Kokesh on Atheism + Libertarians

[Sola_Fide]

Some animals, and even some humans who lose their sight use sonar to bounce sound waves off of objects, and learn to use that data to interpret spacial information / "imagies" of their surroundings. It's not inconceivable that Hellen Keller could have used touch to interpret spacial information very pricisely.

A sensation of a touch produces an image...how?

 

[WilliamC]

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A sensation of a touch produces an image...how?

perhaps a form of synesthesia?

 

[Sola_Fide]

perhaps a form of synesthesia?

That is another interesting wrinkle in the empiricism discussion. Why are these classes of perception deemed disorders? Are they the ones perceiving the world correctly? Dogs see in black and white...are humans hallucinating with colors?

What is the difference between a sensation while hallucinating and a "real" sensation and a sensation while dreaming? Bugs can see in trichromatic wavelengths...are bugs the most advanced creatures in the world? Why do we kill them?

 

[nano1895]

hahaha that's great i'm saving that one

 

[Qdog]

Your assuming that I hold any of those posistions. I'm saying you can't disprove the role of a creator, what ever for it takes, in the universe. I'm an agonistic. I don't believe in creatinism, but at the same time you can't disprove, at the moment, something might have started the whole thing off. There is litterly nothing you can do eliminate the posibilty of a creator in some shape or form. Even if science can deduce and prove what caused the big bang, well in that case what existed before that? And before that?

By the way, even if you can prove how the first replicating molecules came into existince, can you disprove the possablity of an something guiding events? Remeber this is coming form someone that does not believe in a god or a creator. I think the whole thing is a mess.

Like I said. I cant disprove the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or invisibly flying spaghetti monsters. Give nor take a little, these random assumptions have approximately the same probability as the assumption that there is a "creator". Its very very close to 0. Close enough for it to be ridiculous. (to me at least)

 

[Dresslerion]

Kokesh is on the left. It was never something to help, won the first GOP, but the damage. It is a guarantee for calls ONLY left.Why to the left from Ron in the GOP primary is somewhat surprising. Kokesh need to escape. I'm not obsessed with him and why people like him. His background is zero.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That is another interesting wrinkle in the empiricism discussion. Why are these classes of perception deemed disorders? Are they the ones perceiving the world correctly? Dogs see in black and white...are humans hallucinating with colors?

What is the difference between a sensation while hallucinating and a "real" sensation and a sensation while dreaming? Bugs can see in trichromatic wavelengths...are bugs the most advanced creatures in the world? Why do we kill them?

I wasn't even going for that, but that's a fascinating way to look at it! Here's something else to consider-linear perspective in 2-dimensional images. The brain perceives a real place, but does that mean it exists materially?

For example:

It looks like a hallway, but it's just graphite on paper.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Kokesh is on the left. It was never something to help, won the first GOP, but the damage. It is a guarantee for calls ONLY left.Why to the left from Ron in the GOP primary is somewhat surprising. Kokesh need to escape. I'm not obsessed with him and why people like him. His background is zero.

I don't have any problem working with "the left". Why not exploit every possible resource? RP worked with Kucinich. A broad alliance is more likely to be successful than a few folks railing against the State.

 

[BrittanySligar]

A sensation of a touch produces an image...how?

If I gave you a smooth square block, along with earplugs and a blindfolded, could you interpret certain qualities of that object? No, you would not be able to interpret visual data, but you would be able to interpret texture, size, shape, etc.

 

[BrittanySligar]

perhaps a form of synesthesia?

Or this.. This is just a "malfunction" of sorts, but it does result in the interpretation of one type of sensory input as another.. ie. smelling colors.

 

[Qdog]

Oh, and when we are talking about Deities, the term Agnostic is a misnomer. Gnosticism means "to know" Theism means the implication of a deity. So Theism ad gnosticism measure two completely different things. One (theism or atheism) describes your belief in deities, or in no deities. The other measures the degree of certainty you have of your beliefs. So a very devoted preacher would be a Gnostic Theist. A casual churchgoer who has very loose beliefs might be described as an Agnostic Theist. Someone like me, who is an Atheist, and is quite entrenched in that belief might be calld a Gnostic Atheist. You are sounding like you may be an Agnostic Atheist, which is the one belief that I find the most puzzling, because I find it to be less rational than even a Gnostic Theist.

In my opinion, Agnostic Atheists are essentially conceding that there is virtually no evidence to support the existence of Deities.... however they cling to the notion that deities cant be disproven 100%, and therefore have the same credibility as well established scientific theories. Based on this logic, my 5 year old nephew could scribble something random onto a piece of paper, and it would be just as credible as a team of scientists pouring over empirical data for decades, and then making their best guess based on the evidence.

I think when someone is an atheist, they have to be willing to accept that this universe is a very very complicated thing, and that we humans are quite finite creatures when it comes to our understanding. I think we have to come to the realization that it is OK if we dont ever know the answer to everything. But it sure is fun to try to find out the Truths in the universe without taking the cop-out explanation of "magic" or The Easter Bunny.

 

[libertyjam]

You people never watched the movie, "Miracle Worker (The Helen Keller Story)".

 

[BrittanySligar]

Oh, and when we are talking about Deities, the term Agnostic is a misnomer. Gnosticism means "to know" Theism means the implication of a deity. So Theism ad gnosticism measure two completely different things. One (theism or atheism) describes your belief in deities, or in no deities. The other measures the degree of certainty you have of your beliefs. So a very devoted preacher would be a Gnostic Theist. A casual churchgoer who has very loose beliefs might be described as an Agnostic Theist. Someone like me, who is an Atheist, and is quite entrenched in that belief might be calld a Gnostic Atheist. You are sounding like you may be an Agnostic Atheist, which is the one belief that I find the most puzzling, because I find it to be less rational than even a Gnostic Theist.

In my opinion, Agnostic Atheists are essentially conceding that there is virtually no evidence to support the existence of Deities.... however they cling to the notion that deities cant be disproven 100%, and therefore have the same credibility as well established scientific theories. Based on this logic, my 5 year old nephew could scribble something random onto a piece of paper, and it would be just as credible as a team of scientists pouring over empirical data for decades, and then making their best guess based on the evidence.

I think when someone is an atheist, they have to be willing to accept that this universe is a very very complicated thing, and that we humans are quite finite creatures when it comes to our understanding. I think we have to come to the realization that it is OK if we dont ever know the answer to everything. But it sure is fun to try to find out the Truths in the universe without taking the cop-out explanation of "magic" or The Easter Bunny.

Very well said.

 

[libertyjam]

René Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.
Logic: Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of 'Being and Nothingness'.
He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream."
The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"

 

[Qdog]

Just to be clear, there are some theories on the existence of life that I believe some types of creationism do a very good job of explaining. One is that it is possible for highly advanced life on one planet to biogenetically engineer new life that can exist on a different planet. So, as an example that is very much within the realm of possiblity would be this: Humans biogenitically engineer a new kind of microorganism for a specific reason, such as to convert C02 on Mars back to Oxygen and Carbon for example. It is quite plausible that these sythnthetically created organism could be relaesed on Mars, and then in 1 billion years or so when we are long extinct they could evolve into a higher life form on Mars.

In that example WE would be the creators, and this would be what I would consider to be a plausible creationist theory. But IMO that does NOT make us God in the sense that most people think of it.

EDIT: sorry, I used the term "creationist" but more accurate would have been the term "intelligent design".

 

[BrittanySligar]

Just to be clear, there are some theories on the existence of life that I believe some types of creationism do a very good job of explaining. One is that it is possible for highly advanced life on one planet to biogenetically engineer new life that can exist on a different planet. So, as an example that is very much within the realm of possiblity would be this: Humans biogenitically engineer a new kind of microorganism for a specific reason, such as to convert C02 on Mars back to Oxygen and Carbon for example. It is quite plausible that these sythnthetically created organism could be relaesed on Mars, and then in 1 billion years or so when we are long extinct they could evolve into a higher life form on Mars.

In that example WE would be the creators, and this would be what I would consider to be a plausible creationist theory. But IMO that does NOT make us God in the sense that most people think of it.

EDIT: sorry, I used the term "creationist" but more accurate would have been the term "intelligent design".

Agreed. Still, because this type of scenario is possible, gives one no more reason to believe it, obviously.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I wasn't even going for that, but that's a fascinating way to look at it! Here's something else to consider-linear perspective in 2-dimensional images. The brain perceives a real place, but does that mean it exists materially?

For example:

It looks like a hallway, but it's just graphite on paper.

Reminds me of a unique, but utterly cool story from the life of Ayn Rand:

In fact, it appears Rand's ideas, both good and bad, were shaped by her neurochemistry - something Rand herself would have vehemently denied. Her conviction that her perceptions and resulting conclusions were based on objective reality went to extremes. For example, when she suffered from medication-induced hallucinations during a hospitalization, Rand insisted they must have been real. After all, she reasoned, she had seen what she had seen with her own seemingly objective eyes. When a friend insisted on the illusional nature of what she had seen, Rand ended the friendship.

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/01/writers-choic-4.html

Ayn was so convinced of the infallibility of her senses to obtain information about the "objective world", it drove her to absurdity. But, of course I would go further and say that not only do the senses provide fallible information, they provide no information. Senses are the occasional instruments that God uses to convey information. Arguments from empiricism are not logical or Biblical, so the Christian cant use them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Reminds me of a unique, but utterly cool story from the life of Ayn Rand:


http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/01/writers-choic-4.html

Ayn was so convinced of the infallibility of her senses to obtain information about the "objective world", it drove her to absurdity. But, of course I would go further and say that not only do the senses provide fallible information, they provide no information. Senses are the occasional instruments that God uses to convey information. Arguments from empiricism are not logical or Biblical, so the Christian cant use them.

That's a fascinating article-but I don't see how rational self-interest (distinct from selfishness) is "against the very grain of Judeo-Christian cultural traditions" as the author claims.

 

[tttppp]

And to add to the above, I believe that God is the Universe. The Bible makes reference to 'God is, was, and always will be.....' No beginning....no end.

How can the universe have no beginning or end and at the same time be created by God? If the universe had no beginning, there would be no need for a God to create it.