Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Materialist v Mentalist Views

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:12:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who on this site considers themselves a materialist like that of say, Dan Dennett, where nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications? Who here would defend broadly materialistic, naturalistic and physicalist views?

I see many folks refusing to admit these views but they sure do argue as if they're true. Who here has the guts to stand for their atheistic presumptions?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:21:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The mental or that which is intelligible or rational is most fundamental to reality whereas the non-mental or unintelligible is either a by-product of creation or a result of our ignorance. But reality has a top-down character- the lower levels emanating from the higher levels and the higher levels ultimately creating the lower.

But for materialistic worldviews, reason is a by-product of evolution and so materialists will either reduce mental states to physical ones, replace mental states with supervenience or eliminate the mental outright. Essential features of materialist views will have these naturalistic features: mechanistic base-level, causal closure of that base-level, and supervenience if non-physical.

With the mechanistic base-level of materialism, basic physics is free of purpose, meaning, normativity and subjectivity. Purpose may be true of macrosystems that are ultimately the product of purposeless basic physics. Meaning can"t be an element of reality in basic physics either and nor is there anything normative about physics like moral or rational ought. Subjectivity is also lacking since basic elements can have no points of view and so no experience. Consciousness must be a macro feature of basic elements massed together.

With the causal closure of basic physics, wherein a physical event has a physical cause, there can"t be something nonphysical that causes an event.

With the supervenience feature of materialism, whatever is nonphysical must supervene on the physical. The world is therefore basically a mindless system of events at the fundamental level of particles and everything else must exist in virtue of this basic level.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:31:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm sorry but I don't see what's so daring about materialism. If anything, its the most cogent scientific conclusion. The only persuasion against a materialistic world view is that produced by human experience. We have feelings that indicate absurdities we can't prove (such as freewill), but an understanding of why we have evolved to have those feelings and why they're false makes it easy to dismiss them in the realm of rational debate.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:34:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:31:12 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't see what's so daring about materialism. If anything, its the most cogent scientific conclusion. The only persuasion against a materialistic world view is that produced by human experience. We have feelings that indicate absurdities we can't prove (such as freewill), but an understanding of why we have evolved to have those feelings and why they're false makes it easy to dismiss them in the realm of rational debate.

Funny you mention rational debate. Do you think this uses reasoning that is either sound or unsound?
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:36:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:31:12 AM, 000ike wrote:
but an understanding of why we have evolved to have those feelings:

When has this happened?

and why they're false:
When has this happened?

makes it easy to dismiss them in the realm of rational debate.

It is not rational to ignore things you obviously recognize.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:15:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:50:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:41:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:23:30 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would defend materialism.

In debate?

Sure. The parameters would have to be worked out prior, of course, but I'm game.

What parameters?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:35:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:15:22 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:50:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:41:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:23:30 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would defend materialism.

In debate?

Sure. The parameters would have to be worked out prior, of course, but I'm game.

What parameters?

The parameters of the debate. Respective burdens of proof, for example.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:49:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:35:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:15:22 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:50:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:41:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:23:30 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would defend materialism.

In debate?

Sure. The parameters would have to be worked out prior, of course, but I'm game.

What parameters?

The parameters of the debate. Respective burdens of proof, for example.

I understand that. I was really asking what parameters would you prefer?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 1:13:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:49:55 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:35:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:15:22 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:50:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:41:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:23:30 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I would defend materialism.

In debate?

Sure. The parameters would have to be worked out prior, of course, but I'm game.

What parameters?

The parameters of the debate. Respective burdens of proof, for example.

I understand that. I was really asking what parameters would you prefer?

I see. I'll take a day or two to think about it, then get back to you.
Idiot
Posts: 347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:10:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find this objection to atheism fascinating. On the one hand you have the theist, Apeiron in this case, making an objection in disgust: "If everything is but physical, then nothing matters." Morality is what it has come down to for him. But then on the other hand you very often have the atheist, bewildered by this objection, unable to offer any justification the theist will find satisfactory, but all the while just as moral as he is. And then you have a kind of intellectual divide between the two, each looking at the other as if he had two heads. How to cross this divide?

I think a consideration of belief itself is important here, as it may be the faculty for indoctrination or some similar mechanism of the mind that plays the greatest part in creating the divide. If the atheist feels the same disgust with the perpetration of immoral acts as the theist does, then certainly this could be the case. And perhaps a discourse on knowledge otherwise is largely pointless.

But then of course the above also falls short. The theist must undoubtedly perceive a great injustice in death where the atheist does not, which might make for an unbridgeable intellectual divide. But having considered belief itself, then at least respect might bridge the gap.

And then perhaps the debate should never be resolved. Perhaps it is a very healthy one, each side offering its own conscientiousness. Perhaps we are the better for its existence.

Interesting, no?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 8:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:12:58 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Who on this site considers themselves a materialist like that of say, Dan Dennett, where nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications? Who here would defend broadly materialistic, naturalistic and physicalist views?

I see many folks refusing to admit these views but they sure do argue as if they're true. Who here has the guts to stand for their atheistic presumptions?

Well, I am materialist if you consider this simple rule of life materialist.

You are only what you give to society

i.e You could be an intelligent thinker and good person, but if you don't have a set of skills that are useful, you are technically nothing to anyone but your family and a few friends.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 8:39:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 8:37:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:12:58 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Who on this site considers themselves a materialist like that of say, Dan Dennett, where nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications? Who here would defend broadly materialistic, naturalistic and physicalist views?

I see many folks refusing to admit these views but they sure do argue as if they're true. Who here has the guts to stand for their atheistic presumptions?

Well, I am materialist if you consider this simple rule of life materialist.

You are only what you give to society

i.e You could be an intelligent thinker and good person, but if you don't have a set of skills that are useful, you are technically nothing to anyone but your family and a few friends.

Different kind of materialism. Not related to production of goods or their usage.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 8:43:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 8:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/8/2013 8:37:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:12:58 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Who on this site considers themselves a materialist like that of say, Dan Dennett, where nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications? Who here would defend broadly materialistic, naturalistic and physicalist views?

I see many folks refusing to admit these views but they sure do argue as if they're true. Who here has the guts to stand for their atheistic presumptions?

Well, I am materialist if you consider this simple rule of life materialist.

You are only what you give to society

i.e You could be an intelligent thinker and good person, but if you don't have a set of skills that are useful, you are technically nothing to anyone but your family and a few friends.

Different kind of materialism. Not related to production of goods or their usage.

Sorry, I am not really a philosophical type, nor do I frequent this forum all that often.

Anywho, looked up the definition, no, I am not materialist.

There are certain things that you can not deny exist, but also are not visible/matter/energy.

Gravity, for example.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:51:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:31:12 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't see what's so daring about materialism. If anything, its the most cogent scientific conclusion.

Except materialism is not a scientific conclusion, it"s a metaphysical belief that gives an unduly restricted account of what science has discovered about the universe. You continue to fail to distinguish between scientific and philosophical questions.

The only persuasion against a materialistic world view is that produced by human experience. We have feelings that indicate absurdities we can't prove (such as freewill), but an understanding of why we have evolved to have those feelings and why they're false makes it easy to dismiss them in the realm of rational debate.

Yet, you refuse to formally debate, content to just talk about how it is "easy to dismiss them in the realm of rational debate", but in the end you have nothing but dogmatic assertions that you refuse to defend.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 11:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:10:30 PM, Idiot wrote:
I find this objection to atheism fascinating. On the one hand you have the theist, Apeiron in this case, making an objection in disgust: "If everything is but physical, then nothing matters." Morality is what it has come down to for him. But then on the other hand you very often have the atheist, bewildered by this objection, unable to offer any justification the theist will find satisfactory, but all the while just as moral as he is. And then you have a kind of intellectual divide between the two, each looking at the other as if he had two heads. How to cross this divide?

I think a consideration of belief itself is important here, as it may be the faculty for indoctrination or some similar mechanism of the mind that plays the greatest part in creating the divide. If the atheist feels the same disgust with the perpetration of immoral acts as the theist does, then certainly this could be the case. And perhaps a discourse on knowledge otherwise is largely pointless.

But then of course the above also falls short. The theist must undoubtedly perceive a great injustice in death where the atheist does not, which might make for an unbridgeable intellectual divide. But having considered belief itself, then at least respect might bridge the gap.

And then perhaps the debate should never be resolved. Perhaps it is a very healthy one, each side offering its own conscientiousness. Perhaps we are the better for its existence.

Interesting, no?

Right, kind of a meaningless rant there with ad homs and irrelevancies, no?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 11:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:18:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Where would Emergentism fall on that spectrum?

That would be a supervenient property.. I consider myself an emergentist but then that's inexplicable on materialism still.
Idiot
Posts: 347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 12:36:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 11:31:46 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:10:30 PM, Idiot wrote:
I find this objection to atheism fascinating. On the one hand you have the theist, Apeiron in this case, making an objection in disgust: "If everything is but physical, then nothing matters." Morality is what it has come down to for him. But then on the other hand you very often have the atheist, bewildered by this objection, unable to offer any justification the theist will find satisfactory, but all the while just as moral as he is. And then you have a kind of intellectual divide between the two, each looking at the other as if he had two heads. How to cross this divide?

I think a consideration of belief itself is important here, as it may be the faculty for indoctrination or some similar mechanism of the mind that plays the greatest part in creating the divide. If the atheist feels the same disgust with the perpetration of immoral acts as the theist does, then certainly this could be the case. And perhaps a discourse on knowledge otherwise is largely pointless.

But then of course the above also falls short. The theist must undoubtedly perceive a great injustice in death where the atheist does not, which might make for an unbridgeable intellectual divide. But having considered belief itself, then at least respect might bridge the gap.

And then perhaps the debate should never be resolved. Perhaps it is a very healthy one, each side offering its own conscientiousness. Perhaps we are the better for its existence.

Interesting, no?

Right, kind of a meaningless rant there with ad homs and irrelevancies, no?

I don't think so at all. First off, I meant no offense. It was an honest interpretation. And secondly, I really do think it's healthy that both points of view exist, each to ground the other so to speak. I mean your OP does ring of disgust. You present no argument but ask, "who here REALLY stands by this monstrous point of view?" If anyone, I'd say it is you with the ad homs. And all the while you're a Christian, perhaps condemning homosexuality? Here the materialistic point of view often takes the moral high ground IMO. And then, inversely, the thought of Godless indoctrination alone frightens me. That whole "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" bit certainly is more compelling with a big man in the sky. And finally, it's not like any of us really have a clue, is it? I think staunch agnosticism most moral.

And I may be incorrectly equating your "mentalism" with your belief in the Christian God, but that has little consequence upon what I am trying to relay to you.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 12:49:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 12:36:58 AM, Idiot wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:31:46 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:10:30 PM, Idiot wrote:
I find this objection to atheism fascinating. On the one hand you have the theist, Apeiron in this case, making an objection in disgust: "If everything is but physical, then nothing matters." Morality is what it has come down to for him. But then on the other hand you very often have the atheist, bewildered by this objection, unable to offer any justification the theist will find satisfactory, but all the while just as moral as he is. And then you have a kind of intellectual divide between the two, each looking at the other as if he had two heads. How to cross this divide?

I think a consideration of belief itself is important here, as it may be the faculty for indoctrination or some similar mechanism of the mind that plays the greatest part in creating the divide. If the atheist feels the same disgust with the perpetration of immoral acts as the theist does, then certainly this could be the case. And perhaps a discourse on knowledge otherwise is largely pointless.

But then of course the above also falls short. The theist must undoubtedly perceive a great injustice in death where the atheist does not, which might make for an unbridgeable intellectual divide. But having considered belief itself, then at least respect might bridge the gap.

And then perhaps the debate should never be resolved. Perhaps it is a very healthy one, each side offering its own conscientiousness. Perhaps we are the better for its existence.

Interesting, no?

Right, kind of a meaningless rant there with ad homs and irrelevancies, no?

I don't think so at all. First off, I meant no offense. It was an honest interpretation. And secondly, I really do think it's healthy that both points of view exist, each to ground the other so to speak. I mean your OP does ring of disgust. You present no argument but ask, "who here REALLY stands by this monstrous point of view?" If anyone, I'd say it is you with the ad homs. And all the while you're a Christian, perhaps condemning homosexuality? Here the materialistic point of view often takes the moral high ground IMO. And then, inversely, the thought of Godless indoctrination alone frightens me. That whole "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" bit certainly is more compelling with a big man in the sky. And finally, it's not like any of us really have a clue, is it? I think staunch agnosticism most moral.

And I may be incorrectly equating your "mentalism" with your belief in the Christian God, but that has little consequence upon what I am trying to relay to you.

... what on earth are you talking about? Who brought up homosexuality? How about focussing on what I said rather than what you think I mean by what kind of person I am. I appreciate the attention but I'd rather talk about mentalistic v materialistic worldviews and their merit. Mentalistic includes theistic views as well as idealism, it need not be Christian. This has nothing to do with my political stance on homosexuality bud.
Idiot
Posts: 347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 12:59:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 12:49:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/9/2013 12:36:58 AM, Idiot wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:31:46 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:10:30 PM, Idiot wrote:
I find this objection to atheism fascinating. On the one hand you have the theist, Apeiron in this case, making an objection in disgust: "If everything is but physical, then nothing matters." Morality is what it has come down to for him. But then on the other hand you very often have the atheist, bewildered by this objection, unable to offer any justification the theist will find satisfactory, but all the while just as moral as he is. And then you have a kind of intellectual divide between the two, each looking at the other as if he had two heads. How to cross this divide?

I think a consideration of belief itself is important here, as it may be the faculty for indoctrination or some similar mechanism of the mind that plays the greatest part in creating the divide. If the atheist feels the same disgust with the perpetration of immoral acts as the theist does, then certainly this could be the case. And perhaps a discourse on knowledge otherwise is largely pointless.

But then of course the above also falls short. The theist must undoubtedly perceive a great injustice in death where the atheist does not, which might make for an unbridgeable intellectual divide. But having considered belief itself, then at least respect might bridge the gap.

And then perhaps the debate should never be resolved. Perhaps it is a very healthy one, each side offering its own conscientiousness. Perhaps we are the better for its existence.

Interesting, no?

Right, kind of a meaningless rant there with ad homs and irrelevancies, no?

I don't think so at all. First off, I meant no offense. It was an honest interpretation. And secondly, I really do think it's healthy that both points of view exist, each to ground the other so to speak. I mean your OP does ring of disgust. You present no argument but ask, "who here REALLY stands by this monstrous point of view?" If anyone, I'd say it is you with the ad homs. And all the while you're a Christian, perhaps condemning homosexuality? Here the materialistic point of view often takes the moral high ground IMO. And then, inversely, the thought of Godless indoctrination alone frightens me. That whole "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" bit certainly is more compelling with a big man in the sky. And finally, it's not like any of us really have a clue, is it? I think staunch agnosticism most moral.

And I may be incorrectly equating your "mentalism" with your belief in the Christian God, but that has little consequence upon what I am trying to relay to you.

... what on earth are you talking about? Who brought up homosexuality? How about focussing on what I said rather than what you think I mean by what kind of person I am. I appreciate the attention but I'd rather talk about mentalistic v materialistic worldviews and their merit. Mentalistic includes theistic views as well as idealism, it need not be Christian. This has nothing to do with my political stance on homosexuality bud.

Take it easy. I merely brought up homosexuality as an example. It is the recent turn from the mentalistic that has brought homosexuality greater freedom after all. Not sure what idealism entails that it can't be of materialism. Do you not make moral objection to materialism?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:04:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 11:33:25 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:18:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Where would Emergentism fall on that spectrum?

That would be a supervenient property.. I consider myself an emergentist but then that's inexplicable on materialism still.

In terms of eliminative materialism, I agree. And I'm fairly sure that's what a majority of atheists subscribe to when asked explicitly what they subscribe to even though they simultaneously engage in folk psychology.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:14:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 1:04:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:25 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:18:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Where would Emergentism fall on that spectrum?

That would be a supervenient property.. I consider myself an emergentist but then that's inexplicable on materialism still.

In terms of eliminative materialism, I agree. And I'm fairly sure that's what a majority of atheists subscribe to when asked explicitly what they subscribe to even though they simultaneously engage in folk psychology.

Yup.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:15:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 12:59:37 AM, Idiot wrote:
At 5/9/2013 12:49:52 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/9/2013 12:36:58 AM, Idiot wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:31:46 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:10:30 PM, Idiot wrote:
I find this objection to atheism fascinating. On the one hand you have the theist, Apeiron in this case, making an objection in disgust: "If everything is but physical, then nothing matters." Morality is what it has come down to for him. But then on the other hand you very often have the atheist, bewildered by this objection, unable to offer any justification the theist will find satisfactory, but all the while just as moral as he is. And then you have a kind of intellectual divide between the two, each looking at the other as if he had two heads. How to cross this divide?

I think a consideration of belief itself is important here, as it may be the faculty for indoctrination or some similar mechanism of the mind that plays the greatest part in creating the divide. If the atheist feels the same disgust with the perpetration of immoral acts as the theist does, then certainly this could be the case. And perhaps a discourse on knowledge otherwise is largely pointless.

But then of course the above also falls short. The theist must undoubtedly perceive a great injustice in death where the atheist does not, which might make for an unbridgeable intellectual divide. But having considered belief itself, then at least respect might bridge the gap.

And then perhaps the debate should never be resolved. Perhaps it is a very healthy one, each side offering its own conscientiousness. Perhaps we are the better for its existence.

Interesting, no?

Right, kind of a meaningless rant there with ad homs and irrelevancies, no?

I don't think so at all. First off, I meant no offense. It was an honest interpretation. And secondly, I really do think it's healthy that both points of view exist, each to ground the other so to speak. I mean your OP does ring of disgust. You present no argument but ask, "who here REALLY stands by this monstrous point of view?" If anyone, I'd say it is you with the ad homs. And all the while you're a Christian, perhaps condemning homosexuality? Here the materialistic point of view often takes the moral high ground IMO. And then, inversely, the thought of Godless indoctrination alone frightens me. That whole "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" bit certainly is more compelling with a big man in the sky. And finally, it's not like any of us really have a clue, is it? I think staunch agnosticism most moral.

And I may be incorrectly equating your "mentalism" with your belief in the Christian God, but that has little consequence upon what I am trying to relay to you.

... what on earth are you talking about? Who brought up homosexuality? How about focussing on what I said rather than what you think I mean by what kind of person I am. I appreciate the attention but I'd rather talk about mentalistic v materialistic worldviews and their merit. Mentalistic includes theistic views as well as idealism, it need not be Christian. This has nothing to do with my political stance on homosexuality bud.

Take it easy. I merely brought up homosexuality as an example. It is the recent turn from the mentalistic that has brought homosexuality greater freedom after all. Not sure what idealism entails that it can't be of materialism. Do you not make moral objection to materialism?

Moral as such is normative as well as rationality and so that would be one of the objections.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:17:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 1:14:22 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/9/2013 1:04:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:25 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:18:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Where would Emergentism fall on that spectrum?

That would be a supervenient property.. I consider myself an emergentist but then that's inexplicable on materialism still.

In terms of eliminative materialism, I agree. And I'm fairly sure that's what a majority of atheists subscribe to when asked explicitly what they subscribe to even though they simultaneously engage in folk psychology.

Yup.

Reminds me a bit of when Bahnsen (him or Platinga) went around demolishing atheists who subscribed to radical empiricism to negate god's existence.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:30:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 1:17:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/9/2013 1:14:22 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/9/2013 1:04:59 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/8/2013 11:33:25 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:18:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Where would Emergentism fall on that spectrum?

That would be a supervenient property.. I consider myself an emergentist but then that's inexplicable on materialism still.

In terms of eliminative materialism, I agree. And I'm fairly sure that's what a majority of atheists subscribe to when asked explicitly what they subscribe to even though they simultaneously engage in folk psychology.

Yup.

Reminds me a bit of when Bahnsen (him or Platinga) went around demolishing atheists who subscribed to radical empiricism to negate god's existence.

Yeah that seems to happen every generation almost haha empiricists get excited about their empiricism and forget where they get their empiricism from.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:37:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's only evidence for the existence of physical things. I don't know if only physical things exist but so far that's the way it appears. The mind is several parts of the brain working together in a complex manner. Thus far there is no evidence that something non physical or what some have labeled "The ghost in the machine" is responsible for the mind or decision making.