Your religious views and positions on matters such as God and the meaning of life?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Nah, we're not fighting. I like Duckie too much for that.

I'd say my analogy is, well, exactly what I meant. We're an organization of cells, working together, for a common goal. I don't consciously tell my blood to carry oxegen, my heart to beat, my lungs to breath. I never think about replacing skin cells or storing fat. For the most part, the body is running on autopilot.

I don't think I can work out the rest of your argument. From all our discussions, you seem to be a dualist as well. It's not thT I don't respect you, but I can't respect anything that requires faith, of any kind. Faith, is illogical, irrational, and to be blunt, irresponsible.

You're still not grasping the enormity of the free will experiment. You're both refuting it with "because I said so" arguments, or "science doesn't know what I know because of my personal experience of...."

If I argued an Alien stopped by my kitchen last night and told me the secrets of the universe, you'd probably think I was nuts. If I then countered with the argument that you can't know what I know, so just take it on faith, you'd hardly be moved.

This is the crux of it. If you've had personal experience, great, but it must be repeatable, on command, testable, to be verifiable.

A thing is not a thing cause I said so.

No it was not an "I said so" argument it was a "illogical conclusion/where's the proof" argunent. Keep up man. As for my own personal experiences in the realm oft classified as "supernateral" I will simply say that I have seen things science has yet to explain, and leave it at that. I could discuss at length, but that was not my intent here. But the notion that something is not real simply because it hasn't been quantified yet is limiting and short-sighted at best. Just like everyone was SURE the Eartb was the center of the universe hundreds of years ago- until proven otherwise. Some things just haven't been studied properly yet, or can't be at all at this time.

Originally Posted by Katie

If every action and reaction was determined automatically by the brain with no thought by a person, human's brains would not have evolved beyond the base reptile brain.

The reason we have big old cerebellum, and especially a large frontal lobe, is that we have evolved the ability for abstract thought, including decision making and impulse control.

Now granted, the frontal lobe that regulates impulse control is not fully formed until a person is 24 or so, but it still exists.

People are responsible for their decisions.

Ah thank you so much! We don't often agree, but you have said exactly what I believe as well, and quite well. Evolution alone should show us that free will exists. It is what has pushed us this far in our path as a species.

Originally Posted by Katie

I have been unable to locate multiple scientific studied to back this. Any different sources from the video or from the guys in the video? I mean, lets see the JAMA and psychology guys weigh in....multiple unrelated neurologists.....anything. All I see is a bunch of philisophical debate. I need actual science.

Just cause these guys are have debated a theory does not make their theory right. Yes, the sympathetic nervous system exists, as dies the human ability for abstract thought.

Show me multiple unrelated, cross dicipline studies that prove this theory. I don't buy it. At all.

Yes, please. I'd like to see some proof or evidence as well. I don't buy it either, and for pretty much the same reason. National Geographic and Discover have done some interesting articles on brain chemistry as it relates to behavior, but neither mentioned a lack of free will as the conclusion that should be drawn. I respect those scientific publications far more than a panel of random people I've never heard of philosophizing based on a faulty theory.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Bry

I dunno, "nerd culture" zealots are giving them a run for their money these days.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all crave safe spaces.
And people will go to great lengths to protect theirs when they feel it's being threatened.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

I don't buy it either, and for pretty much the same reason. National Geographic and Discover have done some interesting articles on brain chemistry as it relates to behavior, but neither mentioned a lack of free will as the conclusion that should be drawn. I respect those scientific publications far more than a panel of random people I've never heard of philosophizing based on a faulty theory.

Folks can still be experts on a subject, whether you've heard of them or not, but I digress...

This doesn't flat out state "free will doesn't exist", but it does say that dualism, the long held, more dominant belief, (one could argue is not unlike the argument that the Earth was flat ) is properly challenged by these experiments.

From National Geographic



There's another 3 video's I wanted to link, but can't find right now. I'l post those when I come across them again.


Here's an animation of the experiment that sparked this discussion. Presented by BBC 4. Interestingly, they've used a similar analogy to mine.


Your argument that "the notion that something is not real simply because it hasn't been quantified yet is limiting and short-sighted at best." is fair, to an extent, but if someone wants to argue that "X" is a thing, and exists, the burden of proof is on them, not the audience.

@FWLeo

Here's that link i wanted to leave for you before

[Bry]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all crave safe spaces.
And people will go to great lengths to protect theirs when they feel it's being threatened.

S'funny how the types who use "safe space" as an insult tend to be the ones fighting the hardest and angriest for their own, isn't it?

But yes, everyone's guilty of it to some extent. But... I grew up being picked on and belittled for liking comics and geek stuff, and that whole scene going "mainstream" and drawing wider attention, more diversity, and criticism doesn't feel like an attack on something that's "mine". If anything it feels like vindication. And reading/hearing about the things I love through different perspectives than my own only gives me a new and different appreciation for them.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Bry

S'funny how the types who use "safe space" as an insult tend to be the ones fighting the hardest and angriest for their own, isn't it?

That is rather comical, I must admit.

But yes, everyone's guilty of it to some extent. But... I grew up being picked on and belittled for liking comics and geek stuff, and that whole scene going "mainstream" and drawing wider attention, more diversity, and criticism doesn't feel like an attack on something that's "mine". If anything it feels like vindication. And reading/hearing about the things I love through different perspectives than my own only gives me a new and different appreciation for them.

Same.
Every neckbearded, basement dwelling, mouthbreathing fanboy that's ever called me to the mat over something geek related has tried to back up their ire with the same song and dance sob story about how they were picked on in school.

As if I wasn't.
We like the exact same things, we went through the same gauntlet of tiny-minds day in and day out, and yet...people of that ilk never seem to realize that there were women and girls in the same trenches.

Guess it just gets in the way of their martyr complexes.

I think having to deal with that kind of thing has granted me with the ability to be stoked when stuff I love goes mainstream. It means I get to talk to more people about things that I love. It allows us to have a shared experience, and even if we don't see eye to eye on any number of other things, at least we'll have that in common.

This is kind of how I view religion.
It's a fandom, not unlike any other. People who worship together don't necessarily agree on every single thing know to man in a lock-step formation. But they do agree that they love this one thing enough to gather together in celebration of that one thing.

I imagine people with faith feel the same way I do when I'm excited about a Thing and get to spend time with other people who are also excited about that thing.

Of course, there are those who'd rather police who gets to be excited about a thing. And they'll do everything in their power to make sure that only their thing, the way they want that thing, is the only true thing. And if you dare try to enjoy that thing in a way they don't approve of, well...you'll just rue the day!

Nothing destroys a thing more than being forced to view it from only one angle.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Folks can still be experts on a subject, whether you've heard of them or not, but I digress...

This doesn't flat out state "free will doesn't exist", but it does say that dualism, the long held, more dominant belief, (one could argue is not unlike the argument that the Earth was flat ) is properly challenged by these experiments.

From National Geographic



There's another 3 video's I wanted to link, but can't find right now. I'l post those when I come across them again.


Here's an animation of the experiment that sparked this discussion. Presented by BBC 4. Interestingly, they've used a similar analogy to mine.


Your argument that "the notion that something is not real simply because it hasn't been quantified yet is limiting and short-sighted at best." is fair, to an extent, but if someone wants to argue that "X" is a thing, and exists, the burden of proof is on them, not the audience.

@FWLeo

Here's that link i wanted to leave for you before

As interesting as that article is, it uses outside influences(the electrodes) to MIMIC what the brain itself does naturally. It is neither objective nor an accurate explanation of WHY we make conscious choices. It only describes how the brain makes them. It does not tell us why we choose to move a pawn on a chess board instead of a rook, either of which must be thought out before the action can be made. Chess is a good example because we must consider every possible move and its consequences beforemaking it. We could not do this without a complex and rational decision-making process that utilizes our ability to choose the best possible outcome. Free will in action on a complicated and defined level. Far removed from moving a hand while under surgery. That experiment doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just mimics what our mind does through an artificial means. In effect acting as an "outside will" controlling the movement, which is the exact opposite of what free will means.

[Commenter 42]

The day a fanboy becomes a suicide bomber, a comparison can be made.
When even drawing a picture of Superman gets you beheaded, or Marvelites start capturing and tourturing DC Fanboys to "convert" or die, you can make that argument. If Image comics sent out missionaries to Japan, Africa, South America...

If 6 million people were gassed/starved/slaughtered just for being TMNT fans...

When Shazam has its own cult, forcing 6year old children to be raped in his honor...



Oversimplifying the dangers of religion, is dangerous. It's not live and let live, it never has been, which is the inherent problem.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

As interesting as that article is, it uses outside influences(the electrodes) to MIMIC what the brain itself does naturally. It is neither objective nor an accurate explanation of WHY we make conscious choices. It only describes how the brain makes them. It does not tell us why we choose to move a pawn on a chess board instead of a rook, either of which must be thought out before the action can be made. Chess is a good example because we must consider every possible move and its consequences beforemaking it. We could not do this without a complex and rational decision-making process that utilizes our ability to choose the best possible outcome. Free will in action on a complicated and defined level. Far removed from moving a hand while under surgery. That experiment doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just mimics what our mind does through an artificial means. In effect acting as an "outside will" controlling the movement, which is the exact opposite of what free will means.

The patients claim "I moved my lips. I said something. What did I say?"
Not "You made my lips moved".

Your confirmation bias is too strong. Read that part again, you'll see it differently.

[plastroncafe]

A little less than a year ago Two men drove from Iowa to Massachusetts with a trunk full of ammo and guns, boasting about ‘killing the competition’ on Facebook.

They were on their way to a Pokemon Championship.

GamerDorf.

Authorities say the girls were 12 years old when they lured their classmate into the woods after a birthday sleepover and repeatedly stabbed her. The victim, who was also 12, was found along a road, bleeding from wounds that nearly killed her.

For the Slenderman.

The cynic in me says: every fandom you listed is modern, give them time to catch up.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

A little less than a year ago Two men drove from Iowa to Massachusetts with a trunk full of ammo and guns, boasting about ‘killing the competition’ on Facebook.

They were on their way to a Pokemon Championship.

GamerDorf.

Authorities say the girls were 12 years old when they lured their classmate into the woods after a birthday sleepover and repeatedly stabbed her. The victim, who was also 12, was found along a road, bleeding from wounds that nearly killed her.

For the Slenderman.

The cynic in me says: every fandom you listed is modern, give them time to catch up.

ahhh, she lays the trap. Then I say, but those were isolated incidents, and then you say, so are the terror attacks...

Clever girl. You could have also used the crazy Joker kid/DK Rises shooting.

Idk if trivializing the death of millions by comparing it to outliers is in good taste, do you? One girl getting stabbed, two guys with possible intent... neither of which are exactly supporting your argument.

2,996 civilians on 911.

500,000 Since the start of the Iraq war.

6 million Jews.

And that's just the famous numbers. If DC ever becomes a world superpower, and commits genocide, I'll concede your point.

[plastroncafe]

The only trivialization I'm seeing in this sidebar of ours, is coming from you.

My initial comment was an explanation of how someone like myself, a non-believer with no understanding of faith as it were, has come to try and understand what it's like to be a believer.
To take something intangible and utterly foreign to me, and attempt to understand it by utilizing a conceptual frame that I do understand and have some familiarity.
Heck, I've even on occasion gone so far as to compare the various schisms in Christianity to the various iterations of Batman.

Is it a 1:1 frame?
No. No frame is. That's what makes it a frame.

But as a much scaled down model I still find it a viable tool.

I find it helpful to think of religion as a fandom.

You don't.
Okay.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

The only trivialization I'm seeing in this sidebar of ours, is coming from you.

My initial comment was an explanation of how someone like myself, a non-believer with no understanding of faith as it were, has come to try and understand what it's like to be a believer.
To take something intangible and utterly foreign to me, and attempt to understand it by utilizing a conceptual frame that I do understand and have some familiarity.
Heck, I've even on occasion gone so far as to compare the various schisms in Christianity to the various iterations of Batman.

Is it a 1:1 frame?
No. No frame is. That's what makes it a frame.

But as a much scaled down model I still find it a viable tool.

I find it helpful to think of religion as a fandom.

You don't.
Okay.

No, I don't. You're also not coming at this topic "ignorant". You wrote previously that you are a recovering catholic, so spare me the deer in headlights routine. You joked about the church not wanting you back...

Religion is dangerous. You wouldn't stand for parallels to rape, from say, the hyperbole of someone touching my toys, which felt like I was raped.
I could argue framing too... but it might be a ****ing bad idea to say so, with no real correlation.

You did trivialize, then you compound it by dismissing my argument.
It's a sensitive topic, and being a cleric, I'd absolutely expect you, to understand.

Of all the people to play dumb...

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

No, I don't. You're also not coming at this topic "ignorant". You wrote previously that you are a recovering catholic, so spare me the deer in headlights routine. You joked about the church not wanting you back...

Religion is dangerous. You wouldn't stand for parallels to rape, from say, the hyperbole of someone touching my toys, which felt like I was raped.
I could argue framing too... but it might be a ****ing bad idea to say so, with no real correlation.

You did trivialize, then you compound it by dismissing my argument.
It's a sensitive topic, and being a cleric, I'd absolutely expect you, to understand.

Of all the people to play dumb...

One of the reasons I left the church was because I don't believe in god.
I never had faith in god.
I became a Catholic because I was indoctrinated, for lack of a better word, as a child. It's the religion I was raised with, but not one that I ever practiced with any success. Which was troubling for me growing up, because I thought if I just pretended a little harder I could get what people were talking about. I'd feel this faith and love that everyone spoke of during Mass.

Never happened.
I left.
That doesn't mean that the cultural trappings that are still very much a part of my family life, aren't still there.
The joke about them not wanting me back? Is because I'm a socially progressive queer woman, and I find those aspects of myself, partnered with my non-belief in god, would make me ill suited to a life of Catholic Practice.

(Also, they've changed Mass. Now it's just as confusing for me as it was for my mother when they went from Latin to English.)

And yeah, I'm dismissing your argument, because I don't have a horse in the race you're trying to start.
There's nothing to argue here.
People do terrible things for a whole bunch of terrible reasons, a good chunk of which can be boiled down to:

...we all crave safe spaces.
And people will go to great lengths to protect theirs when they feel it's being threatened.

There are millions of practitioners of every religion who do not do these things that you've listed. People who's lives have been changed for the better by belonging to this group.
I don't have a problem with god, it's some members of his fanclub that I could do without.

[Powder]

I've actually come to prefer turkey burgers to the standard beef ones at this point. I can't tell the difference all that much, honestly. The main perk is that they're kinder to my stomach.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Powder

I've actually come to prefer turkey burgers to the standard beef ones at this point. I can't tell the difference all that much, honestly. The main perk is that they're kinder to my stomach.

I'm biased, I chipped a tooth on a bone fragment in the first turkey burger I'd ever eaten.

[Candy Kappa]

I've never had a turkey burger, didn't know that was a thing. I'm intrigued.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

The patients claim "I moved my lips. I said something. What did I say?"
Not "You made my lips moved".

Your confirmation bias is too strong. Read that part again, you'll see it differently.

Just because someones lips move does not mean they actually said anything intelligible if there was no real conscious intent on their part. The experiment isn't an objective study because the observation itself influences the outcome. That is one of science's biggest no-nos. If the method of observation directly determines the outcome's conclusion (direct influence through the act of ibservation) then the observation method has tainted the data. As is the case if you are directly stimulating the brain just to get the desired response to prove a theory. An EKG can tell you that there is activity in a certain area of the brain but that does not tell you what that activity means. I could measure electrical activity in the language center, but it won't tell me what comes out of the person's mouth. It won't tell me WHAT they said or what language it was even in. It only tells me they made sounds. I'm sorry but you are grasping at straws for proof that isn't there. Based on a couple of videos explaining a flawed theory.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

...

So we essentially agree, on all of it, with the exception that I feel religious bias, and the trappings of, color peoples attitude towards social and technological change, retarding our ability to progress as a society. I feel there are inherent problems with the very notion of God, and a sizable portion of the fundamentals of religion itself. I'm opposed to dogmatic thinking, especially when it's deeply flawed.

Unless that dogma is the necessity of underwear on the outside. I'll never budge on that.

I'm not opposed to people being free to do as they please, but I am opposed to cults dictating the freedom of everyone. Religion, in it's most popular forms is precisely that; a yardstick to measure and penalize, suggesting we have free will, but limiting what we can do with it, if we want a reward when were dead.

[BubblyShell22]

I see where Plas is coming from with the fandom theory though. After all, TMNT is a big fandom with a lot of different fans of the many incarnations of said brand. In the same way, religion is made up of different branches and different belief systems. And as has been demonstrated here on the forums, people get very passionate and vocal about their iterations sometimes saying that if you don't like this or that incarnation then you aren't a true fan. In the same way, religion has this bias with different sects claiming that they are the one "true" religion and if you believe differently than they do or if you don't subscribe to any religion, then you are going to hell. That is the biggest problem I have with the whole thing. Granted, not everyone is like that, but the ones who are really ruin the whole concept for me and make me not want to believe things like that at all.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Yeah, I wrote a whole huge response, and the iPad promptly died.

Basically, I need you to better explain what you mean by immaterial.
It sounds suspiciously like you're arguing spirituality is the only path to knowledge.

That's a non starter.

By Immaterial, I mean that which cannot be physically measured. For example, ideas, concepts, meanings, beliefs, values and our thoughts themselves cannot be observed using the scientific method. Imagining the thought of a bluebird is not the same as looking at the neuron currents that pulse throughout the brain. The meaning we give to everything itself is immaterial, imagine a purely physical universe without any of the meaning we give to it via our consciousness. Not only would you be using your immaterial soul to imagine that, but you would realize how nothing physical would change yet how we define it makes a lot of difference to us. There is a saying called "Perspective is everything" and I think it has alot of truth to it.

I feel that correlating them to each other is where many people have gone wrong, since they are of entirely different realms and that imagined thoughts themselves cannot be reduced to matter no matter how much we try. Call them an illusion if you want since they can't be measured using the scientific method, but being non-physical would make them beyond space and time, thus not applicable to the laws of physical determinism, which I accept on their own as laws that apply to the physical, but not the mental world. I would find it silly for many to claim that meaning (an immaterial concept) does not exist because it cannot be physically measured. Perhaps it does not physically exist, but does it refute the existence of meaning as a mental construct and an immaterial idea/concept that rests in our imagination?

I do not argue that spirituality is the only source of knowledge. I do think it answers life's most important questions, like our life purpose and the difference between good and evil, making it the most important field of all, but I do not think it is life's only source of knowledge. For reference, look at one of my previous paragraphs quoted below which refutes what you think I'm arguing:

"The proper way to investigate MENTAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs would be through MENTAL introspection, an entirely different field of study from science, which concerns itself with perceived objective reality through the repeated tests and observation of PHYSICAL stimuli in order to figure out how the PHYSICAL world works."

I have read the website link that you sent me and I have even seen the full video by Jonathon Keats, but I'd like to know how you would use this information to support your arguments coming from the position of Materialism, and refute my arguments of Dualism, if you agree with the article about Quantum physics that is. After that, I will appropriately construct my response. Regards.