Total Posts:142|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists on death.

thegodhand
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:57:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If atheists have no religious beliefs, what do you guys believe about death? Is it the complete end of life? Some blank afterlife?

Just saying, with the odd number of atheists on this site.
"Modern atheism is Richard Dawkins."- thegodhand

"Thegodhand likes to misquote people"- Benjamin Franklin
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:04:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only true ego death there is, right?

>.>

It is hard to wrap your head around your consciousness ceasing to exist, but it's nothing to really worry about. You wouldn't really care, I mean.. You know.. You'd be dead.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
thegodhand
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!
"Modern atheism is Richard Dawkins."- thegodhand

"Thegodhand likes to misquote people"- Benjamin Franklin
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:21:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"One who has lived his life truly, authentically, one who has enjoyed it, is always ready to die, is always ready to leave. One who has not enjoyed and celebrated, one who has not lived the moment, the life, is always afraid to leave because the time has come to leave and I am yet unfulfilled. The fear of death is not the fear of death, it is a fear of remaining unfulfilled. You are going to die, and nothing, nothing at all could you experience through life — no maturity, no growth, no flowering. Empty handed you came, empty handed you are going. This is the fear!"
-- Osho
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:36:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

Well, seeings how this is a debate website, and most theists are terrible at arguing their position....

There is a possibility that most of them ran away.

I mean, if you look at the site statistics, there are far more Christians than atheists.

And woah, what's the problem with being an atheist?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:37:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

I think I speak for many (most?) of us when I say that we can't just believe something because we think it's nice or want it to be true.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
thegodhand
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:42:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:36:18 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

Well, seeings how this is a debate website, and most theists are terrible at arguing their position....

There is a possibility that most of them ran away.

I mean, if you look at the site statistics, there are far more Christians than atheists.

And woah, what's the problem with being an atheist?

Even though I am Christian, I at least believe in tolerance. I don't think there's a problem. I just get frustrated by one group outnumbering the other.

I suppose they could have left because of that, as it IS hard to put logic behind something like religion. Odd that most "Religion is true or false" debaters happen to be one-time... in PRO's case. I may believe in GOd, but in a true debate I could not put up a logical argument for God. Kind of hard to describe an entity like God.
"Modern atheism is Richard Dawkins."- thegodhand

"Thegodhand likes to misquote people"- Benjamin Franklin
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:48:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:42:24 PM, thegodhand wrote:
Even though I am Christian, I at least believe in tolerance. I don't think there's a problem. I just get frustrated by one group outnumbering the other.

You know, considering how in the real world, atheists tend to be VASTLY outnumbered, I find that statement to be rather insensitive. As for being tolerated, why would you hold it against someone for not being convinced of god? Aren't those the people you are trying to lead to salvation or something?

I suppose they could have left because of that, as it IS hard to put logic behind something like religion. Odd that most "Religion is true or false" debaters happen to be one-time...

Of course it is hard to put logic behind it.. and the fact that they are trying to argue over these silly things shows that they have no idea what they are talking about.

in PRO's case. I may believe in GOd, but in a true debate I could not put up a logical argument for God. Kind of hard to describe an entity like God.

Depends on what you think god is.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:50:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:42:24 PM, thegodhand wrote:
Kind of hard to describe an entity like God.

Then it's really a useless concept then isn't it?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 1:26:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And that is why we have religion.


And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

It's the 21st century, we are the majority.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 1:45:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What does it mean to have no religious views? Indeed, are there any views which are not ultimately rooted in religious thought; in dogma? A belief is a dogma, a serious one anyway. So why ask for my views on death if I "have no religious views"? Verily, I would have no views on it, for I have no views. At the same time, in a delightful paradox existing, perhaps, only for the purpose of meddling with you, I would say I have many views. Beliefs, I have, of which some are intentionally contradictory. Why intentionally contradictory? It is because I believe that your views, no matter what they are, will ultimately be contradictory in some fashion anyway for that is the nature of the universe and I would much rather have it be intentional, which is to say I'm honest with myself that I don't make perfect sense. There is no perfect sense. That, of course, is in contradiction with me saying I have no beliefs.

Now, to more directly answer your question. I have a few answers to play with. First, death is merely the realization that nothing exists, which I explain here:
http://www.debate.org...
Second, if we are to assume the "bundle-theory of self", which I do, death is not a term with any vivid meaning; you could say I die every new waking moment...and I don't seem to mind it in the slightest.

By the way, I just wrote this without being able to see my screen, sorry for any spelloing errors.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:23:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?

Ok, say there are three people in a room, one of them is wearing a blue shirt, while the other two are perceiving the blue shirt from different angles. One of them sees that the shirt is a brighter shade of blue, while the other sees the shirt as a dimmer shade of blue, yet they are looking at the same shirt. This to me indicates that sense data is not connected directly to the brain, but rather the brain is used as a station in which sense data is collected. Like water traveling through a pipe, the brain is used to consume data to only allow it to flow back out again as information.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:30:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

No, that's not how it works. Your sensory organs communicate directly with the brain, however you are not immediately conscious of the raw sense data your nerves convey; the image on your retina goes through some twenty stages of processing before you "see" it. That's called the evolutionary theory of perception, as opposed to empiricism, naive realism, intentionalism and other alternatives.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:31:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 1:26:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And that is why we have religion.


And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

It's the 21st century, we are the majority.

That isn't true, there are 2 billion confessing Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims and 900 million Hindus. That alone, excluding all other religions, adds up to 4.2 billion.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:35:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:30:15 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

No, that's not how it works. Your sensory organs communicate directly with the brain, however you are not immediately conscious of the raw sense data your nerves convey; the image on your retina goes through some twenty stages of processing before you "see" it. That's called the evolutionary theory of perception, as opposed to empiricism, naive realism, intentionalism and other alternatives.

I agree, but I fail to see how that goes against what I said?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:38:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:23:43 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?

Ok, say there are three people in a room, one of them is wearing a blue shirt, while the other two are perceiving the blue shirt from different angles. One of them sees that the shirt is a brighter shade of blue, while the other sees the shirt as a dimmer shade of blue, yet they are looking at the same shirt. This to me indicates that sense data is not connected directly to the brain, but rather the brain is used as a station in which sense data is collected. Like water traveling through a pipe, the brain is used to consume data to only allow it to flow back out again as information.

Please tell me you are a pot head.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:41:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:31:29 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:26:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And that is why we have religion.


And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

It's the 21st century, we are the majority.

That isn't true, there are 2 billion confessing Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims and 900 million Hindus. That alone, excluding all other religions, adds up to 4.2 billion.

You have acheived those figures by adding the populations of countries that are traditionally of a certain religion. It's a little retarded.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:43:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
GodSands is totally a pot head.

God Sands is just slang for keef.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:53:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:38:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:23:43 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?

Ok, say there are three people in a room, one of them is wearing a blue shirt, while the other two are perceiving the blue shirt from different angles. One of them sees that the shirt is a brighter shade of blue, while the other sees the shirt as a dimmer shade of blue, yet they are looking at the same shirt. This to me indicates that sense data is not connected directly to the brain, but rather the brain is used as a station in which sense data is collected. Like water traveling through a pipe, the brain is used to consume data to only allow it to flow back out again as information.

Please tell me you are a pot head.

Seriously, study philosophy for a year then tell me that I am a pot head.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:54:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:41:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:31:29 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:26:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:08:47 PM, thegodhand wrote:
I'm fairly religious, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around actual death... perhaps I am a feeble coward who is too scared to face death, or perhaps I am an optimist looking for a brighter future. I can't really wrap my head around that either.

And that is why we have religion.


And WHAT IS IT WITH ALL THE ATHEISTS!!!!!!

It's the 21st century, we are the majority.

That isn't true, there are 2 billion confessing Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims and 900 million Hindus. That alone, excluding all other religions, adds up to 4.2 billion.

You have acheived those figures by adding the populations of countries that are traditionally of a certain religion. It's a little retarded.

Perhaps, but I believe more people believe in some kind of a god than those who don't.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 2:55:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:35:18 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:30:15 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

No, that's not how it works. Your sensory organs communicate directly with the brain, however you are not immediately conscious of the raw sense data your nerves convey; the image on your retina goes through some twenty stages of processing before you "see" it. That's called the evolutionary theory of perception, as opposed to empiricism, naive realism, intentionalism and other alternatives.

I agree, but I fail to see how that goes against what I said?

*facepalm*
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:32:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 2:53:20 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:38:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:23:43 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?

Ok, say there are three people in a room, one of them is wearing a blue shirt, while the other two are perceiving the blue shirt from different angles. One of them sees that the shirt is a brighter shade of blue, while the other sees the shirt as a dimmer shade of blue, yet they are looking at the same shirt. This to me indicates that sense data is not connected directly to the brain, but rather the brain is used as a station in which sense data is collected. Like water traveling through a pipe, the brain is used to consume data to only allow it to flow back out again as information.

Please tell me you are a pot head.

Seriously, study philosophy for a year then tell me that I am a pot head.

Godsands, you have never studied philosophy. You have never look at a specific philosophical topic on wikipedia, you do not have a brain wired for philosophy. Your example above is fvcking idiotic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:44:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 11:32:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:53:20 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:38:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:23:43 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?

Ok, say there are three people in a room, one of them is wearing a blue shirt, while the other two are perceiving the blue shirt from different angles. One of them sees that the shirt is a brighter shade of blue, while the other sees the shirt as a dimmer shade of blue, yet they are looking at the same shirt. This to me indicates that sense data is not connected directly to the brain, but rather the brain is used as a station in which sense data is collected. Like water traveling through a pipe, the brain is used to consume data to only allow it to flow back out again as information.

Please tell me you are a pot head.

Seriously, study philosophy for a year then tell me that I am a pot head.

Godsands, you have never studied philosophy. You have never look at a specific philosophical topic on wikipedia, you do not have a brain wired for philosophy. Your example above is fvcking idiotic.

Seriously are you me, no! Well then, get real. I've studied philosophy, my teacher was called Janet. Your just simple minded, in that your mind can only get around one idea at a time, if you were to acknowledge any others at the same time, you would forget the idea/concept you had in mind before.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 11:44:47 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 11:32:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:53:20 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:38:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:23:43 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:15:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 2:12:26 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:53:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/12/2011 1:51:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:00:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not an atheist, but that's pretty much what they believe. You die and then rot in the ground, that's pretty much it.

I believe that once one dies, their body rots and decomposes. But the question is, what happened the the persons sight, hearing and the other senses, do they just vanish and become void, blanket into an endless grave of silence and mystery?

The sense organs will not be working, the brain will not be functioning to interpret what they don't pick up.

Sorry for my grammar, anyway...

If you have learned about the philosophy of empiricism, the senses are more complex philosophically than one might think, for one to just say they are directly connected to the brain. Evidence suggests that our senses are indirectly connected the brain in that they have a existence of their own. We pick up sense data, in that the workings of our senses is a process independent of the brain. Obviously science can prove that our eyes for example are apart of our brain, yet the data that the eyes sense is not, so the process of our senses might not end when the brain does.

Do our senses cease when our brain ceases? Or are our senses held back in the ability to perform at their best due to the brain?

You are claiming that our sense organs acheive perception independently of their communication with the brain? Actually I can think of one example of this, but it's probably crap. What evidence do you have?

Ok, say there are three people in a room, one of them is wearing a blue shirt, while the other two are perceiving the blue shirt from different angles. One of them sees that the shirt is a brighter shade of blue, while the other sees the shirt as a dimmer shade of blue, yet they are looking at the same shirt. This to me indicates that sense data is not connected directly to the brain, but rather the brain is used as a station in which sense data is collected. Like water traveling through a pipe, the brain is used to consume data to only allow it to flow back out again as information.

Please tell me you are a pot head.

Seriously, study philosophy for a year then tell me that I am a pot head.

Godsands, you have never studied philosophy. You have never look at a specific philosophical topic on wikipedia, you do not have a brain wired for philosophy. Your example above is fvcking idiotic.

Seriously are you me, no! Well then, get real. I've studied philosophy, my teacher was called Janet. Your just simple minded, in that your mind can only get around one idea at a time, if you were to acknowledge any others at the same time, you would forget the idea/concept you had in mind before.

Why are you here? Please just delete your account.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.