Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, i dont nearly have as much spite in me as you. n no, im an agnostic with atheistic inclinations on the concept of a traditional yet consistant god. otherwise i can get quite spiritual, and even superstitous, at times when im not dealing with arguments which require blatant sceptecism and logic.simply put, spite, cinicism and hate is becoming an unhealthy part of materialistic "atheism"/agnostism. we dhud take materialism out of it as its giving it a not so tolerant and loving reputation at a personal level.
And I'm generally not hateful or spiteful. I just come off that way on line to people who generally cannot make points.
...and since I often fend against radical athiests who treat religion like sh*t, I'd say your assessment is wrong.
Also, materialism doesn't exclude spirituality and shouldn't be confused with economic materialism. You should make that distinction.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
My point is, the matter and energy that we consist of does not simply stop existing. If Alliance would like to argue that the matter and energy we are created from does become destroyed, once we die, then by all means I invite him to do so.
First off, make the distinction between physical energy and spiritual energy. Physical energy obey natural laws. Spiritual energy seems to be nothing more than a product of our own thoughts, which stop once we fail to maintain proper ion gradients in our bodies. This fake spiritual energy that you talk about is not a natural force, its a perception. It doesn't go anywhere when you die, because it never existed. Even if you claim it exists, its not physical, so enough of your bastardization of the conservation of energy.
Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant. If have one of the same carbon atoms as Hitler, Hitler does not live on in me by any stretch of the imagination. Your position becomes even more absurd when you realize that the carbon atom, when it was formed, belonged to nothing in particular. Hitler just borrowed it, as am I. Thus, you make a rediculous distinction.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Is that what we're calling ourselves?😂
I approve. 31
😂 I'd prefer a limestone lobby. Marble is overused.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh NOOOOOOOO, last year we were being over run by Buddhists, now this year it's Atheists??cry
Originally posted by Alliance
First off, make the distinction between physical energy and spiritual energy. Physical energy obey natural laws. Spiritual energy seems to be nothing more than a product of our own thoughts, which stop once we fail to maintain proper ion gradients in our bodies. This fake spiritual energy that you talk about is not a natural force, its a perception. It doesn't go anywhere when you die, because it never existed. Even if you claim it exists, its not physical, so enough of your bastardization of the conservation of energy.Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant. If have one of the same carbon atoms as Hitler, Hitler does not live on in me by any stretch of the imagination. Your position becomes even more absurd when you realize that the carbon atom, when it was formed, belonged to nothing in particular. Hitler just borrowed it, as am I. Thus, you make a rediculous distinction.
😂 I'd prefer a limestone lobby. Marble is overused.
Jut be happy its not the Chick Tract crew.
forgetting holographic interactions. also forgetting the fact that a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem to begin with. those can not not be explained by your purely materialistic definition of science. what we know is little, what we dont is infinite.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also forgetting the fact that a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem to begin with.
Err. That's just a statement of yours. It's not a fact at all.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Err. That's just a statement of yours. It's not a fact at all.
yes it is. to an extent. content vs context dillemma. content can not exist without context. yet context has no existance outside of prior content making it up. first cause etc. it has serious implication on how physically we can have a contruct which is AWARE OF THE EXISTANCE OF ITS OWN AWARENESS.
a topic not given enough emphasis in science i think.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes it is. to an extent. content vs context dillemma. content can not exist without context. yet context has no existance outside of prior content making it up. first cause etc. it has serious implication on how physically we can have a contruct which is AWARE OF THE EXISTANCE OF ITS OWN AWARENESS.a topic not given enough emphasis in science i think.
Pseudoscience.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Pseudoscience.
huh? how is it psuedoscience. its a well known fact that computers only SEEM to computer information from the persepctive of a human being. when infact its doing nuthing other than changing and chanelling states of entropy with no more uniqueness to them than anyrock being destroyed. only inside CONTEXT and in a perspective does it seems like the things we type are not just electrical pulses but actual information. try and generalise that to the connection between 1st generation languages{0s and 1s} and languages based on c++. youl see that at a basic template level there is hardly any recogniseable uniqueness to it but at the higher interpetive level it becomes sumthing almost abstract and completely making sense. now think about this, is the computer really processing and INTERPRETING zeros and ones or ur sending only two types of electrons down the paths of leasts resistance into a circuit which changes theis states and transfers energy etc??? is the computer/calculater really THINKING? or does it only give the IMPRESSION that its thinking??
furthermore, is giving the IMPRESSION of thinking{behavioural/physical consequence}, the same as thinking???? which would require that you{a unity entity} yourself are aware that you are thinking?{referring to the same entity}
in my personal expirience. we{or rather "i" as i can only give personal testimony} are actually thinking, because i am actually aware of my own existance and aware of my ability to be aware. i suppose in one degree or another it is the same for all humans. currently i can not see a machine being able to do that. even if we program a machine to emulate the characteristics of thinking, it would just be, FOLLOWING ORDERS and acting like a thinking person would. but it wudnt be its own thoughts guiding it but the order.
i think for a machine to do sumthing like taht{my words for a physical model} its code would have to write its own code, or a different original code not coming from the outside at all.
this isnt offtopic. i think it is a relevant critique of the claim "conciousness is just complex interaction of particles" thing. im not trying ot drown u into anything.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
in my personal expirience. we{or rather "i" as i can only give personal testimony} are actually thinking, because i am actually aware of my own existance and aware of my ability to be aware. i suppose in one degree or another it is the same for all humans. currently i can not see a machine being able to do that. even if we program a machine to emulate the characteristics of thinking, it would just be, FOLLOWING ORDERS and acting like a thinking person would. but it wudnt be its own thoughts guiding it but the order.i think for a machine to do sumthing like taht{my words for a physical model} its code would have to write its own code, or a different original code not coming from the outside at all.
this isnt offtopic. i think it is a relevant critique of the claim "conciousness is just complex interaction of particles" thing. im not trying ot drown u into anything.
But, you do realize that is absolutely only your opinion. And in no way a fact? Not even a scientifically very accepted opinion either.
sigh. did u not see the challenges presented by me as an implication of just believing the materialistic model of the mind? it is an attempt at trying to accept that pure materialism can not account for all the phenomenon displayed by human life. and the fact that im really thinking is not an oppinion.
it supports my previous claims of holographic principle and refutation which u also said were nuthing more than oppinion.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
sigh. did u not see the challenges presented by me as an implication of just believing the materialistic model of the mind? it is an attempt at trying to accept that pure materialism can not account for all the phenomenon displayed by human life. and the fact that im really thinking is not an oppinion.it supports my previous claims of holographic principle and refutation which u also said were nuthing more than oppinion.
Actually, yes the "fact" that you are thinking is an opinion. You are indeed "attempting" to show that pure materialism can not account for human life, it is not conclusive and has no support. You typed up a bunch of stuff, that shows nothing.
Originally posted by SpearofDestinyYou said it in bold. You only do that for obvious facts. As if Buddhism is a fact. But I accept your apology.
As for Lord xyz, no I wasn't trying to shove Buddhism down your throats. The Reincarnation Cycle of Life is simply a beleif, not a fact, and if it sounded like I was trying to push that, then I apologize.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, yes the "fact" that you are thinking is an opinion. You are indeed "attempting" to show that pure materialism can not account for human life, it is not conclusive and has no support. You typed up a bunch of stuff, that shows nothing.
yes it does. it shows that materialism as percieved and defines by us right now can not account for self awareness. merely saying it shown nuthing doesnt really disprove or debunk anything i said.