"By now many of you may have tired of my seeming hypocrisy, of my evasive, mealy-mouthed, quasi-theistic mystical pandering. But again, who have I upset or irritated? A bubbling cauldron of cranial soup? Maybe it is your synapses that have misfired, not mine. Perhaps a little more serotonin will help you see it my way, or at least make you happy."

Shouldn't that be "whom have I upset....."?

I want to believe as you do, RA, and that's why I'm so skeptical about it.

I am really starting to like your new way of thinking. Your pondering is refreshing to see.

Have you ever sat and thought..."who am I". I do it all the time. I know I am not you and I am not the chair I sit in, but who is this I that I am?
** (choobus I already know "what" YOU think I am).

Oh for fuck's sake. "I don't want to think I'm purely matter so I can't be, waah waah waah". And you call materialists pitiable.

Go read some of Scathachs stuff on the forums, or Ramchandram's books, or Susan Greenfield, and try to absorb some of the sheer joy, wonder and complexity of the materialist viewpoint. It's you that despairs at "slowly decaying heaps of steaming matter", as if the human body is no more complex than a compost heap (already, I might add, a pretty complex thing), not me or any materialist I know.

Sorry, you made me really pissed off with that one. Go read a biology book and stop whining.

Do you reconciled? OR do you think you know what the me of your mindscape might have had in mind when it didn't say what you thought it wouldn't anyway?

In response to Noah's comment that RA linked to I had this comment/question.

"Every thought you have is part of the same process that tells you this "I" exists. If you can't trust the thought that tells you "I" exists then why trust the thought that tells you it doesn't exist?

Pissed off my bubbling cauldron of cranial soup, I should say.

Oooooo - the 'immaterial consciousness' argument.

"I sigh because I sigh." That's a good one.
At this point, I'm begging to pity you. Your arguments are childish.

Consciousness may indeed be more than the some of its parts; something of astounding complexity may indeed emerge from things much simpler; and, indeed, self-awareness may be the only reality we can ever grasp - but our consciousnesses are physical.
Riddle me this: does this mysterious "I" change if your left index finger was lopped off? Your left arm? Your left brain?

RA, you may dispair unto death, but if matter is the ground of all that is, your wailing will not change a tittle of the truth of it. And so far as science and philosophy have been able to establish, there is no mysterious "spirit" behind the real stuff.

Reconciled, your consciousness is you, and consciousness IS what it is conscious OF. And it can be nothing else.

Im disappointed that you think nothing of the work of generations of neuroscientists since descartes time. Somewhat confrontational from somebody attempting to avoid insults ?

Definitive study of subjective human consciousness is probably beyond scientific investigation. However, we can identify trends, which receptors when activated elicit which response. Which molecules regulate synaptic plasticity , learining and memory? Which genes are involved in these processes. fMRI allows us to watch which brain areas are involved in various cognitive processes. In short we can describe at a molecular level what is "going on" in your head, but we cannot measure how it feels "to be you".

What is understood about consciousness is purely physical/biochemical. You make the assertion that "it cant be just physical" but offer no evidence to support the stance. It's mysticism of the gaps.

We would all like to believe that we are more than just molecules but unfortunately it's wishful thinking/human arrogance.

Will you declare a newfound belief in God in your next post?

This is why philosophy and science don't get along sometimes.

I'm not reluctant to depart from the physical realm for fear of the immaterial; rather, there's no fucking evidence for it. That in turn means that there are no rules by which you can ever determine what "immaterial" actually is. Your Form Incarnate is quite a bit different from someone else's; witness thousands of different religious beliefs. How do you decide which is which?

By reference back to your senses, your logic, your learning. You know -- the same way you would decide that the laws of the universe are immutable. Congratulations, and welcome back to reality.

Unfortunately, reality isn't a matter of taste. (Or maybe fortunately--there would be so many different *tastes* to account for...)

As for the rest of it, I'm going to conclude (and I'm sorry it took me so long) that you're simply having us all on. That, or an interloper has got hold of the real RA's passwords!

(Forgive if this is a repost. I got an error page the last try.)

What is this crap about taking serotonin to see it your way, or to at least make me happy? Does this mean that serotonin will take away my ability to think critically and logically? No thanks.

What evidence supports the conclusion that you are more than a computer made of meat? Is this a "spiritual" belief?

Also, what's so bad about being a computer made of meat? I do not see any reason to suspect that consciousness is anything more than the patterns of neurons firing in our brains. This does not degrade consciousness in terms of value, or undermine the experience of consciousness. Why do you seem so afraid of this worldview? I do not understand.

This makes it official:

The Raving Athiest is a theist, a pussy, a hypocrite, and an all-around self-aggrandizing douchebag.

Dear Raving Atheist,

You are pathetic.

With Love,
Viole Kérinav

Are you sure you won't transfer this site to the gay and gay friendly list?

Actually, the raving gaytheist has a nice ring to it.

Come on RG, you can't keep this up much longer, can you?

RA, I hate to break this to you, but you're wrong. In this latest post, I see still more evidence of you aligning atheists with cold callousness. I'm overwhelmed by the feeling that you are accusing atheists of being heartless mean people, and I'm seeing small hints that you are starting to buy into the religious fairy-tales of the mentally and emotinally lazy.

You are citing some magical piece of you that is more than the sum of your parts, and in the process indirectly insulting those who choose not to believe in this nonsense (and have supported your efforts up until this garbage started), because we know the difference between reality and wishful thinking.

Tenspace, you need to set up a chatroom so that we can start talking about how we're gonna code...

Since that is my comment quoted in the post, I feel I should respond. But my response will be lengthy, so I will post it in the forums. Anyone who cares, feel free to come along.

I remember a friend who discovered Gnosticism and went all gooshy and pink cloudish. At least the increasingly gauzy essays are generating strong responses. I am learning alot from all of the people who have taken the time to respond in depth to TRA's conversion or stroke or whatever it is.

noah nywno: "Have you ever considered that this thing you call 'I' doesn't really exist, at least not in the way you seem to think." [Emphasis mine.]

Raving Atheist: "The experience of self-consciousness is radically different from whatever its cause or substrate may be." [Emphasis mine.]

I really don't see why these two positions are contradictory. If you think I'm nuts, consider the following: Imagine a bunch of marbles laid out in a grid pattern on a table. Some of the marbles are white and some of the marbles are red. The marbles are arranged so that the red marbles form the shape of a star. Does the red star exist? Does it exist in the same way the marbles themselves exist?

noah nywno is basically arguing that human consciousness does not exist in the way the marbles exist. The Raving Atheist is basically arguing that human consciousness exists in the way the red star exists.

It's funny. I took a break from reading this site around the time RA decided to stop maligning Christianity. I've been catching up a bit on the site lately and, you know something? Not much has changed.

Los Pepes: You undoubtedly meant well, when you wrote:

I see still more evidence of you aligning atheists with cold callousness. I'm overwhelmed by the feeling that you are accusing atheists of being heartless mean people...

Well, let's see shall we?

#4 A different Tim: Oh for fuck's sake. "I don't want to think I'm purely matter so I can't be, waah waah waah". And you call materialists pitiable.

Yes, yes. I see. I do believe I see. I feel the warmth. The compassion.

#8 Oc something unpronounceable: Your arguments are childish.

This has the virtue of being short and to the point. Unfortunately, it is untrue and has no other purpose than to insult.

#17 Militant Atheist: The Raving Athiest is a theist, a pussy, a hypocrite, and an all-around self-aggrandizing douchebag.

Brothers and sisters! Can I get an AMEN?? CAN I GET AN AMEN??? What warmth! What kindness and charity! Why, the very idea of calling such a mensch "callous". It is an outrage!

Yes, Los Pepes, as we clearly see, it is a vile canard to call atheists callous, heartless and mean. We should all be ashamed. I know I am.

RA, get over it.

And, enjoy yourself: it's later than you think.

I tried very hard to follow your philosophizing, but I got lost. It reminded me of an acid trip I took in 1971 as a young and stupid hippie wanna-be. But that's OK. What I learned from that trip is that the truth was not to be found in mental masturbation, either with or without psychedelic drugs. I found the truth with capital T later in my life - and it wasn't with the hippies but with the Jesus freaks.

Go read some of Scathachs stuff on the forums, or Ramchandram's books, or Susan Greenfield, and try to absorb some of the sheer joy, wonder and complexity of the materialist viewpoint. It's you that despairs at "slowly decaying heaps of steaming matter", as if the human body is no more complex than a compost heap (already, I might add, a pretty complex thing), not me or any materialist I know.

Go read a biology book and stop whining.

So your answer to a person unsatisfied with looking at diagrams of how things work (neuroscience), but rather is interested in the real thing in action (persons) seems to me to boil down to ‘sit down and shut up.’

What if looking at diagrams doesn’t give one a sense of joy or wonder? Why must everyone bow to your god of wonder and complexity anymore than they should bow to mine? What a laod of shite.

Sorry, you made me really pissed off with that one.;-)

Lily, you heartless bum, how dare you criticize atheists as being heartless and cruel without quoting the elegant simplicity of my post.

LOL! I did in the original version. But we have been reconciled, so to speak, for such a short time, I didn't want to return to the status quo ante!

Don't worry, RA, I totally get it. I love Dawn too. And I've renounced my belief and/or nonbelief structure for chicks countless times. It's practically a Man Law.

Logic according to RA:

1. If it makes me feel bad, it must be wrong.

2. If it makes me think of flowers and butterflies and mountaintop views, it must be right.

3. Science will never figure everything out, so let's just start filling in the gaps with stuff we want to be true.

4. Long chemical names make me feel bad about myself.

5. Quarks make me feel bad about myself.

6. Anyone who tries to use science or my own hyprocrisy against me will make me feel bad, thus proving my argument that I am an emotional soulful person and not just a hunk of matter.

I sigh as well because "Neuroscience will never adequately account for what we are" is a ridiculous statement.

'This has the virtue of being short and to the point. Unfortunately, it is untrue and has no other purpose than to insult."

Let's see... looking back over RA's post, it still strikes me as being very childish. Also, I don't see how claiming that the argument is childish is an insult - arguments have feelings, now?

Furthermore, Lily, I must say that your attempt to use my post to label atheists as heartless and cruel was uncalled for. Of course, I am heartless and cruel - but that doesn't make RA's argument any less childish.

Well, RA, I must say I find your mysticism interesting, but ultimately short-sighted. Even through my chemical feelings I can see your chemical feelings on this matter are self-antagonistic. I would no more equate you to my fantasy feel-good chemical spin-off, than I expect you to equate me to your fantasy feel-good chemical spin-off. I look forward to the day neuro-science can precisely mapout the human experience of consciousness. Hey, maybe they'll be able to use such knowledge to reinforce the human mind with more ability, maybe to cure modern mind-related illness, or for who knows what else. The possibilities may be endless, and even just looking forward to such a time gleefully bubbles up cranial soup.

RA, if your consciousness is more than just your mind, would you confidently be willing to test this by surgically meddling with areas of your brain to test it? I'm not. Even applying something as minor as a brain affecting chemical drug fiddles with consciousness in all form of messed up strange ways. Physically altering it, alters patterns that follow, thus alters your complete person altogether. Face it man, there's no pixies behind the blooming of a beautiful flower. And if we have feelings only because through them we're able to appreciate life, motivating us to carry forth, and reproduce, then so what? It's better to know, and appreciate, rather than to delude yourself.

Excuse me, but I think that I recognize a bleaker version of a religious dogma called predestination.

I can't see that it makes much difference which agency is supposedly at work, your unknown physical principles, or an inaccessible God. It's a matter of blind faith either way.

I think that free will as an inherent attribute of the creative human spirit is much closer to actual experience.

BTW, "seen through a screen darkly," love the reference :-)

Trudy

RA, you have written a masterpiece: a penultimate parody of religious argument. All the fallacies you taught, subtly woven into one stunning presentation, yet within the bounds of not maligning (your oh-so-pitiful Crown of Thorns).

Humorous side thrusts, such as the asinine assumption of cosmic purpose, the use of circular reasoning to decry circular reasoning, the deft change of meaning and level to forestall analysis. And the ending - oh the ending - about immutable Laws that require Truth to be delivered in Form Incarnate - I laughed my ass off.

[i]I think that free will as an inherent attribute of the creative human spirit is much closer to actual experience.[/i]

Yeah, because you can free will yourself out of your biological attributes set from the moment of your conception? No. Cut into your brain, dividing both hemispheres and let others see your change in "free will".

And with that note, I will say human "spirit" creativity is the brain chemically masturbating in real-time. It is human experience.

The immutable laws of the universe may require that for Truth to be received by humans it must delivered in a Form Incarnate.

Look, if you want to get into Dawn's pants, do what innumerable other males have done before you and lie to her. Don't lie to yourself - it just makes you look pathetic.

In #23, Mister Swill gives a nice example about the stars and marbles. Hofstadter's works, including Godel Escher Bach, are full of the idea too. Most Truths cannot be uncovered by formal proof, and reductionism fails to easily demonstrate what is our dearest characteristic: our self.

Every action, and every human act overflows with meaning, but on multiple levels. (E.g. what your brain intended, what your neurons did, what your muscles did. Then what materially happened. Then did that action express kindness or malice towards someone else. How were they changed.)

A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace. The matter and form (outward sign) cause what they signify (the grace.)

Amongst all religions, there is debate on how many sacraments there are, when they were instituted, who can perform them, and on and on.

But sacraments, as defined, exist, because humans exist.

Atheists shout their objections all day long, but it isn't a question of reason, it is a question of meaning.

Who would claim that a dozen red roses presented to another produces no meaningful effect outside mere appearance and aroma?

It's been pointed out before, so I'll just say this briefly:
The fallacy of wishful thinking is simply unworkable not impressive, no matter who uses it - and no matter HOW depressed they say it makes them feel.

Sorry, didn't close the HREF.
outward sign of inward grace

Trudy, the concept of predestination is not exclusively a Calvinist or otherwise religious doctrine. A Predestinator is not required.

As for "free will," I challenge you to change at this moment (and for a mere moment--just long enough for your proof) any belief or conviction you hold. If you cannot, then you act on beliefs and convctions you have either acquired willy-nilly or had impressed upon your mind by other agents. You only feel that you act "freely" because you are conscious of what you intend. --Thorngod

RA,

Where does our sense of self really come from? What external influence would be required to light the spark of awareness? As Dawkins says, the phenotype is the external representation of the genotype. All those cells and chemicals, all created, controlled, and destroyed by your very own genome.

I think it's a good idea for a reality check every now and then, but from your current post I must assume that your are open to concepts that aren't a part of reality. Is it really necessary to look outside of your set of genes? Can we not explain our whole of existence from the unbroken chain of complex codes, codes that gain information with every generation, every population that has lived to reproduce, mutate, and evolve?

Where is this source of external influence, RA?

Forrest C, there are stars and marbles and there are beauty and aroma. The first two named are results of grosser physical stuff and produce certain conditioned effects on the receptors of living organisms. The third is a Darwinian impress on the brain which I have explored in an essay too lengthy to include here, and the fourth we all know to be a molecular essence that impacts on various nasal receptors. All four are physical, and their interpretations are the effects of physicality.

The vocabulary of theology and metaphysics vary considerably from those of philosophy and the sciences. The substance of the sanctified wine is holy blood; the apparent chemical constituants and the bouquet are all "accidents" in the language and "reality" of theology. Science translates this as nonsense.

Science does not yearn to achieve a "unified field theory" in which it may meld with theology. Religion hopes it beyond hope. But never the twain shall meet. --Thorngod.

Thorngod,

Can humans only observe the sun occluding behind the horizon...Or can we ever appreciate a good sunset?

You and I agree that what theology calls "accidents" are there.

The problem is that what your reductionist approach calls "Darwinian Impress" does not describe
the subjective experience at a level above the subconscious. Yet we certainly are aware we appreciate
good sunsets, and can even compare today's Beauty with last year's. The experience is not merely
subconscious.

Granted, it may all be observed to be Darwinian Impress. But that is not how we EXPERIENCE it subjectively.

Is that experience real? Can the marbles of Darwinian Impress ever form a real star?

big sweaty bollocks

"Shouldn't that be 'whom have I upset.....'?" --Choobus

"Who" is the subject version of the question word that asks for a person. "Whom" is the objective case. If you reorder the sentence as a statement, it goes like: "I have offended him." Him is an object, so the proper case for the question word is objective. Good call, Choobus

Thanks bookstopper!
So many people just don't understand me......

It had to come to this. Now RA rejects evolution in favor of a mystical ego.

Wow, you have brought out the old, "I wouldn't like it if it was true so it can't be true" argument. Do you realise how stupid that is?

For Osiris' sake man, life is cruel, that's just the way it is. Things are what they are and you can't sugar coat it. You are alluding to human arrogance.

RA,

Have you considered the existential dilemma from a viewpoint other than simple reductionism? Perhaps from the Stoic perspective? What do you make of Camus' words:

When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy rises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory, this is the rock itself. The boundless grief is too heavy to bear. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. Thus, Oedipus at the outset obeys fate without knowing it. But from the moment he knows, his tragedy begins. Yet at the same time, blind and desperate, he realizes that the only bond linking him to the world is the cool hand of a girl. Then a tremendous remark rings out: "Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well." Sophocles' Oedipus, like Dostoevsky's Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom confirms modern heroism.

Steve G said
So your answer to a person unsatisfied with looking at diagrams of how things work (neuroscience), but rather is interested in the real thing in action (persons) seems to me to boil down to ‘sit down and shut up.’

No Steve. My point, as both you and Lily are aware, that the argument from personal distaste - "this conclusion makes me uncomfortable so I won't accept it" - is not only bullshit, but pernicious bullshit. Look at RAs post again. Look at how he tries to slant the argument with emotive terms. "slowly decaying heaps of steaming matter". "robots made of meat". "slaves of some organism". This is nothing but incoherent rhetoric. Well, I can provide some rhetoric for the materialist viewpoint as well.

Steve G said
So your answer to a person unsatisfied with looking at diagrams of how things work (neuroscience), but rather is interested in the real thing in action (persons) seems to me to boil down to ‘sit down and shut up.’

No, Steve, my answer is that he should stop using incoherent rhetoric ("Slowly decaying heaps of organic matter", "robots made of meat", etc), and stop using the argument from personal distaste ("I don't like this conclusion so it can't be true"). Above all, he should stop misrepresenting my views. Clearly neither I nor other materialists "think of ourselves this way".

I despair of people who see themselves and the world through the lens of their cruel and destructive superstition. Our bodies are, to them, no more than slowly decaying heaps of organic matter, to be discarded, our essential selves steeped in sin and filth from birth, our very nature somehow unworthy. How can they think of themselves that way, as slaves to an alleged deity which somehow has a "purpose", although what that purpose is is unclear?

The difference between RA's comments and mine? I don't have time to think up as many insults, and I haven't taken a public vow to stop misrepresenting my opponents.

Lily, I don't know what to say. You seem to think that compassion is the same as being polite. I thought, far from being cold and unfeeling, I reacted quite emotionally to the distortion of the argument that RA has perpetrated here.

Contd - pushed post button by mistake

Above all he should stop misrepresenting my views. Clearly neither I nor other materialists "think of ourselves this way".
I despair of people who see themselves and the world through the lens of their cruel and destructive superstition. Our bodies are, to them, no more than slowly decaying heaps of organic matter, to be discarded, our essential selves steeped in sin and filth from birth, our very nature somehow unworthy. How can they think of themselves that way, as slaves to an alleged deity which somehow has a "purpose", although what that purpose is is unclear?

The difference between RA's comments and mine? I don't have time to think up as many insults, and I haven't taken a public vow to stop misrepresenting my opponents. It seems this only applies to theists after all.

Lily, I don't know what to say. You seem to think that compassion is the same as being polite. I thought, far from being cold and unfeeling, I reacted quite emotionally to the distortion of the argument that RA has perpetrated here.

Crap. Multiple post. All my drafts got posted up.....Read the second one. If anyopne can take off 52 and 54 that would make sense.

Above all, he should stop misrepresenting my views. Clearly neither I nor other materialists "think of ourselves this way".

But ADT, this is just flat out wrong. Read this very thread and you'll see that indeed this is exactly what many (of course not all) claim, and it's not by a longshot the first time I've seen atheist claim that things are just as RA lays them out.

I undertand if you don't like the way RA phrased it, especially if you feel it doesn't apply to you, but let's not pretend that the descriptions used and applied have no warrant.

"A bubbling cauldron of cranial soup"

I dated a guy like that once.

Different Tim, you make good sense.

If I may add an image that I get as I take my walks along the Pacific and watch the surf. Every few seconds, like a giant heartbeat, the ocean generates a wave that rushes to the shore with white bubbles and froth, then fades back and disappears, only to be replaced seconds later by another wave that roils and thunders to the shore.

This has gone on for millions of years, and I am quite content to be a part of this ancient rhythm. But it would be silly for waves to proclaim that they were specially created for a cosmic purpose.

Steve. Nonononononono.

OK. I, and many others, assert the materialist stance. We can legitimately agree, or otherwise, about that.

What RA is asserting is that the materialist stance is one of despair, decaying organic matter, and meat robots. I'm saying this is wrong (that time I wore the robot gimp suit for my girlfriend doesn't count, OK?).

The reason I'm saying it's wrong is that it's an artefact of his view of the universe. It's perfectly possible to come from a materialist perspective and see the world as a thing of hope and beauty, like June does. Fine, I and most atheists are materialists. But we don't view the material world with the contempt that RA (and many theists) appear to. We think it's cool. We think matter is interesting. We think the fact that matter can be conscious is awesome.

In fact - and this is the main point I wanted to make - the universe is what it is. Neither RA's negative view of matter, or my positive view of it, make one iota of difference to the question of whether we are matter or matter plus mysterious ingredient X (oh, call it a soul if you want, I don't mind). RA is trying to justify a factual claim about the universe with an appeal to emotion. It's a basic category error, it's dishonest because he knows better, and even on an emotional level it's a misrepresentation of the actual position most materialists take.

ADT
I don’t have problem with what you’ve said in this last post, but with all do respect, if that was your original point, you mangled it beyond belief.

Your original post was a reprimand to RA for not being as satisfied with that view as you and others seem to be…

Oh for fuck's sake. "I don't want to think I'm purely matter so I can't be, waah waah waah". And you call materialists pitiable.

Go read some of Scathachs stuff on the forums, or Ramchandram's books, or Susan Greenfield, and try to absorb some of the sheer joy, wonder and complexity of the materialist viewpoint. It's you that despairs at "slowly decaying heaps of steaming matter", as if the human body is no more complex than a compost heap (already, I might add, a pretty complex thing), not me or any materialist I know.
Sorry, you made me really pissed off with that one.

Go read a biology book and stop whining.

Beyond that, I think it was pretty clear that it was RA saying that HE despairs (not that you do or should) at a notion which he sees as ultimately devolving into the meat robot. And I happen to agree with him that ,at least from where I stand, that’s what it does devolve into. But that doesn’t need to necessarily imply that you and others view it that way.

But your original pushback against his post was an emotional appeal to the wonder of complexity, and the awesomeness of it all. That’s no less mysterious and unquantifiable than anything RA offered in his original post.

Does anyone else think that TRA's "friend" to whom he made his unspecified promise has the initials J.C.?

Forest C, Darwinism, strictly speaking, describes only the processes of life, which is an anomoly in a virtually lifeless universe. Stars are momentary phenomena "created" by particular configurations of mass and energy in the eternal turmoil of what is.

Experience is necessarily subjective. The raison detre of consciousness is the same as that of the basic brain: it evolved to serve the body, which is primary. Your "I" is its servant, and all the artifacts of your character and personality are mere after-effects of that basic awareness. Enjoy them while you may.

Memo

From: God

To: My sheeps

I sent you Christ, but given the state of affairs in earth, this move, at this point, looks ineffective. It seems to be that the immutable laws of the universe may require, once again, that for truth to be received by humans it must be delivered in a form incarnate. I'm working in a new project. You will be informed but I can advance you that in my new version, I won't use a cross and will take advantage of the new technologies and the advice of Lily. I'm thinking in something like a Website where the new Christ will be crucified by the cruel and immoral unbelievers. Why a new Christ? I won't tell you that and don't dare to ask me why I will not. Don't forget I'm changeless and the Old Testament still applies.

"I" am a pinball bouncing between different ideas supplied by my electro-chemical brain.

Stevey baby!

The "waah waah waah" comment was against the argument from personal distaste which RA was making, and which you're still ignoring. I think that's pretty clear.

Beyond that, RA is doing rather more than saying it's only his view. He says the explanations reduce us to slowly decaying heaps etc, not that he does. His entire concept of matter seems to be derived from the Cathars - didn't you guys have a crusade against those people for that?. He characterised Noah's original comment as "self-degradation". I see no sign of this in Noah's post - it's purely projection on RA's part. He states as if it were true that "matter doesn't matter". Most of all, he shows no sign that there is another way of looking at it. And he sure is whining about it. I stand by my original post. Sure, it was an emotional response, as I made clear at the time and have in subsequent posts. It made me angry. It makes me angry now. Sure, you and other theists (and apparently RA) can argue that the materialist stance is wrong, but don't try to claim that it inevitably carries the emotional freight that you, not us, try to project onto it.

Am I talking to the same Steve G that so lucidly argues that our conceptions of Christianity as cruel, heartless, irrational and so on are mistaken, projections of our own prejudices? And may we not do the same with your and RA's view of materialism?

And complexity "mysterious and unquantifiable"? There's a lot of maths that argues otherwise. But it's no less awesome for that.

I'm going to add to the confusion here:

Most everything is greater than the sum of its' parts, when that 'thing' is doing "something'. Get it? Of course I'm greater than the sum of all my synapses, chemicals, etc., but only while I'm doing something, anything. Once dead, I am no longer greater than the sum of my parts, since the sum of my parts no longer do anything. And where I got this idea I do not know, and even if I knew, I wouldn't tell you, so there.

Another idea:

If "matter doesn't matter", then what's up with matter? It just then becomes superfluous, and therefore anyone could destroy your matter, and it wouldn't matter. (Why would God need to create matter, if it doesn't matter?)

SeveralSpecies
One term you are looking for is "emergent property". For example, one leg cannot walk by itself; walking is an emergent property of having two legs. Another term is "catalyst", which is something that needs to be present for a process to work, but does not participate in it.

Maledictus
If God sends JC again, we'll kill him again. He needs to change his divine plan. Send someone who brings peace to the Middle East, cures cancer, heals AIDS, and lowers gas prices.

Militant

Ra sent his commitment by e-mail. Do you believe I need e-mail having the holy ghost who is gazillions of MPH more rapid than electrons?

wacht yourself and don't provoke my célébre Wrath !!

J.C.

Quit lying to the regulars and to new visitors - change the title bar on your page to more accurately reflect your newfound beliefs. You are still "Raving", but certainly not an atheist.

Hey ADT, you know I love you!

Of course you are free to argue against what you see as a mistaken view of materialism. I suppose that the problem is that we’ve read the same post and seem to have seen something entirely different in it.

For instance, and I honestly ask this, where do you see that he has advocated a view of matter as evil, detestable, or negative? He did say…

I despair at those explanations which reduce us to nothing more than slowly-decaying heaps of steaming matter, to the proverbial robots made of meat.

…but then later says…

Certainly I recognize there is a relationship between my consciousness and my brain, that there is perhaps some necessary foundation of matter which must support my every thought.

..and…

And again, I concede that matter may well be essential.

I am perplexed as to why you are equating to Catharism? What am I missing that is leading you to that conclusion? To say that matter isn’t everything is not to say it’s nothing, is it?

ADT Said