consciousness.
Reality Paisley you just pick definitions and really use only part of it, never really bothering to understand the full concepts and how they are actually used in the real world.
Okay. Have it your way. Consciousness is not physical; therefore, materialism is not true.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.
Me, too.
Welcome to the club.
The club, of Christians.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:Paisley wrote:Agreed. Consciousness is not a thing. It's "thingless" (i.e. nonphysical). However, materialism holds that consciousness is physical.
Wrong again Paisley, consciousness occurs because of physical interaction, consciousness cannot exist without the physical brain for it to occur in. You grossly mis-understand the concept of what many materialists have stated in the past and the whole subject of the consciousness.
Reality Paisley you just pick definitions and really use only part of it, never really bothering to understand the full concepts and how they are actually used in the real world.
Okay. Have it your way. Consciousness is not physical; therefore, materialism is not true.
Dear Paisley put up or shut up, give us the evidence that the immaterial exists without the material, give us consciousness without the brain.
- Login to post comments
Offline Marquis wrote:Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.
Me, too.
Welcome to the club.
The club, of Christians.
Be careful where you swing that club. It's already killed so many.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline I actually prefer to call the people who define themselves as "Christians" nowadays something else.
I call them "antichristians". And it all begins with denying Jesus' humanity. Then there is the fucking Bible...
Which - ironically - was put together by decree of a Roman emperor, Constantine...
(On a humorous sidenote, we may mention that for the first couple of hundred years of Christianity's existence, these people were popularly referred to as "the atheists" - because they refused to acknowledge the divine nature of the emperor. But that all changed when they came to power.)
The point I was making is that Jesus was a political figure who advocated social responsibility through ethics.
He also advocated studying of philosophy, right thinking, right living, etc. In fact I think he was a bit of a Buddhist.
This is not anything I "believe", it is the conclusion I draw from reading about him.
His followers, however, were a bunch of fucking retards - as they still are, to this very day.
An (perhaps) interesting question: Are people who vote for string theory as a probable universal model - or rather, a unified field theory - really "materialists" per se?
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
Offline Marquis wrote:Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.
Me, too.
Welcome to the club.
The club, of Christians.
BTW, calling me a Christian is a deadly insult.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
Offline Jesus's teaching were nothing original, and some of them were quite stupid. He was against saving money. The whole turning the other cheek thing is BS. If someone attacks me I will defend myself. He was all about destroying your relationship with your family. I'm pretty sure he actually instructed some of his followers to steal a donkey. ( I can't remember the verse). It is all just part of the christian lie.
"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Paisley wrote:No, this is not true. I have stated before that I subscribe to panentheism. On this view, God is both transcendent and immanent.
My apologies - you claim the universe is in God. This means that your God has material components which still makes you a theistic materialist.
When did I claim that the universe is in God? Please cite the quote and I will respond to it.
Incidentally, traditional Christianity holds that "God the Son" has a physical body. This is called the doctrine of the Incarnation. In fact, Catholics literally believe they are consuming the physical body of Jesus Christ during the communion service or mass. This is called the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Also, Judaism, Christianity, Islam - all three Abrahamic religions - believe in the "resurrection of the dead" (this implies a physical body) and the creation of a new world (this implies a physical universe). In addition, dualism does not deny the reality of the physical. You seem to be under the impression that it does. Finally, I am familiar with one Christian theologian (Nancey Murphy) who actually identifies herself as a "theistic materialist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancey_Murphy
I thought you called yourself a panentheist - you like wikipedia so much, look up panentheism. That's where I got it.
Not implying that dualism denies the reality of the physical - I'm saying that you do and used examples that implied Jesus did.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline I actually prefer to call the people who define themselves as "Christians" nowadays something else.
I call them "antichristians".
What a coincidence! I prefer to call my computer a hot fudge sundae.
His followers, however, were a bunch of fucking retards - as they still are, to this very day.
So you're a fucking retard.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
Offline BTW, calling me a Christian is a deadly insult.
You support Jesus, dude. You're a Christian.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
Offline Marquis wrote:BTW, calling me a Christian is a deadly insult.You support Jesus, dude. You're a Christian.
No, he said he supported the message of Jesus. That message was old when the guys who wrote him into existence were young.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Okay. Have it your way. Consciousness is not physical; therefore, materialism is not true.
Dear Paisley put up or shut up, give us the evidence that the immaterial exists without the material, give us consciousness without the brain.
Dear? That's a nice touch coming from a militant atheist.
I have already discussed the evidence in previous threads and I am not about to rehash it now. Besides, the topic of this thread is "Jesus." Stay on topic.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:Paisley wrote:Okay. Have it your way. Consciousness is not physical; therefore, materialism is not true.
Dear Paisley put up or shut up, give us the evidence that the immaterial exists without the material, give us consciousness without the brain.
Dear? That's a nice touch coming from a militant atheist.
I have already discussed the evidence in previous threads and I am not about to rehash it now. Besides, the topic of this thread is "Jesus." Stay on topic.
Agreed - why bring up your refuted arguments and circular definitions, Paisley?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline What evidence do you have paisley that the immaterial exists without that material, besides your personal views about, what evidence do you have that the conscious exists without the brain, because to date, you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE. So Paisley, your materialism view, is well daft. Even though I am what you call a materialist, I can accept that the conscious and abstract thoughts are immaterial processes of a material functions. I don't agree with your spiritual view simply because you have no evidence to back up your claims.
Show me that the conscious can exist without any material process/entity.
This is tantamount to saying that I am an atheist but I believe in the existence of God. If you believe that consciousness is an immaterial process, then you really don't understand what the term "materialism" means. Either that, or you're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:What evidence do you have paisley that the immaterial exists without that material, besides your personal views about, what evidence do you have that the conscious exists without the brain, because to date, you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE. So Paisley, your materialism view, is well daft. Even though I am what you call a materialist, I can accept that the conscious and abstract thoughts are immaterial processes of a material functions. I don't agree with your spiritual view simply because you have no evidence to back up your claims.
Show me that the conscious can exist without any material process/entity.
This is tantamount to saying that I am an atheist but I believe in the existence of God. If you believe that consciousness is an immaterial process, then you really don't understand what the term "materialism" means. Either that, or you're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
This is why the majority of us don't know what the hell you're talking about when you pull the "atheistic materialism" crap. Atheism doesn't imply materialism.
that and your "consciousness=awareness=conscious-awareness=consciousness" definition.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:When did I claim that the universe is in God? Please cite the quote and I will respond to it.
Incidentally, traditional Christianity holds that "God the Son" has a physical body. This is called the doctrine of the Incarnation. In fact, Catholics literally believe they are consuming the physical body of Jesus Christ during the communion service or mass. This is called the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Also, Judaism, Christianity, Islam - all three Abrahamic religions - believe in the "resurrection of the dead" (this implies a physical body) and the creation of a new world (this implies a physical universe). In addition, dualism does not deny the reality of the physical. You seem to be under the impression that it does. Finally, I am familiar with one Christian theologian (Nancey Murphy) who actually identifies herself as a "theistic materialist."
I thought you called yourself a panentheist - you like wikipedia so much, look up panentheism. That's where I got it.
Okay. Fair enough. Some panentheists may say that God has a physical aspect as well as a mental aspect. The technical term for this position is "dipolar theism." But I do not know why you are confusing this with materialism. It's actually based on a panexperientialist ontology, not a materialistic one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipolar_theism
Not implying that dualism denies the reality of the physical - I'm saying that you do and used examples that implied Jesus did.
Well, I am denying the validity of materialism. But I would not exactly equate this with denying the physical. Also, I have argued in this thread that Jesus was not a materialist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Presuppositionalist wrote:Marquis wrote:Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.
Me, too.
Welcome to the club.
The club, of Christians.
BTW, calling me a Christian is a deadly insult.
He knows. You should know though that his intent wasn't designed to insult you, it was designed to make him feel more adequate about himself. His secondary intent was deriving a means to dodge the crux of your post. His third... insult.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:What evidence do you have paisley that the immaterial exists without that material, besides your personal views about, what evidence do you have that the conscious exists without the brain, because to date, you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE. So Paisley, your materialism view, is well daft. Even though I am what you call a materialist, I can accept that the conscious and abstract thoughts are immaterial processes of a material functions. I don't agree with your spiritual view simply because you have no evidence to back up your claims.
Show me that the conscious can exist without any material process/entity.
This is tantamount to saying that I am an atheist but I believe in the existence of God. If you believe that consciousness is an immaterial process, then you really don't understand what the term "materialism" means. Either that, or you're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
No its more like you not comprehending anything we have stated, consciousness requires a physical medium to occur, such as ideas, they are immaterial concepts, abstract concepts without any physical form, however ideas require a physical entity for them to occur in. OOOOHHH look the atheists materialist can understand how immaterial concepts can work within the physical world. Again paisley, show me something immaterial that exists without the material world, show us how this consciousness exists without a physical brain. Please stop dodging, because so far you have avoided presenting that evidence. oh and your first person perspective as evidence doesn't cut it, because my first person experience has shown me that when the brain isn't "conscious" consciousness isn't aware of anything. Like I said, put up or shut up.
[Edit] Oh by the way jesus was a materialist in many ways, the whole kingdom on earth, his message was not to overthrown the romans because he would soon be ruling the earth with his kingdom....never happened because he was deluded, and well was killed off, but everyone would bow down to him and he would be king. He was a materialist, but you won't understand that part at all.
- Login to post comments
Which pretense would that be? Oh yeah, the one you have where you don't believe you're argument has been annihilated.
I'm using your definition of materialism and idealism. If you used butterbattle's we'd have no problem (you'd then realize there aren't a lot of pure materialists here). For example, thoughts aren't material but the activity in the brain is.
Jesus, if he existed, was not wholly one or the other. Like most humans.
You're doing an awful lot of Christian apologetics for someone who believes God is al and is in all.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The pretense that you really understand the teachings of Jesus and the meaning of the term "materialism." If you had really understood these things, then you would have never made the ridiculous comments implying that Jesus was a materialist. That you are backpedaling now simply reveals that you do not have the basic honesty to admit that you were wrong.
The argument that I specifically made in this thread was: "Jesus was not a materialist." How exactly has that argument been refuted?
I did not specifically define either term in this thread. I assumed that the individuals who are participating on this thread had a basic level of philosophical knowledge and knew what I meant by the terms. Clearly I was wrong to make this assumption.
If you (or any other individuals on this forum) believe that thoughts are immaterial, then you are clearly making an argument for some kind of dualism (i.e. the reality of both spirit and matter).
Why? Because I simply stated that Jesus was not a materialist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Your reading comprehension sucks rocks doesn't it?
What I said was that if Jesus didn't follow materialism in some way he wouldn't have spent so much time talking about material things. You brought up an instance where he brought up a solely spiritual topic and tried to pass it off as his following pure idealism. I've read enough of your work to know how you define it - I keep hoping you'll get it right.
You spouted bull - I called you on it.
Most people here are atheists - not all of them are materialists. Narrow your brush and stop assuming all atheist are materialists because they are atheists.
While you're at it, please don't call it a world view. You know that's a falsehood.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Eh.....well......the definition stated that all things are composed of material and that all phenomena is the result of material processes. This means that you can believe in expressions, abstractions, and characteristics of material processes and still be a materialist. So, obviously, something like consciousness obviously isn't made of material itself, but if you believe that it's merely an emerging phenomena from our brains, then you're still a materialist.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Is it just me or is that damned confusing?
It also doesn't include Paisley's "if you're an atheist you're automatically a materialist" idea.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
My reading comprehension is better than your vocabulary. You obviously do not understand the meaning of the term materialism.
Materialism can either be defined as a metaphysical theory which views the physical as constituting ultimate reality or as a disposition to value materialistic things more than spiritual or intellectual pursuits. Jesus does not qualify as a materialist on either account.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism
You clearly did not know the meaning of the term and now you are employing a spin-doctoring technique in order to conceal your appalling ignorance.
Incidentally, I never said that Jesus was promoting pure idealism. I simply stated that Marx's dialectical materialism was a perversion of Hegel's dialectical idealism.
Those atheists who are not willing to identify themselves as materialists need not respond to my posts. They would be wasting both their time and mine.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Actually, epiphenomenalism (i.e. the view that mental states are causally inert byproducts of underlying physical processes) is dualistic. Why? If mental states are nonphysical, then they are obviously not "composed of the material."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
So what were you implying when you cited Matt 4:4?
Or do you acknowledge Jesus wasn't promoting pure idealism (as I stated) but you in fact are?
If you don't want atheists who aren't materialists addressing you, please quit calling all atheists materialists because of their lack of God belief. You've done that in other threads as well. It's not a question of unwillingness to be identified as such - Some of us just aren't. It sounds too close to the "You atheists know there is a God - you're just rebelling against him" argument that so many Christians use.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Oooohhh, interesting.
But, the wiki page for materialism includes the statement, "that all phenomena is the result of material processes," which is what I was trying to emphasize. So, according to this, I don't think I have to believe that thoughts are composed of materials to be a materialist. I can still be a materialist if I believe that they are not made of materials, but are abstracted products of my brain.
I've never heard of epiphenomenalism. *searches wiki* Can I be a materialist and a dualist? I'm confused now.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It's damned confusing.
Well, yeah, that idea is.....stupid.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I can't do any worse than you. You believe in invisible things the proof of which seems to be that other people believe in actual things.
It's compelling stuff.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
That Jesus was not a materialist.
Please cite the quote on this thread where I explicitly stated that Jesus was a proponent of idealism? Also, I have not explicitly promoted idealism on this thread (although I am not opposed to idealism in theory). If you believe I have, then please cite the quote.
I specifically employ the term "atheistic materialism" for the following reasons:
1) Atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism) is an ideology that is being imposed on our educational systems.
2) Atheistic materialism is really the only worldview that is incompatible with any kind of spiritual outlook. Dualism and idealism are not.
3) The term enables me to weed out those individuals who are professing to be atheists but actually have some kind of lurking God-belief and/or spiritual worldview.
4) It places the atheist on the defensive. (The atheist desires to have the luxury of attacking the theistic worldview without subjecting his own worldview to the same scrutiny. I do not permit atheists to have this luxury.)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The Wiki article on "materialism" also states that "the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material "
(source: Wikipedia: materialism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
What does this mean? It means that the materialist believes that the only thing that exists is MATTER and that ALL THINGS (this would include CONSCIOUSNESS) are composed of material." Is it compatible with dualism? Answer: "No" Why? Because dualism is the view that both the physical and the nonphysical exist.
Now, you have already stated in this particular thread that consciousness is OBVIOUSLY not physical. Thus you have made an argument that serves to bolster my contention that our first-person perspective provides evidence for the existence of the immaterial soul.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead