The illogic of Atheism

It isn't, though. That's not proven.

You know what’s really sad? After all the hours and hours of discussion on here, made up of  countless posts on this subject, someone still has to be told this? I despair. I think whoever said he’s a troll may have a point.

Ya, missed the points. Each and everyone that you and me listed are expressing their opinions (you got that?) on the existence of God. Point 2. You only choose scientists that agree with you.
Tallis is an idiot I'm my view because he refuses to acknowledge that consciousness is an emergent characteristic of the human brain.

Don't attribute a quote if you don't  know it's provenance, it's meaningless.

I doubt I misunderstood Albert.

P.S. Feser too is proferring opinion too.

I just said, in the post you are replying to, the arguments that convinced me are divorced from the scientists I mentioned - and in fact I mentioned the quotes in the context of the historical considerations that were being discussed.

As for scientists who agree with a person's position - where is your explanation for what is convincing about the scientists you mention. You've said you prefer science over philosophy, but you've also said you've no actual aptitude beyond high school for the sciences correct? So can you explain what weight is behind your opinion, because if not you're nothing more than a troll - or to be more charitable a person playing missionary for their faith about what reality is like.

I don't even know what you mean by "misunderstanding" Albert Einstein. Do you claim he didn't believe in Psi, or that he didn't actually write a preface for Upton Sinclair's book about telepathy? Provide evidence, your opinion about Einstein means nothing given your self-admitted lack of scientific aptitude.

What expertise are you using to say Tallis is an "idiot"? It seems you use terms like "idiot" in the way a religious person uses terms like "blasphemous" - people who are against your faith in a particular paradigm. But hey, thank you for validating the very point in the OP's article.

You know what’s really sad? After all the hours and hours of discussion on here, made up of  countless posts on this subject, someone still has to be told this? I despair. I think whoever said he’s a troll may have a point.

Yes, that is surprising, Obiwan. He should have phrased his comment differently.  I don't think he's a troll but I could quite easily understand him being mistaken for one.

I just said, in the post you are replying to, the arguments that convinced me are divorced from the scientists I mentioned - and in fact I mentioned the quotes in the context of the historical considerations that were being discussed.

As for scientists who agree with a person's position - where is your explanation for what is convincing about the scientists you mention. You've said you prefer science over philosophy, but you've also said you've no actual aptitude beyond high school for the sciences correct? So can you explain what weight is behind your opinion, because if not you're nothing more than a troll - or to be more charitable a person playing missionary for their faith about what reality is like.

I don't even know what you mean by "misunderstanding" Albert Einstein. Do you claim he didn't believe in Psi, or that he didn't actually write a preface for Upton Sinclair's book about telepathy? Provide evidence, your opinion about Einstein means nothing given your self-admitted lack of scientific aptitude.

What expertise are you using to say Tallis is an "idiot"? It seems you use terms like "idiot" in the way a religious person uses terms like "blasphemous" - people who are against your faith in a particular paradigm. But hey, thank you for validating the very point in the OP's article.

I said you should fact check Albert thoughts on ESP. You posted his preface  to Sinclair's book and missed the nuanced position within it..

If I were trolling I'd pester more of the threads started by you and others.
A look at Tallis. http://www.adamus.nl/deconstructing-raymond-tallis/

Ya, missed the points. Each and everyone that you and me listed are expressing their opinions (you got that?) on the existence of God. Point 2. You only choose scientists that agree with you.
Tallis is an idiot I'm my view because he refuses to acknowledge that consciousness is an emergent characteristic of the human brain.

Don't attribute a quote if you don't  know it's provenance, it's meaningless.

I doubt I misunderstood Albert.

P.S. Feser too is proferring opinion too.

Of all of your confounding posts, this honestly takes the cake.

Expressing opinions? What is it that you're doing? You certainly have hardly substantiated a single thing you've said, not even with a link to some skeptic's haven. Like, not even the lowest hanging fruit possible. You have barely even tried. 

In what manner is what the scientists you named (especially Krauss and Tyson) not opinion? Krauss and Tyson, and even Hawking (as previously discussed with the quote from Martin Rees) feel wildly free to opine on religion and the existence of god, and for some reason are considered to be authority on the matter, when they have no more experience than anyone here discussing or considering the topics at length, and in many cases more likely much less experience. They are absolutely, positively expressing opinions no less so than any of the scientists Sci cited. The reason he cited them is because they were the founders of QM. Attempting to group Tyson and Krauss with them, two men who are famous for being atheists and not uniquely talented physicists, is a joke. Tyson is at least a science popularizer, though he is certainly well known for his skepticism. Krauss? Nothing but a professional skeptic. If you can tell me of anything noteworthy he's done in physics, please let me know. 

The point is not that because they are better physicists, the founders of QM are better situated to opine on this topic - in fact, I'm arguing the opposite. Familiarity with and comprehension of the actual arguments, proofs, and evidence is what matters. What I am confident of, having actually read many accounts of the founders of QM's lengthy thoughts on the matter (which Sci has discussed already), is that they actually thought about these issues hard. They didn't sweep them away in ignorant (Krauss) or incredibly arrogant (Tyson) fashion with little to no knowledge on the topic. 

Let's be clear: you are saying that the physicists Sci cited are idiots or just "giving their opinions" because you disagree with them. You are attempting, amazingly, to assert that those you cited are not opining but rather are speaking only using "facts" (which is a total and complete falsehood) because you agree with them. That is very clearly what it comes down to. You likewise only choose scientists who agree with you, and dismiss the ones cited against you as "idiot" or say that quotes to them were misattributed. 

Your Tallis point, as Tim rightly pointed out, is so absurd as to question legitimately whether you've read anything on this topic from somewhere other than any hardcore skeptic materialist site. Since consciousness has not been proved, in any way, to be an emergent characteristic of the brain (hence, you know, the thousands of years and continuing discussion and analysis by people much, much more intelligent than us who, unlike you, recognize that the question is very clearly not answered), Tallis has absolutely no obligation to mention it, unless he's mentioning it as a possibility (and if that's what you meant, my apologies - but I certainly did not interpret it that way). That is no different than me saying "[Skeptic scientist/philosopher/literally anyone] is, in my opinion, an idiot because he fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that consciousness does not reduce to the brain." But, I cannot say that, because we don't know if that's a fact or not. Thus, it's an illegitimate requirement. You can think Tallis is an idiot all you want, but if that's your reason it makes absolutely no sense. 

The quote from Heisenberg is plenty substantiated. Again, your only fall back when a well-regarded person says something you disagree with seems to be that they were either stupid or that they can't have really said it. As Sci pointed out, the sort of quote/thought attributed to Heisenberg was far from unique as far as many of the physicists from around the QM founding time goes. It's not as if some mega-skeptic like Dawkins has suddenly been said to have proclaimed that there might actually be a god.

You doubt you misunderstood Albert? Good point - we have no other evidence of you misunderstanding things.

Feser is not proferring an opinion - he's making an argument with a conclusion. He, believe it or not, makes a statement, and then attempts to back it up with evidence or arguments, rather than just blatantly making sweeping statements without any sort of support whatsoever. You should try it sometime, instead of continuing to attack others for the inadequacies you put on display at every opportunity.

You got that?

I said you should fact check Albert thoughts on ESP. You posted his preface  to Sinclair's book and missed the nuanced position within it..

If I were trolling I'd pester more of the threads started by you and others.
A look at Tallis. http://www.adamus.nl/deconstructing-raymond-tallis/

Feel free to enlighten us as to Einstein's views on Psi.

Can you explain what you find compelling about that latter article? Seems like nothing more than a hit piece of the kind you'd write, big on claims but short on actual work of understanding. But perhaps you can finally, after all these years, use the article to explain your objections to Tallis' actual arguments?

Or are you still going to act like a monkey flinging poo, calling Tallis an "idiot" for disagreeing with your materialist faith?

Is it really impossible for a materialist, atheist/agnostic oriented thinker to read the following excerpt from the article Steve linked and think "Boy, that's stretching things considerably beyond where science is today"?

Neuroscience has not (yet) disproved the existence of free will, nor has it managed to explain what consciousness is.

But the science has made massive strides towards finding answers to those pivotal questions. And the direction of this progress points towards an absence of free will and a rather peripheral role of consciousness in the bigger picture of our mental faculties.

That article was littered with faith-based assertions (the likes of which I've previously pointed out to Steve in other threads).  The faith, in this context, is in science vs religion/God/etc.

I just don't understand the lack of intellectual integrity here.

Is it really impossible for a materialist, atheist/agnostic oriented thinker to read the following excerpt from the article Steve linked and think "Boy, that's stretching things considerably beyond where science is today"?


That article was littered with faith-based assertions (the likes of which I've previously pointed out to Steve in other threads).  The faith, in this context, is in science vs religion/God/etc.

I just don't understand the lack of intellectual integrity here.

The author also says "Tallis rejects the reductionist perspective – increasingly embraced by neuroscientists", which surely is an inaccurate statement, and he doesn't back it up with anything. He makes it seem as if this is a new trend, when in reality a presumption of reduction has existed for basically the entirety of neuroscience's existence. There may be more neuroscientists willing to entertain some alteration to the reductive model (with Tallis as an example) than before, if anything - but surely those in favor are not increasing when they've already had a stranglehold on the position since the beginning. It's a nice spin to try to frame the article, though.

Further, it's no wonder steve likes him, since he summarily dismisses philosophy as if it was rendered entirely meaningless with the progress of modern science, another blind spot for those who choose to believe that science is the only path to knowledge. He also cites the fact that Tallis suffered some form of depression as an adolescent, thus sweeping away any legitimacy to Tallis' arguments with steve's personal favorite: how can such an intelligent person come to this conclusion? Emotion, of course! There's no way someone that smart could think that unless they were so swept up by their own personal feelings and bias that they miss the obvious flaws in their position.

Finally, he mentions "mountains" of evidence without citing any, while criticizing Tallis for attacking "simplified portrayals" in the media. I question what studies the author is referencing, given that in nearly every case if you actually look at the studies the media sensationalizes there is not much there as far as conclusions regarding the nature of consciousness go. If anything I would think that claiming that such a mountain of evidence exists could hardly be supported by someone being intellectually honest, and would rather be a result of having read mostly those sensationalized articles about what studies say without looking to the studies themselves with a critical eye.

I find it somewhat mystifying and yet somewhat gratifying that people on this forum are prepared to not only tolerate Steve without banning him but also continue to engage with him even though he is clueless. He doesn't undertand the philosophy so dismisses it out of hand, he doesn't understand the science so he relies on those who have become famous for their atheism or skepticism rather than actually attempting to comprehend. He complains about people not being nice to him while he imagines he has the intellectual high ground and can therefore patronise people who are clearly streets ahead of him in both intellect and knowledge. Yet, after years and years of this he is still posting the same old crap daily.

Out of interest, I wondered what would happen to the equivalent - a religious fundamentalist - on an atheist forum. The first search I did came up with what looks like a typical example: appropriately named "Atheist Forums" (they ask for donations, by the way, so we should be ever grateful for Laird's generosity). This forum actually has a "Hall of Shame" for those they have kicked out. Here are a few comments about the people so dismissed - consider Steve while reading them.

Each refers to a different person:

• Clearly has no thoughts of his own, and prefers to copy lies from Islamic websites instead of debating people.
  
• Thinks that fundamentalist lies are the best way to convince an atheist of God. Doesn't realise that all atheists are at least 10 times smarter than him.
  
• Started off OK but got worse as time went by, almost as if he wanted to be banned. Well, his wish came true!
  
• Typical fundamentalist Christian behaviour; came to an atheist forum where he was not wanted, and proceeded to rattle off ignorant statements concerning "end times" and "fulfilled prophecy". Refused to even consider our rejections of these ideas, and continued his preaching till the end.
  
• Repeatedly attempts to troll the forum. An annoying and intellectually limited moron.