Except that’s not what I said is it, and you ingored the context see below:
So you ignored the context of the claim I was responding to, and you misrepresented what I’d said, and as @Calilasseia points out you misrepresented the limits of science’s current understanding of quantum mechanics, and all to use a single example to create a poisoning of the well fallacy, based on a straw man, since I never said science currently enabled us to fully understand quantum mechanics, or even mentioned it.
Since science and its methods are solely to extend our knowledge and understanding, it follows that the alternative to science isn’t religion, it is ignorance, though to be sure religions including christianity, have championed ignorance for centuries.
Did we have a citation for this? What am I saying, of course we didn’t, so leaving aside you seem have plucked another entirely unevidenced claim from thin air, they happen to be some of the most secular countries on earth, compared to the global average: According to a 2012 Pew Research Center study, 16% of people worldwide are religiously unaffiliated, which includes atheists, agnostics,
Wrong again—qualia are also studied by neuroscience and psychology. In fact, you cited a paper about it.
Here we go again. You obviously omitted the first answer I posted, where I pointed out that the nations fighting against Nazism were also Christian. You ignore this entirely and repeat the same argument. Then, you try to minimize the role of Nietzsche’s ideas, which are founded on the concept that ‘God is dead’ and its consequences.
When I clearly showed you that the supremacist ideas leading to the most horrific crimes were based on the notion of a superior man—a concept that stems from a misinterpretation of Nietzsche—you offered your own interpretation.
You insist on associating Christianity with the Nazis, but when I associate atheism with communist crimes, you refuse to acknowledge it. This is double standards, and it’s a perfect example of why I refrain from responding to you. It makes no sense, and I have serious doubts about your honesty.
I repeat, all of them come from a CHRISTIAN CULTURE. Not only that, but look at the List of countries that cared most about human rights in the 1960s or 1970s, and then consider the number of affiliates…
Failing to see the connection between all of this and Christianity seriously casts doubt on your ability to have an objective perspective.
Having said this, I don’t want to spend another second with you. Remember, you owe me an apology. Not only that, I only commented to support another user who was being unjustly ridiculed by your barrage of unfounded attacks.
Only for the last 1500 years. Before that they were all Pagan Nordic cultures for thousands of years more. Those Nordics were way ahead in terms of sex equality precisely because, like the Gaelic cultures, women were not property but had a special status that was not destroyed until christianity and its middle eastern cultural afflictions were imposed. But it never died, and in the last 100 years has reasserted itself in those cultures bringing the benefits of Human rights, Social cohesion and prosperity.
Maybe what you say is true. I’m not a fanatic who can’t acknowledge anything good in other cultures and beliefs. Maybe what you say has some basis—I don’t know. But for the same reason that I’m able to say this, I also see the relationship between these countries and Christianity as obvious.
Anyway, I find it absurd to minimize the role of Christianity. This is like minimizing the role of Islam or any other cultural group. Everyone has made their own contributions to what we are today, and everyone deserves to be acknowledged for their merits. This includes Christianity, of course, as well as many other cultures.
People always tend to go to extremes—seeing things as all good or all bad—but the truth rarely lies in the extremes.
You have spent weeks telling us it is a problem for science and materialism, now suddenly qualia provide empirical data?
Wrong again I answered expansively, and you;re wrong, of the five allies only two could be considered christian countries at that period, I also explained why your erroneous non sequitur was irrelevant, as it in no way supported your claims about the crimes of Nazi Germany and secularism.
I have minimised nothing, merely added context, and pointed again that it does not support your original claims.
For centuries European christianity had demonised Jews as inferior, the roots of antisemitism lie in Christianity not Nietzsche.
It is an objective fact that 96% of germany was christian at that time, it is an objective fact that both Himmler and Hitler forbade atheists from joining the SS, and therefore that the SS were christians. it is an objective fact that European christianity had demonised and persecuted Jews for centuries as inferior, and that the largest christian church signed a concordat with Hitler and Nazism. After their crimes were full realised how many top Nazis did the RCC excommunicate, just one, and that because he married a divorced protestant. This association is not mine, you have gone from misrepresenting fact to an outright lie now.
That’s a lie, I merely pointed out there is nothing specific in communist economics that forbids religion as you claimed. You are the one claiming the 5 allies were christian countries, are you under the impression the Soviet Union wasn’t one of those allies, or the largely atheistic People’s republic of China, or the secular socialist Republic of France?
On that we can agree, but I suspect for very different reasons.
You have never refrained from responding to me, but yes I can see why someone letting the air out of your facile unevidenced and erroneous claims is frustrating, where we part company is where the blame lies for that.
Your response is unnecessary to me exposing your claims as false or poorly reasoned, and I have for a long time had no doubts whatsoever about your honesty, all anyone need do is read this discourse from the very first post to see why.
Hilarious, so the current stature of their desire for human rights, which was a bare unevidenced claim by you, has nothing to do with their present secularism, but to do with the fact they were historically christian, not only a glaring double standard, but you said we shouldn’t care less about analysing history, but should focus on the present, this just gets funnier and funnier.
A bare claim, used to make a bare assertion about Christianity, about countries that are some of the most secular among free democracies, what connection?
I can’t tell you how little that bothers me, but this is a public debate forum, and I am free to comment, as is anyone else.
Au contraire…
I shall let others decide if my responses were unfounded, and though I may ridicule ideas sometimes if they deserve it, it is very seldom, and I was not attacking anyone, only commenting on ideas, nor do I believe that was your primary motivation for a second.
I can’t wait to see him tap dance around those facts.
For some context here then is your original claim, that you interjected to a response I had made to another poster, included for context:
As we see it is you who is determined to pretend these crimes were not in any way associated with christianity. Atheism has no doctrine or dogma, so of course one cannot blame atheism directly for what someone who happens to be an atheist does, though of course some people who don’t believe in deities may commit terrible crimes, though this is largely because they have absolute power, and inevitably abuse it.
That’s a lie then, though it is of course confusing correlation with causation. If someone who doesn’t believe unicorns exist, commits a heinous crime, we don’t associate the crime with not believing in unicorns, why would we? So why do you associate not believing in deities with the crimes of those who happen not to hold such beliefs. Especially when we know all dictators in totalitarian regimes commit such crimes, whether they believe in a deity or not.
Ratty made a sweeping unevidenced claim about christians and compassion, I merely pointed out the evidence does not support his claim.
If I had any point made a comparable claim, suggesting all atheists were compassionate, then your histrionics might look a little less like you’re simply butt hurt that the evidence demonstrates tens of millions of christians complicit to some degree in Nazi genocide, with the killing squads of the SS being exclusively made of theists, from a population that was 96% christian.
That scientists have been able to develop a robust understanding of the universe and its contents, without needing to bother with your precious “qualia”, refutes your assertions on this matter.
Poppycock. See above. Your precious “qualia” are an irrelevance as far as vast swathes of scientific research are concerned, and irrelevant to most everyday interactions. Indeed, there are many people who manage to conduct their thinking in a perfectly reasonable and rational manner, without even knowing that the word “qualia” exists.
Garbage.
Oh wait, I’m aware of, for example, neuroscience research establishing that we can reconstruct still images and movies people have experienced from fMRI data. If your assertions were something other than ex recto apologetic fabrications, this would be impossible.
Oh this is going to be good …
A philosophy journal, not a science journal. Plus, where did you find these “3,000” cutstions" from? Colour me suspicious. Next …
Again, a context free citation that doesn’t involve any rigorous statements to check. Next …
Nagel’s frequent excursions into waffle are littered with issues. Next …
Agaon, a bare citation without any actual substance accompanying it is worthless.
[quote=“JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU, post:117, topic:5231, full:true”]In short, qualia is an important topic of debate in science.
[/quote]
Poppycock. It might be a subject for assertionist navel gazing among so-called “philosophers”, but compared to other topics, it’s an irrelevance in science. Four papers, is that all you have to offer? For comparison, there are over 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers published in the field of evolutionary biology, and none of them bother with your precious “qualia”. That’s how “important” the topic is. Likewise,there are something like five million papers in physics, and another five million papers in chemistry, within which your precious “qualia” are a hilarious irrelevance.
Woke up to quite a lot to read this morning! I’ll just pop in a couple of wee comments.
She was, imo, a horrible person who treated the sick and poor abysmally. She took donations under false pretenses. She consorted with some pretty sketchy people. She was a liar and a cheat.
By responding with this as your example, you completely bypass centuries of systemic anti-semitism. Ever hear of Martin Luther?
Nietzsche’s writings greatly motivated the Nazi regime? Please show your work.
You also fail to acknowledge the economic depression in the region at the time of Hitler’s rise and its use by him to demonize the Jews as scapegoats by blaming them for it.
Hitler tapped into the long-standing bigotry and the problems associated with economics as means to gather power and control.
14,000 citations… including citations in neuroscience, and you think this is irrelevant to science? Let’s take a look at the evidence. (From wikipedia)
Gerald Edelman
In his book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate in Physiology / Medicine Gerald Edelman says “that [it] definitely does not seem feasible […] to ignore completely the reality of qualia”. As he sees it, it is impossible to explain color, sensations, and similar experiences “to a ‘qualia-free’ observer” by description alone.
Antonio Damasio
Neurologist Antonio Damasio, in his book The Feeling Of What Happens, defines qualia as “the simple sensory qualities to be found in the blueness of the sky or the tone of sound produced by a cello, and the fundamental components of the images in the movie metaphor are thus made of qualia.”[
Rodolfo Llinás
Neurologist Rodolfo Llinás states in his book I of the Vortex that from a strictly neurological perspective, qualia exist and are important to the organism’s survival. He argues that qualia were important for the evolution of the nervous system of organisms, …
Vilayanur Ramachandran
Neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein[40] proposed three laws of qualia (with a fourth later added), which are “functional criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for certain neural events to be associated with qualia”
Look… all these neuroscientists arguing about nonsense…
You don’t understand the difference between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness… that explains a lot…
The context is this conversation, and the paper is one of many that explores qualia—this ‘irrelevant’ issue that has garnered at least 20,000 citations from the papers I’m showing here…
5,800 citations on a paper exploring the problem we’re dealing with here, and you say it has no substance…
… don’t forget to mention the ‘insignificant’ neuroscientists I’ve mentioned… Damasio is… nobody… for example…
And I merely pointed out that the evidence you provided is a fallacy. If you continue to associate Nazism with Christianity, even knowing that many Christians died to stop Nazism, then I will associate atheism with all the atrocities of communism. Just as not all Christians are Nazis, not all atheists are communists. Now do you understand?
We get a lot of Christians on here claiming that Hitler was an atheist when in fact he wasn’t. No one is stating that all Christians are Nazis. Just stating the fact that Hitler was neither an Atheist nor was he a Pagan despite his warped xtian views.
Ok, that’s a reasonable point—maybe Hitler was ‘Christian,’ but that doesn’t define the rest of Christians or say anything relevant about Christianity, in my opinion. I believe power is like weight; everyone has a limit, and exceeding that limit can lead to self-destruction.
Thank you for speaking in a straightforward manner
Ah, the apologetic abuse of science continues … quelle surprise …
I’ve seen what mythology fanboys consider to be “evidence” … bad “quotes” includiing outright quote mines featuring prominently. Let’s see what garbage you’re serving up, shall we?
Oh, this would be the same Gerald Edelman who proposed a Darwinian model of neural development and interconnection, and explicitly stated in his works that he regarded the mind as a direct product of brain function? As revealed not only on the Wikipedia page decoted to Edelman’s work, which devotes several paragraphs to his neural Darwinism ideas, but revealed in this review of the book you claim supports your ex recto apologetic fabrications ?
The same Gerald Edelman who proposed a biological theory of consciousness? The same Gerald Edelman who regarded brain chemistry as underpinning our thoughts? More on this here.
Oh, and since physicists have had a perfectly adequate working model for colour for 300 years, again, your assertions are refuted by reality.
As for that purported “quote” … oh wait, the moment we see ellipses in a "quote, it’s usually a sign that a quote mine is being presented. Care to provide the full context?
Once again, diligence is manifestly absent from mythology fanboy apologetics.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Damasio is the author of numerous peer reviewed scientific papers covering the influence of the brain upon consciousness, and his wife Hanna also publishes research in the same vein. An example thereof being provided by this paper:
Characterisation Of The Decision-Making Deficit Of Patients With Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Lesions by Antione Bechara, Daniel Tranel and Hanna Damasio, Brain, 123: 2189-2202 (2000) [Full paper available online here]
From that paper:
Oh look, predictable and objectively measurable behaviour correlated with a material cause. No memtion of your precious “qualia” anywhere in that paper.
I suspect I could find numerous other papers from both members of the Damasio family exhibiting the same total absence of any mention of your precious “qualia”, and instead concentrating upon predictable and objectively measurable behaviour correlated with a material cause. Indeed, even his Wikipedia page reveals the following:
Oh look, he again regards the mind as having a biological basis.
In George Scialabba’s otherwise fair review of Jerry Coyne, he examines the assertion that Stalin, Mao, and Hitler committed their atrocities in part because they were unbelievers. While it is certainly true that Mao and Stalin were unbelievers, I am surprised to see Hitler placed unreflectively in the same category.
The evidence that Hitler was a staunch Christian is overwhelming. He banned secular education in Germany on the basis that Christian religious instruction is essential to moral development, repeatedly vilified atheism, and although he often clashed with Catholic bishops over his ill-treatment of Jews, Hitler did not perceive himself as being anti-Christian, but rather as bringing the Church back to what he saw as its proper, traditional role in persecuting the pestilent. While negotiating the Reichskonkordat, Hitler said to Bishop Berning that suppressing Jews was, “doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”
There are numerous other examples, from Mein Kampf (“only fools and criminals would think of abolishing existing religion”), to Hitler’s letters (1941: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”), to the Gott Mit Uns motto on German army uniforms during the Nazi era, to the Lutheran Church in Berlin, full of carvings celebrating Hitler’s rise to power (including an exquisitely carved SA paramilitary trooper on the baptismal font), to the amended 1934 loyalty oath of the German military (“I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht…”).
Perhaps the most telling Hitler quote of all shows that not only did he believe in God, he believed his racial purity laws would protect God’s creation from spoliation by interbreeding.
That’s a lie, but do please name the fallacy for us, and present a cogent argument as to why you think I’ve used any fallacy in informal logic here. I shall look forward to never acknowledging your lie from this point forward, whilst continuing to falsely accuse me of dishonest, based multiple straw man fallacies you have used.
The objective facts demonstrate the behaviour of christians during that period, and again you dishonestly mispresenting the context, which was ratty’s claim that “christianity is compassion personified.”
I have never once suggested otherwise, so another straw man, created to dishonest deflect from the original context, your dishonesty is starting to stink the place out now.
Crack on champ, construct all the facile irrational lies you want, do you imagine I ever thought you’d stop? I shall of course continue to point out that your histrionics is simple butt hurt bias, as don’t want to acknowledge the centuries of cruel prejudice and persecution christianity is directly responsible for.
Straw man fallacy, since I have never once remotely suggested they were.
Again why you are telling me something I already know, and that is trivially true only you can know, but this comment does not expunge your previous lies. You seem determined to spin this away from the context of ratty’s original claim, that “christianity is compassion personified”, and I merely asked how much compassion was evidenced by the 96% of Germans that were christians during the Nazi era?
Aw bless, I am pretty sure I understood from your very first post, but it is fitting you end with the same grandiloquent condescension you started with.
Trolltacular…tell me again how dishonest I was being for calling this many many posts ago…bless…
There is no maybe about it, but even if he were an atheist, how does this change the point I made ordinally about a claim from another poster, that you seem determined to ignore, and spin endless lies about?
Care to quote anyone claiming it does? It is a fact that 96% of German christians went along, and that the SS had to be theists to get in, and that the RCC signed a concordat with nazism? At least we can stop asking which archaic superstition and deity you’re peddling, though no credit attaches itself to you for honestly stating this from the start.
Tens of millions of christians, and the catholic church complicit in genocide, and it’s not relevant? Is this why William Lane Craig can casually be a public apologist for genocide?
