Materialism

[The Feral Underclass]

The basis of Marxism/Communism is the concept of materialism (both economic and philosophic). I want you to read it, and give your opinion.


Originally posted by Materialsm (Wikipedia)
Materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Science uses a working assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. In terms of singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism stands in sharp contrast to idealism.

Do you agree with this or not. If not why?

Materialism - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)

[Intellectual47]

I would have to disagree with it because I am a Christian and believe in God, a supernatural force. I also enjoy personifying ideas as human beings with human emotions to much since it's a excellent debate tool.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:05 pm
I would have to disagree with it because I am a Christian and believe in God, a supernatural force.
Oh for fuck sake. You're one of those! :wacko:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:05 pm
I also enjoy personifying ideas as human beings with human emotions to much since it's a excellent debate tool.
No it isn't, it borders on the fallacious.

Still, now I know you're a godjob I know why you're incapable of making a coherent argument.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Intellectual47"
I would have to disagree with it because I am a Christian and believe in God, a supernatural force.
So do you dissagree with the Mind-Brain Identity Theory? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism).

EDIT: Sorry, I ment dissagree.

[MrDoom]

I would have to disagree with it because I am a Christian and believe in God, a supernatural force.
That's a pretty poor reason. Give some arguments that materialism is false.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+December 05, 2006 04:24 pm--> (patton @ December 05, 2006 04:24 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 06:05 pm
I would have to disagree with it because I am a Christian and believe in God, a supernatural force.
Are you a republican to? [/b]
he thinks reagan had a sound economic policy, he would have to be.

anyways, i consider myself a materialist, just to different ends than marxists. although unlike many i don't discount subjective personal sentiments when looking at life.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:05 pm
I would have to disagree with it because I am a Christian and believe in God, a supernatural force. I also enjoy personifying ideas as human beings with human emotions to much since it's a excellent debate tool.
Contained therein is the epitome of why I'm a materialist with haughty disdain for the superstitious.
I sometimes need prose from the pen of 'Darwins rottweiler' like I need oxygen.

[Intellectual47]

I don't want to intrude on your I47 bashing but I would like to defend myself.

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science. Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.
I am a republican and support reaganomics. If you look a little deeper you will realize that the reason for America's dept lies with Keynes. It was his econmics that screwed us over.

Oh and a christian can still be right.

[RebelDog]

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science.

If you are picking and choosing what you will and wont argue because you retreat to the position of faith, why should we argue with you at all, in any thread.

Here is something you wrote in another thread you started in OI. (My italics)

Okay, I'm restarting a thread that was closed not to long ago, "History Lesson". It'll be on the same thing as my last thread and this time I hope that we can have good logical debate with no flaming or trolling. I hope we all learn something from this.

Why hope for a logical debate? Why not retreat to faith and forget about any dissenting opinions?

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 09:12 pm
I don't want to intrude on your I47 bashing but I would like to defend myself.

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science. Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.
I am a republican and support reaganomics. If you look a little deeper you will realize that the reason for America's dept lies with Keynes. It was his econmics that screwed us over.

Oh and a christian can still be right.
You know "Intellectual"47 if your going to use the word intellectual in your name you might want to actually be one.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 09:12 pm
I don't want to intrude on your I47 bashing but I would like to defend myself.

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science. Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.
I am a republican and support reaganomics. If you look a little deeper you will realize that the reason for America's dept lies with Keynes. It was his econmics that screwed us over.

Oh and a christian can still be right.
what makes you believe that there is an intellectual creator, "out there"

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 10:12 pm
I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there
If you disagree with materialism that means that you disagree that what truly exists invariably is matter. I.e. things we can see and touch and which are verifiable by reason.

If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?


I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith

May I ask why?


Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.

Of course it is. Faith is a subjective concept, in this instance towards something which cannot be proven to exist.

Usually this is a symptom of insanity, but because this faith has subjugated the world and been institutionalised into vast seats of power it's perfectly normal.

I mean, if I was to go around preaching with absolute certainty that massive purple goblins lived in the clouds and controlled the earths wind patterns and that, at times, they answer my prays, I'd most certainly bee locked up - Especially if I told them the only thing I have to prove it is my faith that they are there (faith = benefit of the doubt)... :wacko:


Oh and a christian can still be right.

That's yet to be seen.

[Intellectual47]

Okay guys, I live in America. I have seen first hand what happens when you mix reason and faith. Lets just ignore the fact I'm a Christian and instead focus on my arguements. Leave my faith out of this.

If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?
Yes I believe that concepts are real that we cannot see or touch, Havne't you seen the "matrix"? I beleive that the concpet of racism is very real. Or humanitarianism. Just because you cannot see something does not mean it isn't real.

That's yet to be seen.
Yes I'm sure Edison was wrong about everything. He was a Christian.

[RebelDog]

Leave my faith out of this.

Yes, of course.


Yes I believe that concepts are real that we cannot see or touch, Havne't you seen the "matrix"?

You have retreated to faith straight away again. You 'believe' in things that cannot ever be proven, that is faith. I have never seen the 'Matrix' what is so special about it?


Just because you cannot see something does not mean it isn't real.

Yes there are lots of things that humans have yet to discover, emperically verify and understand. Just because someone tells you something you can't see, touch or verify is real, does not mean it is real. People used to believe in Valhala because they were told to have faith in that belief, is that belief any less real, or unreal, than Christianity because it is dead and nobody believes it any more?


Yes I'm sure Edison was wrong about everything. He was a Christian.

In order to do what he did Edison relied on observation, experiment and proven science. Why has him being a christian (if he was) have to do with that?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 02:27 pm
I have seen first hand what happens when you mix reason and faith.
What does that mean?



If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?
Yes I believe that concepts are real that we cannot see or touch, Havne't you seen the "matrix"?

That was a film.


I beleive that the concpet of racism is very real. Or humanitarianism.

Racism manifests itself in reality. We know that racism exists because people are racists. If people were not racists then we would not know that racism existed.


Just because you cannot see something does not mean it isn't real.

Then how do you know it's real?

Also, you didn't answer my question. If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?

[Intellectual47]

The "matrix" may have been a film, but i definitly explored rather deeply these concpets and so I mentioned it

Then how do you know it's real?
Because I see the effects of it today. That's how you tell something invisible exists. I see the people who's lives are changed by God. I see the complexity of this world and am amazed by how it doesn't screw up. I see the beauty of the heavens andknow that there is something much bigger than us out there. I see the good in the world and know that it would impossible without God. I see God.

In order to do what he did Edison relied on observation, experiment and proven science. Why has him being a christian (if he was) have to do with that?
He was Christian and you questioned whether a Christian can ever be right. I as a Christian still use the scientific method to figure things out.


P.S. please move this to the religious section, it seems to belong there.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Intellectual47"+--> ("Intellectual47")The "matrix" may have been a film, but i definitly explored rather deeply these concpets and so I mentioned it[/b]Well I hope you didn't deeply explore the second two. Thats what happens when Capitalism tries to take control of artistic creation.


Originally posted by "Intellectual47"+--> ("Intellectual47")Because I see the effects of it today.[/b]You see the effects of Humanitarianism, of good-will, and attribute this to a god; rather than that of the individuals, or even the nature of Humanity. But whenever acts of brutality, rape, murder, sexual perversion, or child molestation is openly commited by religious institutions, those who call themselves religious, or attribute their insparations to god... well they don't count, right?

Sounds like the perfect candidate for an imaginary friend.

("Intellectual47")That's how you tell something invisible exists.[/b][/quote]No, if you want to know if an invisible being exists you look for incongruencies in every-day life that point to a lapse in scientific knowlege.

"Faith" has no place in the materialistic world. "Faith" in monotheistic religion has killed the second largest ammount of people ever; second only to the effects of unbridled Capitalism on the 3rd world. 300 children die every 30 minutes from extreme poverty. 1 person dies every 3 seconds from curable disease.

If I had "Faith" in God, I would be a contributer to this mass-global-slaughter.

("Intellectual47")I see the people who's lives are changed by God.[/b][/quote]
So do I (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=suicide+bomber&btnG=Search). (Graphic)

("Intellectual47")I see the complexity of this world and am amazed by how it doesn't screw up.[/b][/quote]Astounding. You see the complexity of the world and are amazed that it doesn't screw up. However the rest of the world watches as the United States destroys the populations of countries around the globe, and wonder to themselves as thier house is demolished with them inside "how can this world be more screwed up than it already is?"

("Intellectual47")I see the beauty of the heavens[/b][/quote]I thought you said that they were invisible? If they aren't invisible, can you show me where they are? If you can provide me concrete evidence that god exists, I'd rather commit suicide so I can get a headstart on that motherfucker. If someone can sit by and watch 500,000 Rwandians get killed, and 2 million become refugees within the space of 5 months without doing anything that is NOT someone I want to be near.


"Intellectual47"@
[...] and know that there is something much bigger than us out there.Elephants, Trees, Planets, Stars, Galaxys... you only need to look outside to see something bigger than you.


"Intellectual47"
I see the good in the world and know that it would impossible without God. I see God.How convenient! Anything possibly negative is our fult, and anything possibly positive is god! Get over yourself. Mud-hut religions have no space in the 21st century, muchless the 20th.

[Intellectual47]

Quite regrettebly, my religion forces me to be kind to like you who don't know how to argue their points. Let me show you there error of your ways.

You see the effects of Humanitarianism, of good-will, and attribute this to a god; rather than that of the individuals, or even the nature of Humanity. But whenever acts of brutality, rape, murder, sexual perversion, or child molestation is openly commited by religious institutions, those who call themselves religious, or attribute their insparations to god... well they don't count, right?
Since God created the world and it was good, I hardly can see how he is personally responsible for the evil in the world.

No, if you want to know if an invisible being exists you look for incongruencies in every-day life that point to a lapse in scientific knowlege
No you feel the effects of it. If you feel the wind on your skin, you know it exists.

So do I. (Graphic)
I'm a Christian, not a muslim. I think suicide bombers disgrace their faith and shame themselves. And I was also talking about the people who lives have been changed in God. Not people who blow themselves up because they think capitalism aka "the West" is evil. \

Astounding. You see the complexity of the world and are amazed that it doesn't screw up. However the rest of the world watches as the United States destroys the populations of countries around the globe, and wonder to themselves as thier house is demolished with them inside "how can this world be more screwed up than it already is?"
What proof do you have that capitalism is evil? Besides your own rhetoric. And believe me, the world could be much more screwed up than it already is. the USSR could have won the Cold War.

Elephants, Trees, Planets, Stars, Galaxys... you only need to look outside to see something bigger than you.
"bigger" as in a creator. You take things too literally.

You apparently have no idea what Christianity is. The only thing you see is idiots who call themselves Christians. Actually get to know someone before you criticize them

[The Feral Underclass]

Intellectual47

You will answer my question: If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Intellectual47"+--> ("Intellectual47")Since God created the world and it was good, I hardly can see how he is personally responsible for the evil in the world.[/b]So the relationship god has to us is like a teenager with an ant colony? Even though he can feed the entire colony with a flick of his metaphorical wrist, it would be much more fun to watch them starve and kill themselves?

And you want to warship this being?


Originally posted by "Intellectual47"+--> ("Intellectual47")No you feel the effects of it. If you feel the wind on your skin, you know it exists.[/b]The wind can be felt because of the movement of air particles bouncing off my skin.

If you can somehow show me the effects of god particles bouncing off my skin I will believe you, but grasping into the night for rational response to a irrational belief is not something I am willing to go traipsing around with.

("Intellectual47")I'm a Christian, not a muslim.[/b][/quote]Alright, here (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=holocaust&btnG=Search) is slaughter tuned to your brand of monothiestic belief.

("Intellectual47")I think suicide bombers disgrace their faith and shame themselves.[/b][/quote]There is something a bit more important than their "faith" that is being disgraced. Such as the people who die in the explosions.

("Intellectual47")And I was also talking about the people who lives have been changed in God.[/b][/quote]Elaborate? You mean those who forgo the scientific method to embrace illogical thought?

("Intellectual47")Not people who blow themselves up because they think capitalism aka "the West" is evil.[/b][/quote]For the most part (I don't think) suicide bombers don't have a class motivation, or at least it is never mentioned in the alt.media.

("Intellectual47")What proof do you have that capitalism is evil?[/b][/quote]Well, going by a definition you would understand:
Judges 9:7-15 "Honest people are too busy making an honest living to accept political power, so only the corruptible will accept political power
Samuel 1:8 "To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God"
Ephesians 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms"

For an Earthly example you can look to the problems that we have readaly available resources to solve; such as hunger (http://www.womenaid.org/press/info/food/food4.html), war for resources (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position), curable diesases (http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/development/drug.html)... I am completely opposed to his state repression, but on this point him and I are in complete agreemenent.

("Fidel Castro Addressing the WHO")Nowhere in the world, in no act of genocide, in no war, are so many
people killed per minute, per hour and per day as those who are
killed by hunger and poverty on our planet -- 53 years after the
creation of the United Nations.


The children who die and could be saved are almost 100% poor and of
those who survive, we must ask why 500,000 are left blind every year
for lack of a simple vitamin which costs less than a pack of
cigarettes per year? Why are 200 million children under five years
of age undernourished? Why are there 250 million children and
adolescents working? Why do 110 million not attend primary school
and 275 million fail to attend secondary school? Why do two million
girls become prostitutes each year? Why in this world -- which
already produces almost 30 trillion dollars worth of goods and
services per year -- do one billion 300 million human beings live in
absolute poverty, receiving less than a dollar a day -- when there
are those who receive more than a million dollars a day? Why do 800
million lack the most basic health services? Why is it that of the
50 million people who die each year in the world, whether adults or
children, 17 million -- that is approximately 50,000 per day -- die
of infectious diseases which could almost all be cured -- or, even
better, be prevented -- at a cost which is sometimes no more than one
dollar per person?


How much is a human life worth? What is the cost to humanity of the
unjust and intolerable order which prevails in the world? 585,000
women died during pregnancy or in childbirth in 1996, 99% of them in
the Third World, 70,000 due to abortions carried out in poor
conditions, 69,000 of them in Latin America, Africa and Asia? Apart
from the huge differences in the quality of life between rich and
poor countries, people in rich countries live an average of 12 years
longer than people in poor countries. And even within some nations,
the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is
between 20 and 35 years. It is really sad to think that just in the
area of maternal and post-natal services, in spite of the efforts of
the WHO and UNICEF over the last 50 years, the number of deaths from
lack of medical services has been 600 million children and 25 million
mothers who could have survived. That would have required a more rational
and more just world.


In that same post-war period, in the area of military expenditure,
30 trillion dollars were spent. According to UN estimates, the cost
of providing universal access to basic health care services would be
25 billion dollars per year -- just three percent of the 800 billion
dollars which are currently devoted to military expenditure -- and
this after the end of the Cold War.


There is no let up in arms sales, which have the sole purpose of
killing, while the medicines which should be provided to save lives
become increasingly expensive. The market in medicines in 1995
reached 280 billion dollars. The developed countries, with 14.6% of
the world's population -- 824 million inhabitants -- consume 82% of
the medicines. The rest of the world -- 4 billion 815 million people
-- consume only 18%.


Prices of medicines are prohibitive for the Third World, where only
the privileged sectors can afford them. The control of patents and
markets by the large transnational companies enables them to raise
those prices as much as ten times above their production costs. Some of
the latest antibiotics are priced at 50 times their production cost.


And the world's population continues to grow. We are now almost six
billion and growing at a rate of 80 million per year. It took two
million years to reach the first billion people, a hundred years to
reach the second billion, and 11 years to reach the last billion. In 50
years, there will be four billion new inhabitants on the planet.


Old illnesses have returned and new ones are appearing: AIDS, the
Ebola virus, Anthrax, BSE or mad cow disease -- more than thirty
according to the specialists. Either we defeat AIDS or AIDS will
destroy many Third World countries. No poor person can pay the
10,000 dollars per person each year that current treatments cost --
which merely prolong life without actually curing the disease.


The climate is changing. The seas and the atmosphere are heating
up. The air and water are becoming contaminated. Soil is eroding,
deserts are growing, forests are disappearing and water is becoming
scarce. Who can save our species? The blind, uncontrollable law of
the market? Neo-liberal globalization, alone and for its own sake,
like a cancer which devours human beings and destroys nature? That
cannot be the way forward or at least it can only last for a brief
period in history. The WHO is fighting heroically against these
realities and it also has the duty of being optimistic.


As a Cuban and a revolutionary, I share their optimism. With a
current infant mortality rate of 7.2 per thousand live births during
the first year; a doctor for every 176 inhabitants -- which is the
highest level in the world -- and a life expectancy of more than 75
years of age, Cuba has fulfilled the WHO Health for All program for
the year 2000 since 1983 -- in spite of the cruel blockade it has
suffered for almost 40 years, in spite of being a poor, Third World
country. The attempt to commit genocide against our country has only
made us redouble our efforts and increased our will to survive. The world can also fight and win.

Thank you very much.

Fidel Castro.[/b][/quote]

("Intellectual47") the world could be much more screwed up than it already is. the USSR could have won the Cold War.[/b][/quote]I agree.


"Intellectual47"@
"bigger" as in a creator. You take things too literally.I know, I was being pragmatic. :)


"Intellectual47"
You apparently have no idea what Christianity is. The only thing you see is idiots who call themselves Christians. Actually get to know someone before you criticize themI do see every once and awhile thiests who make a real attempt to follow the good aspects of their religion. Mother Tharesa, Ghandi, Dorothy Day, Thoreau, Rousseau, Sandino...

However I would argue that these people would have been just as committed to saving the Human race if they had not been exposed to religion.

[Intellectual47]

Alright, here is slaughter tuned to your brand of monothiestic belief.
How on Earth is the Holocaust the fault of Christianity? Hitler was an aethist, he never claimed to get his inspeiration from God. That is irrational and stupid.

If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?
yes, I find it entirley believeable that you do not exist.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 06:09 pm

Alright, here is slaughter tuned to your brand of monothiestic belief.
How on Earth is the Holocaust the fault of Christianity? Hitler was an aethist, he never claimed to get his inspeiration from God. That is irrational and stupid.
Site #1. (http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm), Site #2. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm)...

[Intellectual47]

Perhaps you may want a more neutral link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs)

Even if hitler was a christian, he would be acting in a completly unchristian manner.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Intellectual47"
Even if hitler was a christian, he would be acting in a completly unchristian manner.So that begs the question of 'what is a completely Christian manner?'

Is the Christian manner going to be only that of people like Mother Theresa? Operating 517 missions cleaning up the effects of Capitalism on the 3rd world? Or is it going to be that of FSLN, cleaning up the cause.

If more Christians followed the good of their religion I wouldn't have anything bad to say about it. People like Mohandas Ghandi took up religious interpretation in the midst of fundamentalism. He saught a combined peace between Muslims, Hindus, Sheeks, and Christians in India, ignoring the religious dogma attached to each faith.

This combined tolerance seems to fall on deaf ears, Muslem, Jewish, Christian alike. They all seem to have their great moral high horse, but when it comes to actually practicing what they say they support, the majority seem to side with reactionary and harmful institutions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 07:09 pm

If you believe that there can exist concepts, beings, truths that we cannot see and touch or which are not verifiable by reason, then do you admit that it is possible that you are not real?
yes, I find it entirley believeable that you do not exist.
I'm asking the question about you

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I47 your faith is blinding you. You fail to see that without god the world would be a much better place. You are misguided by propaganda and bullshit and should altogether give up because your feeble attempts at arguements are embarrasing.

[harris0]

I haven't really read the entire thread...but I don't think the issue is black and white.

What makes us who we are? Is it simply an intereaction of our hormones and different chemicals in our brains....our upbringing, etc? Or is there is a part of us aside from all of that, that a spiritual person might call a--dare I say it?--"soul"?

What's "love"?

Why do people fight for justice for others (as so many people on this board are) with no expectation of material reward? Is it simply because evolution has cultured in us a sort of "protect the other members of the herd" instinct? Or is there something else?

[MrDoom]

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science. Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.

The proposition that an intelligent being designed the universe and all life within it (and a pretty poor job done, if I may say so myself) is a scientific hypothesis. It is not "immune" to scientific analysis. Either there is a God, or there is not.


I haven't really read the entire thread...but I don't think the issue is black and white.
The issue IS black and white. Either there is at least one supernatural entity, or there are none. It is an absolute dichotomy, it is absolutely true, or absolutely false.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 06:39 pm

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science. Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.

The proposition that an intelligent being designed the universe and all life within it (and a pretty poor job done, if I may say so myself) is a scientific hypothesis. It is not "immune" to scientific analysis. Either there is a God, or there is not.


I haven't really read the entire thread...but I don't think the issue is black and white.
The issue IS black and white. Either there is at least one supernatural entity, or there are none. It is an absolute dichotomy, it is absolutely true, or absolutely false.
I personally wasn't speaking about God, but a spiritual side that people have that you can't see and is undescribable with science in my opinion.

But dude, when you grow up and are able to see things outside of the black and white box...let me know.

[MrDoom]

I personally wasn't speaking about God, but a spiritual side that people have that you can't see and is undescribable with science in my opinion.

But dude, when you grow up and are able to see things outside of the black and white box...let me know.

Spirits are supernatural entities.

So far, no one has been able to definitively describe a 'spirit', observe and document its properties and atributes, or anything else that suggests that spiritualism has any credibility whatsoever.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 06:50 pm

I personally wasn't speaking about God, but a spiritual side that people have that you can't see and is undescribable with science in my opinion.

But dude, when you grow up and are able to see things outside of the black and white box...let me know.

Spirits are supernatural entities.

So far, no one has been able to definitively describe a 'spirit', observe and document its properties and atributes, or anything else that suggests that spiritualism has any credibility whatsoever.
I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 06:39 pm

I do disagree with materialism because there is an intellegent creator out there. I don't have to argue this point with you because I believe that it is faith, not science. Therefore it is immune to scientific arguements.

The proposition that an intelligent being designed the universe and all life within it (and a pretty poor job done, if I may say so myself) is a scientific hypothesis. It is not "immune" to scientific analysis. Either there is a God, or there is not.


I haven't really read the entire thread...but I don't think the issue is black and white.
The issue IS black and white. Either there is at least one supernatural entity, or there are none. It is an absolute dichotomy, it is absolutely true, or absolutely false.
I personally am not religious...but I'm going to play devil's advocate.

If God created the universe and laws by which it operates (which science analyzes), the existence of God would be immune to scientific enquiry...because God would have essentially created science.

[MrDoom]

I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.
Love is a set of emotions centered around a particular entity. It's neurochemical in nature.

Human morality? Utter bullshit, humans tend to act "immorally" as much as they do "morally".

In order for there to be a "human morality" (and just what is "nonhuman morality", anyway?), there would have to be an objective force that permeats the universe, like gravity. As well, since this "morality" only applies to humans, it would have to be a sentient entity with a interest in humanity.

No such sentient entity exists.

It's all nonsense. There are no spirits, there are no natural phenomena that cannot be explained in material terms, and there is no God.

[harris0]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 07:00 pm

I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.
Love is a set of emotions centered around a particular entity. It's neurochemical in nature.

Human morality? Utter bullshit, humans tend to act "immorally" as much as they do "morally".

In order for there to be a "human morality" (and just what is "nonhuman morality", anyway?), there would have to be an objective force that permeats the universe, like gravity. As well, since this "morality" only applies to humans, it would have to be a sentient entity with a interest in humanity.

No such sentient entity exists.

It's all nonsense. There are no spirits, there are no natural phenomena that cannot be explained in material terms, and there is no God.
Like I said earlier. When you grow up enough to step out of your black and white box, cynical box (which is really an uncomfortable place to live in...I know--I've been there)...hit me up. Let me know.

[Intellectual47]

Ah, it is so refresshing to hear someone actually making sense on this forum.


Doom, are not the laws of physics almost impossible to describe? Let me put it this way, when we see something fall when we drop it, we assume that a force is acting on it. We call this force gravity. We don't know what actual gravity looks like. But we observe it's effects. Similarly you can see the effects that God has had on the world. The world's very existance is proof of him. Also the great complexity in the world. I don't know what God looks like. But I do see his effects.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 02:46 pm
The world's very existance is proof of him. Also the great complexity in the world.
It is perhaps the only logical step to take after you reject the entire scientific evidence and theories about the creation of the universe.


I don't know what God looks like. But I do see his effects.

Such as what?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by harris0+December 10, 2006 08:04 pm--> (harris0 @ December 10, 2006 08:04 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 07:00 pm

I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.
Love is a set of emotions centered around a particular entity. It's neurochemical in nature.

Human morality? Utter bullshit, humans tend to act "immorally" as much as they do "morally".

In order for there to be a "human morality" (and just what is "nonhuman morality", anyway?), there would have to be an objective force that permeats the universe, like gravity. As well, since this "morality" only applies to humans, it would have to be a sentient entity with a interest in humanity.

No such sentient entity exists.

It's all nonsense. There are no spirits, there are no natural phenomena that cannot be explained in material terms, and there is no God.
Like I said earlier. When you grow up enough to step out of your black and white box, cynical box (which is really an uncomfortable place to live in...I know--I've been there)...hit me up. Let me know. [/b]
This is not an acceptable response.

You are not entitled to make such basic comments in a debate like this. If you have a response, then you should make it with a structured argument.

If you continue to make responses like this I will suspend your account.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by patton+December 11, 2006 05:33 pm--> (patton @ December 11, 2006 05:33 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2006 08:36 pm
, he would be acting in a completly unchristian manner.
Are you jokeing? Do you have any idea how many wars murders, rapes, genocides have been commited over the last 2000 years in your god name. [/b]
Funny how the same question is asked about nearly every other political philosophy or ideology.

:lol:

[KC]

I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain. Scientists have discovered that. Therefore it's perfectly explainable. Human morality isn't biological or natural; it's created and maintained by society.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 11, 2006 06:58 pm

I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain. Scientists have discovered that. Therefore it's perfectly explainable. Human morality isn't biological or natural; it's created and maintained by society.
Would your society be any different?

How would a value-free society prevent chaos or reach consensus on anything?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 11, 2006 08:04 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 11, 2006 08:04 pm)
Zampanò@December 11, 2006 06:58 pm

I understand that. That's my point, I do believe in things which I don't think science can quantify or explain satisfactorally...such as love, and human morality.

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain. Scientists have discovered that. Therefore it's perfectly explainable. Human morality isn't biological or natural; it's created and maintained by society.
Would your society be any different?

How would a value-free society prevent chaos or reach consensus on anything? [/b]
Choas is irrational and decisions have to be made in order for things to get done. Whether its by direct democracy or consensus a decision needs to be made. It's as simple as that.

[MrDoom]

Let me put it this way, when we see something fall when we drop it, we assume that a force is acting on it. We call this force gravity. We don't know what actual gravity looks like. But we observe it's effects.
Gravity is an effect unto itself, it is a force, not an object that can be seen.


Similarly you can see the effects that God has had on the world. The world's very existance is proof of him. Also the great complexity in the world. I don't know what God looks like. But I do see his effects.
The world's existence is NOT proof of anything.

Furthermore, your argument only works from the presuppostion that God exists in the first place.

[Intellectual47]

The world's existence is NOT proof of anything.
Yes it is. The theories that have been proposed to explain the coming of the world have serious flaws in them. That and the creation of life on Earth.

Gravity is an effect unto itself, it is a force, not an object that can be seen.
precisely. This is why we must observe it's effects.

Are you jokeing? Do you have any idea how many wars murders, rapes, genocides have been commited over the last 2000 years in your god name.
As oppossed to...? I not going to say anything, but I believe a lot of people say this about communism. Of course in a shorter time span.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 04:39 pm

The world's existence is NOT proof of anything.
Yes it is. The theories that have been proposed to explain the coming of the world have serious flaws in them. That and the creation of life on Earth.

:wacko:

What are these serious flaws and how are they so serious that we must suspend all sense of logic and believe in some mystical being we don't know exists?

Are you seriously telling me that science has totally failed and thus there is no logical step to take but to dispense with all logic and believe in the existance of god?

That's quite a wild assertion to make.



Gravity is an effect unto itself, it is a force, not an object that can be seen.
precisely. This is why we must observe it's effects.

You cannot use gravity as an example to defend the existance of god. They aren't comparable.

Gravity is falsifiable and although you cannot see it as an object, you cannot deny that it exists. God however is not falsifiable because you cannot determine one way or the other that he does or does not exist. By the rule of reason, if you cannot prove something to exist, then you cannot claim that it does.

We know gravity is there because we have tested theories and proven them to be true. How can you do the same with god?

[Intellectual47]

this is kinda random, but you have to see this (http://www.imao.us/archives/000602.html#000602)

If you want to dicuss God, I would suggest you move it to the religion forum. So I can ignore you more easily.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:23 pm
I would suggest you move it to the religion forum. So I can ignore you more easily.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to do that. You will address my points. You have been warned about this several times.

[Intellectual47]

Sorry, did you at least read the link?

Seriously, I just think that this thread would make much more sense in the religion forum. You are a mod, after all.

And what if I don't feel like addressing your points. Al Gore doesn't have to address global warming skeptics points. George Bush doesn't have to address the points of people who say the Iraq war was a mistake. Chirac doesn't have to defend his desicion to sacrifice his car to the "youth". Besides, I'm not very good at religoius stuff, I'm better at quoting history. Like the history of the USSR

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:30 pm
Seriously, I just think that this thread would make much more sense in the religion forum. You are a mod, after all.
I don't give a shit what you think makes more sense and quite frankly it has nothing to do with you where the threads on this forum are located. If I choose to move it, I will do, but whether I do or not is of no concern to you.


And what if I don't feel like addressing your points. Al Gore doesn't have to address global warming skeptics points. George Bush doesn't have to address the points of people who say the Iraq war was a mistake. Chirac doesn't have to defend his desicion to sacrifice his car to the "youth".

You're not Al Gore, or George Bush or Jacques Chirac, you're some kid in my forum and you will address the points that I have taken the time to make against your posts or you will feel my wrath, again.

If you are having difficulty understanding anything, I am happy to help you understand and if you are having difficulty refuting anything I have said, perhaps that's an indication as to how wrong your opinions are.


Besides, I'm not very good at religoius stuff, I'm better at quoting history. Like the history of the USSR

Well, tuff shit really. You have presented an opinion and either you have to justify and defend it, ask for help understanding the points of refuation or concede that you are wrong.

Which is it going to be? And if you want to carry on posting, you will have to choose one...

[Intellectual47]

Okay I give up, (speaking of which, what to my thread of the same name?)
You have turned me aethist, I agree completely with your posistion on religion. Now can we get back to anarcho-communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:50 pm
Okay I give up, (speaking of which, what to my thread of the same name?)
You have turned me aethist, I agree completely with your posistion on religion. Now can we get back to anarcho-communism.
See, you can't even participate in the debate. Your opinions have been undermined and you now cannot justify them.

You latch on to belief without having any concept of why. That's very sad.

[Zero]

It's also the first stage in high school reasoning. Don't blame him for following the school of fish.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:32 am
It's also the first stage in high school reasoning. Don't blame him for following the school of fish.
Actually, in this instance, I do blame him. He is clearly choosing to believe and maintain these opinions.

It's entirely his fault.

[Intellectual47]

Sorry for having personal beliefs.

It's also the first stage in high school reasoning. Don't blame him for following the school of fish.
As opposed to your college-age idealism?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2006 12:33 am
He is clearly choosing to believe and maintain these opinions.


Is there something bad about that?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 15, 2006 07:27 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 15, 2006 07:27 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2006 12:33 am
He is clearly choosing to believe and maintain these opinions.


Is there something bad about that? [/b]
Yes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 06:50 pm
Sorry for having personal beliefs.
You're not forgiven.