Utter silliness in atheist arguments

[Metacrock]

Not to say they are the only side with utter silliness. two different atheists argued things yesterday that I think are just totally ridiculous.

Atheist no 1

One of them was in answer to the hard problem illustration story about May, the scintillas who had never seen red, could she know all the facts about red but having never seen it would not know what it looks like. This atheist argued that you can know what a color looks like just by learning facts about it. He has continued to argue this way down the page the one thing he has not done is to demonstrate how it works.

In response to the statement You can't know what it's like to be me he asserted that just knowing a bunch of facts about me would tell him what it's like to be me. I see both of these are sheer stupidity.

That proves that they don't think about the meaning of the term consciousness. What I'm more concerned with this the epistemological limitations. I mean I don't want to talk about consciousness again but about how epistemology limits and conditions what we think.

Atheist 2

I made the access argument in relation to Bran/mind, with the analogy about shaming the monitor and you can't see the soft ware that doesn't prove the monitor is software. or that software is hardware.


Atheist no 2 began giving me all sorts of high level geek talk about how you could view the soft ware without a monitor, which is totally irrelevant to the point. he wont on this long jab about how new computer things could do that and that's all still access not causes.

He wound up arguing that a computer won jeopardy so that computer is conscious.

that's just fundamental to the brain/mind discussion that behavior is not consciousness. That's been disproved since the 80s.

[mdsimpson92]

So far so good. Were you talking about philosophy of the mind? The first one reminds me of Thomas Nagel's question, "What is it like to be a bat?"

On the second, that guy is way too literal minded.

Your criticisms are good. However, I hate to rag you on this but putting the word "some" before atheists can do wonders for making your topic seem less hostile. Again not to be a nag.

[URBILD]

putting the word "some" before atheists can do wonders for making your topic seem less hostile.

No kidding.

[Metacrock]

So far so good. Were you talking about philosophy of the mind? The first one reminds me of Thomas Nagel's question, "What is it like to be a bat?"

yes exactly. Also Chamler's spoof mustic gag on you tube "zombie blues" (halarious)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiEVkDdmIF8

the words say "I act like you act, I do what you do, but I don't know what it's like to be you. what consciousnesses is I ant got a clue, I got the zombie blues."

On the second, that guy is way too literal minded.

no kidding

Your criticisms are good. However, I hate to rag you on this but putting the word "some" before atheists can do wonders for making your topic seem less hostile. Again not to be a nag.

Hermit told me it was phony to do so, so I stopped.

[fleetmouse]

Meta, I'm out of here for the summer. You're too toxic and I'm wasting too much time arguing anyhow.

sgttomas reminded me of an old post where I said "The best way to resolve unanswerable questions is to stop asking them and just live." I think I'm going to take that advice myself, at least for a couple of months.

[Metacrock]

Meta, I'm out of here for the summer. You're too toxic and I'm wasting too much time arguing anyhow.

sgttomas reminded me of an old post where I said "The best way to resolve unanswerable questions is to stop asking them and just live." I think I'm going to take that advice myself, at least for a couple of months.

you have a lot of damn gaul. The bull shit you do on carm then when I complain about one post you weren't even n that's too toxic.

the spend 40 posts going You don't udnesatnd. you are not smart, you don't know nothing! I quoted 45 scholars and they answer "I don't need to quote scholars."

but is I who am toxic.

you are good litlte boy aren't you. I'm glad you are fine little solder for your ideology you did a good job of fucking up the enemy now you can go salute your commander and get some more brain washing.

[Kane Augustus]

Now, children... you're both pretty. Can we get on with actually making meaningful discussion, please?

[Metacrock]

Now, children... you're both pretty. Can we get on with actually making meaningful discussion, please?

If you insist. party pooper

[mdsimpson92]

Sooo, are we going to start on philosophy of the mind and substance theory. Because I'm willing even if I am a rank novice. Actually that would be fitting since the first thread I joined was between Meta a Fleet over that same topic.

[mdsimpson92]

Meta, I'm out of here for the summer. You're too toxic and I'm wasting too much time arguing anyhow.

sgttomas reminded me of an old post where I said "The best way to resolve unanswerable questions is to stop asking them and just live." I think I'm going to take that advice myself, at least for a couple of months.

you have a lot of damn gaul. The bull shit you do on carm then when I complain about one post you weren't even n that's too toxic.

the spend 40 posts going You don't udnesatnd. you are not smart, you don't know nothing! I quoted 45 scholars and they answer "I don't need to quote scholars."

but is I who am toxic.

you are good litlte boy aren't you. I'm glad you are fine little solder for your ideology you did a good job of fucking up the enemy now you can go salute your commander and get some more brain washing.

What the hell ever happened to staying away from Carm? I thought we agreed that that place is poison for the mind. Also, how the hell is using the word "some" being dishonest, if anything it avoids making sweeping and inaccurate(and thus truly dishonest) statements.