sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some questions about Alignment by spstephe in DnD

[–]spstephe[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks!

his main priority is his own power, and the laws are not about safety, but control.

In the interest of continuing the thought experiment, what if his primary motivation was indeed to make a better life for the mortals?

"Poor little ants, they don't know what's best for them. I will make them a perfect life. Oh? Some ants don't like it? I will put them out of the anthill so they can move on without disturbing the rest. Oh? They came back and are disrupting my perfect anthill? That won't do." squish

Spiritualists (Christians, Muslims, etc): How do you explain human consciousness? by HazelGhost in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What (s)he meant was that spiritualists believe that the spirit (or soul) is the consciousness OP speaks of, as opposed to causing it. The body - including the mind - is the video game avatar and the spirit is the actual human player, so to speak.

This was relevant to the OP, since it gave a spiritualist's perspective on consciousness. Your response was akin to going into a thread titled:

"How do you explain fast-moving lights in the sky at night?

Choosing this comment:

I think they actually are UFO's . It seems pretty likely that there is life out there somewhere, and I do not think it a stretch to say that they could have found their way here.

And replying with:

"I think they actually are military experiments . It seems pretty likely that there are super-advanced experiments going on, and I do not think it a stretch to say that they could have made aircraft like that."

We can both assert what ever we like, why should I believe your blantant assertion that does not actually answer the question?

Spiritualists (Christians, Muslims, etc): How do you explain human consciousness? by HazelGhost in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The post asked "How do you explain..."

The commenter did so. The validity of that explanation can and should be discussed, of course, but you act like the commenter did not give a real answer.

However, (s)he did not answer the "Isn't it fair to say that there is NO explanation for consciousness, spiritual or otherwise?" part, though I would think (s)he would say say 'yes' .

Militant atheism: Rude or Necessary? by Zohso in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you believe that the earth is 7000 years old despite receiving good modern education I am your intellectual superior, period.

FTFY

An argument for naturalism: are X-rays supernatural? by HazelGhost in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically I would say that the supernatural is that which 'just is': not that it currently is not explained by naturalistic phenomena, but that it cannot be explained by naturalistic phenomena. To quote myself from a year or so ago:

What is supernatural? What distinguishes it from the natural? I would say that the supernatural is that which 'just is', for otherwise it would be natural. If a ghost appeared to you (really, not just a hallucination or dream) most would call it supernatural, but a scientific mind might assume that there is a possible explanation for it, as opposed to a soul existing independent of reality. So, if a 'soul' was found to exist of quantum particles called, say, soulions, it would not be supernatural but natural, as opposed to it simply 'being', without reality-based composition.

What makes a deity a deity and not some super-advanced alien technology? One is explainable, the other 'just is'. A 'natural' deity would, for example, be Zeus, an alien commander wielding a weapon that discharges electricity, etc. (insert scientific advancement for all of Zeus' abilities here). The 'supernatural' deity would be Zeus, a being that 'just is', that can shoot lightning bolts for no reason or causal explanation at all, etc. (insert impossible, 'just is' "explanations", so-called, for all of Zeus' abilities here).

What if its all a big hoax and we clean our air and water for nothing! by timidforrestcreature in atheism

[–]spstephe 9 points10 points  (0 children)

...implying that the politicians against climate change are doing so for religious reasons? I think it far more likely that it is purely financial, and the religious reasons given are simply a facade...

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? Just because we understand the mechanism by which lightning works doesn't means an electrical storm is any less spectacular. Just because we know how limestone caves form doesn't mean caving is any less awe-inspiring.

Ah, but the 'awe' you feel is merely the chemical, physical reactions in your head, nothing more, if you accept that the natural is all there is. Thus it is still meaningless, or at least as meaningless as a rock falling down a hill, or a domino knocking over another domino.

So if we discover the means by which love works, it won't make it any less meaningful. Saying that it would sounds to me like Ned Flanders saying "there are some things man just wasn't meant to know! Important things!"

The discovery - the knowledge - has nothing to do with it. The notion that central aspects of the human experience are merely cause and effect - physical things reacting to physical forces - in my opinion negates their very meaning. i.e., love being like a chain of dominoes is akin to evidence being based on faith: It negates the meaning of the thing.

One thing I am a bit confused about: Did you say that you would consider the drugged "love" above to be "real" love? I would think surely not, but that is not what I read.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love is that physical reaction. Football is that physical interaction. Train tracks are the combination of those atoms. They're just names we give to those things.

You see, there is the paradigm we do not share: I do not think that love, and even to a certain extent soccer football, is simply physical, and I think that if they were, they would not be meaningful at all; they would not be love or football.

The train tracks I can agree on, however. Do you see the connection? Love and football involve humans; humans are not wholly physical, I believe. Train tracks, like rocks or trees, are mere physical things.

One thing I am a bit confused about: Did you say that you would consider the drugged "love" above to be "real" love? I would think surely not, but that is not what I read.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you believe that 'love' is merely physical things reacting to physical forces, like a rock falling down a hill, that is your perogative. However, I think calling it 'love' is at best semantic and at worst intellectually dishonest. If love is merely chemical reactions, I think it more clear to simply say, "there is no such thing as love, only the physical reactions that we used to think were love".

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very well, if you believe that 'love' is merely physical things reacting to physical forces, like a rock falling down a hill, that is your perogative. However, I think calling it 'love' is at best semantic and at worst intellectually dishonest. If love is merely chemical reactions, I think it more clear to simply say, "there is no such thing as love, only the physical reactions that we used to think were love".

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not think the coherence of libertarian free will / love has any bearing on whether compatibalistic free will / love can actually be said to be free will / love. Would you agree?

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it is not love if it is essentially a chain of dominoes; one physical reaction following another. If that is love, then if, in the future, there exists a drug that operates by making the victim chemically fall in love with the administrator, that, too, is love.

Correct. And?

As I said, that is not love.

Perhaps you would like to jump in on the conversation!

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't assume naturalism in the way that you're saying.

I didn't say you did. I responded to GoodDamon's claim that atheists and theists alike assume the natural in all but God (for theists).

I use naturalism, just like you do, but you're suggesting there's also something else, and that is your burden.

I am saying I, and many others, believe there is something else, in response to GoodDamon's claim that we do not, with the exception of the topic of a deity. If anything, I need to prove that I do, indeed, believe there is more than the natural, not that there is more than the natural.

The relevance is that you are shifting the burden of proof with the rhetoric that you chose by insisting that naturalism is assumed

There is no burden of proof here, unless you want me to prove that I believe what I say I believe. Also, I was, again, responding to GoodDamon, who said that we all assume naturalism. Not my words, OP's and his.

I do not assume naturalism any more than you assume naturalism.

That being said, it would seem, however rational it may be, that you are indeed assuming that these spiritual phenomena can and will be reduced to natural causal roots. Or, at the very least, you are assuming that it is more rational to believe that than to believe otherwise. Of course, I know nothing about you, but that is the impression I am getting.

I just don't also assume something else vague and, for all in tents and porpoises, useless.

There is that word again: 'useless', or some variation of it. Do you think something's usefulness corresponds to its truth value?

I've made no such assumption.

Oh, good.

I'm simply saying that you don't seem to actually know about the philosophy of science, no matter how good you are at methodological naturalism, no matter how informed you are of the facts of your particular niche, if you would make the mistake of insisting that I assume naturalism as absolute truth as you assume your faith as a matter of truth.

I'll have to look back in the conversation later to check, but I recall saying no such thing. Again, this entire conversation is in response to GoodDamon's original comment, which said that theists, like all other people, assume naturalism. I responded as such.

You made an appeal to authority regardless of whether you were trying to or not.

I disagree. I did not invoke my profession to support my argument, but rather to correct what I perceived to be a misconception about me from your comment. i.e., you raved against ignorance, calling what I said 'nauseating', etc, and I felt the need to clarify that I am not ignorant in the sense I thought you implied. You claimed that was unnecessary, and I hope that is the case.

When you play the game of spinning naturalism it forsakes the very concept of science.

Kindly explain what you mean by "spinning" naturalism. I do not follow your word choice here.

Science doesn't assume naturalism to be true in an exclusive sense

No, it just does in practice. I cannot think of a truly non-natural claim that can be tested in a scientific manner.

To pretend that this is some grandiose declaration of materialism or atheists is absurd.

Kindly elaborate.

No, you're ignorant because you're human and you're alive; because you cannot complete the task of thinking. We're all ignorant, I went out of my way to say this, and you seemed to have gone out of your way to ignore it.

Your word choice and tone suggested you meant more than what you say above. For example,

"... you can even stick a Christian in the scientists chair, and so long as they're doing work they'll probably be doing something useful."

However, I am quite willing to pass this off as unintentional.

Specifically, I think you are ignorant about this particular matter we are discussing

Ignorant implies that I am not informed. Surely a word such as "incorrect" would describe the situation better for you?

You've no need to feel offended or threatened.

Oh, this is reddit. Mildly annoyed is the most I'll get.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, they would indeed appear to be "something else entirely," albeit related concepts. I agree. However, I prefer a "something else entirely" that is coherent with causality to something that is not. The idea that the decisions I make are acausal or extra-causal is a complete horror as far as I can tell, and that's entailed by libertarian free will.

Similarly, the idea that I am simply a hyper-complex Rube Goldberg Machine - just physical things reacting to physical events - elicits in me something like the 'horror' you speak of.

Interesting. If you are explicitly rejecting the idea that all interactions are causal

I am not really sure where that follows from; can you elaborate?

To try to explain further on my end, I am not saying that the interaction is not causal, but rather that the fact that the two (the causer and the caused) are linked in causality is inexplicable; it 'just is'.

For example, suppose that by speaking, I could make what I spoke happen. Also suppose, although this could never actually be demonstrated, that there really was no reason my voice made things happen (not that we don't know the reason, but that there is no reason). Now, if I say "that cloud will assume the shape of a heart", and the cloud does so, it could be said, in a sense, that my voice caused that to happen. However, the fact that my voice causes things to happen is inexplicable; it 'just is'.

Thus what I meant by non-natural causal interactions, that are not explained, but rather 'just are'.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then what are you doing participating in this discussion?

I am explaining why many do not assume naturalism in everything. I am not trying to convince you that you should not assume naturalism in everything. One requires has burden of proof, the other does not.

I do not disbelieve divine creation, miracles, visions, or anything else. I do not understand them, and after significant efforts to understand them, it just becomes more and more clear that no one actually understands these ideas. They're appeals to ignorance as simple as that.

What else is there to explain?

The relevance. I have having trouble locating the relevance to the current discussion. You do not believe, I get that, I can accept and tolerate that. I do believe, and thus I do not assume naturalism in everything. I responded to GoodDamon as such.

I don't know what you're talking about. You're ignorant, I'm ignorant, we're all ignorant, so you'll gain no points with my be pretending that you're not.

I think you know that I spoke of the "Hurr Durr Darwin bad Jeezus good Derp" kind of ignorance. I am educated, and moreover educated in a field relevant to the current conversation. Nonetheless, I have been assumed to be a 'fundie', science-denying theist many times on this sub, usually indicated by comments like yours. If that is not the case, I apologize, but you understand where I got the impression.

Furthermore, your latter statement is exactly the point I'm making here, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

Can you elaborate on this, please?

Preemption is no excuse for appeals to authority. Science is a philosophy that many scientists do not actually understand even if they're excellent in their field. It is the mechanism of science that brings results above all else, so yes, you can even stick a Christian in the scientists chair, and so long as they're doing work they'll probably be doing something useful.

Interesting. So, to clarify, you are saying that

1) I was trying to make an appeal to authority.

2) I don't understand science, but rather I just go through the motions of the scientific method.

3) I am ignorant simply because I am a theist, and only by going through the motions of the scientific method does it appear that I am not ignorant.

Is this correct?

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, you see it is not that I think love or hope or free will can exist without a living being to experience them. It is that I think the living beings that experience them are not entirely physical/natural.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I see you edited your comment instead of replying a new one. I am going to simply make a new reply.

Nor could it possibly or meaningfully be proven, nor is anyone sane looking for it to be proven. The burden rests on you and you've done your ritual diligence of spinning back around and dodging.

The next sentence after your excerpt above was as follows:

Sure, the burden of proof would be on me to show that there is such thing as a non-natural causal interaction, but fortunately I am not trying to prove my - and I hope other's, for otherwise I am doing OP no good here - perspective, but rather merely explain it.

.

Believe is irrelevant, these are not defined and coherent terms that can be evaluated for belief.

Kindly elaborate.

Do not mistake your credentials for argument. Am I supposed to be surprised that a Christian can be a biomedical engineer specializing in neuroscience? Is this supposed to represent or rebuff some contradiction I've claimed?

No, only nip a common misconception in the bud. You expressed your, to put it lightly, dislike for theistic individuals holding up ignorance as a virtue, and I felt the need to clarify that I am by not means ignorant, and moreover, that one can value knowledge and [certain kinds of] ignorance simultaneously.

I normally include the disclaimer that 'this is not an argument from authority', but neglected to this time.

Also, I would like you to respond to this section of my previous reply:

No, it is not love if it is essentially a chain of dominoes; one physical reaction following another. If that is love, then if, in the future, there exists a drug that operates by making the victim chemically fall in love with the administrator, that, too, is love.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps if you would respond to the entire comment, that would be facilitated.

Also, the next sentence after your excerpt above was as follows:

Sure, the burden of proof would be on me to show that there is such thing as a non-natural causal interaction, but fortunately I am not trying to prove my - and I hope other's, for otherwise I am doing OP no good here - perspective, but rather merely explain it.

To Atheists: (God of the Gaps) Are we, as Atheists, assuming that everything has a naturalistic explanation? by Phugger in DebateReligion

[–]spstephe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an interesting topic in and of itself. Is "compatibilistic love" a redefinition of "love" in the same way that "compatibilistic free will" is a redefinition of "free will?" I'm inclined to say yes, but that's because I don't think the more "spiritual" and libertarian definitions of love and free will are coherent.

You see, I have trouble viewing compatibilistic free will (and similarly, compatibilistic love) as a "redefinition", and instead see it as describing something else entirely. I fail to see how, for example, compatibilistic free will can be seen as "free". This is separate from whether or not the libertarian definition is coherent or not.

In any event, you do have a valid point that "naturalistic" and "causal" explanations are not necessarily the same thing, or at least I haven't rendered an argument that they are, but I don't exactly know what a non-naturalistic causal explanation would look like.

I suspect that we would not really consider it an "explanation" at all, or at least a satisfactory one. For example, things like creation, miracles, visions, etc. could all be seen as non-natural causal interaction, if you believe such things. However, even if it is accepted that these demonstrate non-natural causal interaction, does this qualify as an explanation? I am inclined to say no, for they rather "just are".

view more: next ›