1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured How to prove?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Amanaki, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,595
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Religion:
    atheist
    So I Googled "materialism debunked". What came up?
    Four youtube videos
    An article about Dalton Trumbo and WW II
    An article on capitalism / feudalism
    A Chech PDF

    That's the best you can do.
     
  2. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,067
    Ratings:
    +2,178
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Are you sure you do not mean "determinism debunked"? Materialism is not remotely the same thing as determinism.
     
  3. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,595
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Religion:
    atheist
    Here comes the woo.

    Woo has been around since people acquired the ability to speak. The latest versions take a little bit of science and expand on it with pseudo-science to come up with a big pile of woo. The woosters use the little kernel of scientific truth and try to imply that their interpretations have real meaning. They don't.

    You based your "logical conclusion" primarily on pseudoscientific woo and what? - "the absence of proof of materialism"?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,595
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Religion:
    atheist
    ...
    Post a bunch of nonsensical sentences.
     
  5. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,595
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Religion:
    atheist
    Why would anyone care?
     
  6. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,067
    Ratings:
    +2,178
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Yes this looks like something close to Quantum Woo, though technically I suppose in this case it refers to the observer effect, which is not just a quantum phenomenon.
     
  7. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Resident Hermit
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    5,375
    Ratings:
    +5,637
    Religion:
    Advaitist Hindu
    Unless you can demonstrate why it matters if anyone cares or not, your question is entirely irrelevant.
     
  8. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,595
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Religion:
    atheist
    I can taste chocolate. There are sensors on my tongue that evolved to do that. These sensors send signals to my brain...

    There are no sensory organs to "taste" spiritual truth so, no, it is not the same.

    Billions of years of evolution have given us organs to taste, see, hear, feel, smell. Nature never thought it was useful or necessary to devise an organ to sense spiritual truth. If a billion years of evolution didn't bring it about, it's probably not necessary or even desirable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,595
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Religion:
    atheist
    That's hilarious.
     
  10. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Resident Hermit
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    5,375
    Ratings:
    +5,637
    Religion:
    Advaitist Hindu
    Nice deflection.
     
  11. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,282
    Ratings:
    +9,645
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Hmm...I thought we were talking about the subjective aspect at that point.

    Which is why it is necessary to have people from as many different backgrounds and with as many different ideas as possible to suggest testable alternatives and possible gaps in logic.

    Objectivity *is* having a public means of testing.

    Well, that's what it means to be objective: that it is possible to have a public means of testing.

    Strange. So most people don't just experience? They always add language to it? Sure, as a means of communicating with others, but internally also?

    I guess I just do this naturally. It doesn't seem difficult or problematic. The hard part, for me, is putting experiences into language to be able to communicate them to others.

    Well, for me, it has meaning only if it is true. To find out it is merely symbolic or that it is not 'real' makes the experience vacuous.

    OK, so I don't get why symbols, in that sense, are needed. Just have the experience. Why move the experience to something else and thereby negate it?

    No, reality is NOT what I choose it to be. That is the whole point. Reality is there no matter what I tell myself or what I want. It is independent of what I believe. That is the whole point.
     
  12. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    53,709
    Ratings:
    +12,684
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    You don't need to have walked on the Moon to verify that it exists.

    You don't need to have walked on the Moon even to verify that people have walked on the Moon.
     
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,282
    Ratings:
    +9,645
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, I would not say they were 'true' to me. I would say they were 'meaningful' to me. To me, there is a HUGE difference between 'true' and 'meaningful'.

    Yes, not all beliefs are true. But all truth is belief of some sort. And yes, it takes testing, logic, and all the other techniques to show that something is likely to be true.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,295
    Ratings:
    +889
    Possible. I suppose understanding that there is gravity is a form of discipline and hierarchy too.
     
  15. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,252
    Ratings:
    +937
    Religion:
    My Own
    I guess a skunk can't smell his own stink. Please explain what part you do NOT understand that we do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism?

    Your comment on what I am saying is woo when you have nothing but fairy tale beliefs with materialism.
     
  16. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    2,252
    Ratings:
    +937
    Religion:
    My Own
    Hard determinism in a computer model type sense:

    Deterministic finite automaton - Wikipedia
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,282
    Ratings:
    +9,645
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    In that case, it is an ambiguous figure. it can be interpreted as either a duck or a rabbit. Of course, it is neither. It is a bunch of ink on paper, or a bunch of dark places on a screen, or even a bunch of electrons acting a certain way.

    Our brains do not always interpret what we sense correctly. This is a wonderful example of where our brains get confused.

    Now, is the claim that spirituality is *always* an ambiguous figure? Is it actually impossible to get at a 'truth'? Or are you saying that our brains will always interpret it wrong no matter what we do?
     
  18. dingdao

    dingdao The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    266
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Nominally Taoist
    Other then a few sympathetic books and sites, most science comes to an existential conclusion. It's all in your mind.
    Ashoka, c 250 bce, went from being a tyrant whose favorite torture was pouring molten copper down a victim's throat. To a Buddhist king-monk after a battle. I'll chalk that one up to an NDE.
     
  19. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,067
    Ratings:
    +2,178
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    That is quite different from determinism and far narrower. More about determinism here: Determinism - Wikipedia

    Determinism is also shown by modern physics to be a doubtful worldview to hold.

    (Neither is the same as materialism of course, but as you were not after all referring to that, it is not relevant here.)
     
  20. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,626
    Ratings:
    +3,502
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    My point would be that each of us "observe" subjectively because we are the subjects doing the observing, and our observations are being determined by what we can, and what we expect, to see. Our very nature is a bias. There is no "objective reality" that we will ever be able to apprehend, because to apprehend anything, we (the subjects of the subjectivism referred to as "subjective reality") are doing the apprehending. And we cannot escape ourselves. So that "objective reality" is a perpetual myth that we humans imagine exists, but can never actually experience, ourselves. And science doesn't overcome this limitation because science is a process created by us, and evaluated by us, according to our conceptual expectations. It is as subjective as everything else about us, is.
     
Loading...