Chimpanzees, Blades of Grass and the Atheist Argument

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Haha, I've agreed with pretty much everything you have posted in reply to our resident champion of psi!
I'm all for assertions...with referenced sources of course, just a pity ol' blue refused to help point the way to published studies...we got there in the end although more null results than one would expect from blue's passion regarding the subject.

I suppose you can't be too surprised. I'm sure that if you believe in it hard enough, it becomes fact. That's what psi is supposed to do, right? Hehe...

Either way, we're off topic. Let's pull this wagon back onto the trail, eh?

a reply to: darkbake

What would you recommend naming a source of free will if that source also was able to perceive reality?

Biologists typically use "nervous system". That doesn't require or imply the existence of free will, however. I don't really think such a thing in its traditional sense is in existence. Why would you think a president did better at a debate because the audience thinks he is funny?

In all studies, audience reactions produced large shifts in participants’ judgments of performance. The results illustrate the power of social context to strongly influence individuals’ judgments of even large amounts of relevant, important information, and they support the categorization of presidential debates as ambiguous stimuli, fertile ground for informational social influence

Source: home.uchicago.edu... Debates.pdf

If free will exists, it is *highly* malleable by outside forces and very oversimplified to the status of a meaningless buzzword.

I see that you choose "brain," however new research suggests that there are quantum fields in our brain that are responsible for our being.

I can't really comment on that because it would probably violate a few of the terms and conditions of ATS if I did. I'll just quote Richard Feynman: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

While the brain is able to store memories and functions, what is the engine behind that? A computer can run a program, but the program was programmed by a programmer.

I don't speculate on things I don't know the answer to. All I can do is draw tentative conclusions based on my experience, and my experience would suggest that I don't have enough experience to be able to answer that question.

Also - religions do exist, there is evidence for it.

That was funny

a reply to: grainofsand

It doesn't surprise me that you would gravitate toward the work of a pseudo-skeptic debunker like Wiseman. He has no honor. Out of one side of his mouth, he will concede that remote viewing (a psychic phenomena) "is proven by conventional scientific standards". Then, out of the other side of his mouth, he will try to move the goalpost.

"They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."

-Marcello Truzzi

I think that you are out to knock them too. I don't think your inquiry is honest. But, here are a couple of vids to leave you with. Goodbye.

originally posted by: AfterInfinityEither way, we're off topic. Let's pull this wagon back onto the trail, eh?

I agree completely.
I'm still excitedly waiting to see the source references for the OP's claim of advanced studies which indicate the existence of a soul. The only links I've had so far are Wiki and the BBC website which I of course dismissed, but I always remain open to new knowledge, so if the OP has sourced studies as impressive as his/her confidence in the argument, then I look forward to investigating them.

...just the title, author and date of a specific study, OP can you throw me just a bone at least, maybe?

originally posted by: BlueMuleI think that you are out to knock them too. I don't think your inquiry is honest. But, here are a couple of vids to leave you with.

Nope, I search verifiable research, and as previously stated in this topic I do not watch youtube to further my knowledge. Whatever is on your youtube links can be represented in a text format if it is related to a theory or hypothesis.
Why you present a published letter by multiple scientists to support your psi argument, but then refuse to provide links to papers which are supported by scientists is telling about possible bias you may hold regarding the discussion.
You quote a letter by scientists with a title "A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness" then spin it to support psi claims while selectively omitting the links in the letter. I then follow the links in the letter from scientists you quoted, then you don't like the published research that I find there.

Lol, I'll leave others to make their own minds up regarding the validity, or not, of your vociferous claims in this topic.

a reply to: BlueMule

When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly.

I think the fact that you're posting these criticisms on a conspiracy forum, where there is absolutely no chance of risking your reputation or sullying your image in actual real life, more than speaks for the solidarity of your opinion.

When I see you giving speeches on television and being supported by well-established and respected scientists from around the world, I'll know you're the real deal. Until then, you've got a computer and an opinion. And that's where it ends with you. And quite frankly, that's where it ends with myself as well. But I'm okay with that.

I'm out, guys. Thanks for the discussion. See you around.

Oops, just realised this topic has been moved out of Philosophy and into Theology/woo woo, so I shall also bow out of this discussion.
The level of required evidence for assertion is much less regarded here than in Philosopy/Metaphysics. It is why I now leave this as the exclusive domain of your good self, OP.
I bid you good day.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Because you do not think there is a deity, but you acknowledge that you can not know for sure. There is a distinction between claiming that you "KNOW" something and that you don't know something but think some particular stance may have merit.

For instance, I'm open to the possibility that "psi" is real, but I don't currently think it is. Same thing with deities or aliens or unicorns or fairies.

There are some atheists, Determinists and the like, who don't believe in free will.

We have a brain that can freely chose to do things contrary to what's selected for by natural selection,
but nature in turn is free to select us for elimination from the gene pool.

a reply to: zackli

Actually, I'd assert that I do not believe or disbelieve.
I do not posess the necessary information to make a decision one way or the other.
The null, or should I say, ideally objective and scientific response.
It's a possibility I can opine about.
But that's it.

Such is my response to question of the existence of a higher power.
I have not seen everything, I do not know everything.
So I cannot say with any certainty if "god(s)" exists or not.
I do not believe or disbelieve.


If one wants to be as accurate as possible my dear chap, nuance is everything.

a reply to: BlueMule

Well, with all due respect.......
I don't want your barbed respect than.
If you only respect those who agree with you, you're missing quite a few growth opportunities.
And for what?
Pride?

Maybe that is precisely why us skeptics exist.
Perhaps we are the universe/god/whatever's way of trying to tell you something.
And not your enemy.
But are instead intended as catalysts for further growth on your spiritual journey.

Just a thought.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: BlueMule

Well, with all due respect.......
I don't want your barbed respect than.
If you only respect those who agree with you, you're missing quite a few growth opportunities.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I never said I only respect those who agree with me. I can respect those who disagree with me, but I can't respect those who mistreat evidence or are dismissive of it, or who let debunkers do their thinking for them. I can't respect people who wear skepticism like a big cloak over their dogmatism. I can't respect critics of parapsychology who don't know what they are talking about, and yet judge it anyway.

It takes a lot of time and effort to know enough about it to judge fairly. It takes effort to control bias and prejudice, to be mindful, as one examines the evidence. In my experience, the vast majority of skeptics don't put in that time and effort. Their effort goes toward finding an angle they can use to debunk, or to finding a prominent debunker to think for them.

However, if you were to put in fair time and effort, you would keep my respect even if you disagree with me. Key words I've used again and again are justice and fairness, not 'agree with me or else'.

Back in 1951, psychologist Donald Hebb said,

"Why do we not accept ESP as a psychological fact? Rhine has offered enough evidence to have convinced us on almost any other issue... Personally, I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and of physiology, say that ESP is not a fact despite the behavioral evidence that has been reported. I cannot see what other basis my colleagues have for rejecting it... Rhine may still turn out to be right, improbable as I think that is, and my own rejection of his view is - in the literal sense - prejudice."

He took the time and effort to become familar with the evidence, to recognize it AS evidence, and he sincerely tried to make sense of it but couldn't. He remained open to the possiblility that he is wrong. I respect that, and I especially respect that he was self-aware enough to recognize his prejudice. We would certainly disagree if he were here, and yet he would continue to have my respect.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

And that is your right. That, however, makes you an agnostic. I prefer the label ignostic apatheist for myself.

ignosticism from wikipedia: "Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul."

Apatheism, from wikipedia: "Apatheism, also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity."

You can debate the merits of Wikipedia all night long, but those two terms sum up my "beliefs" on the matter very nicely.

a reply to: zackli

I used google for the definitions.
I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it.

And for someone who's apathetic as to the topic you're rather active in talking about it.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I used google for the definitions.
I don't expect anyone to just take my word for it.

And for someone who's apathetic as to the topic you're rather active in talking about it.

I'm apathetic to the actual idea of there being a deity or not. Not apathetic to the societal consequences of large scale belief in such a deity. As the "Thomas Theorem" points out... "If men define a situation as real, it is real in its consequences." Obviously, women must have been somewhere out back while this formulation was thought of.

a reply to: zackli

And this thread was about the large scale consequences of belief?
Hm.
Guess I need to relearn English.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: grainofsand

I mean, who doesn't want to go down in history for having revolutionized the bridge between quantum mechanics and consciousness?

That's what I mean, identifying that as an objective is a major step to take. A lot of people honestly probably don't see it, or are in denial about it.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

And this thread was about the large scale consequences of belief?
Hm.
Guess I need to relearn English.

I don't see the relevance to this discussion. Is this your way of telling me I'm not welcome here? Maybe I could use some English lessons as well.

a reply to: zackli

If I was telling you that you weren't welcome here I would just say it.
What I am saying however, is that you're claiming one thing.
And doing another.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Thank you, but this post has nothing to do with theism. I was helping you differentiate between agnostic and gnostic atheism. One claims knowledge while the other doesn't... It has nothing to do with the topic of discussion or my apparent hypocrisy.