Why I think atheists should not reject all religious text.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seeing an insect run for its life doesn't mean it is experiencing the same level of fear a human does when they're running for their life. Think of color-depth for instance. The more colors an image is made up of like 8-bit vs 24-bit has a big impact on how realistic and vivid the image appears. The image may have the same basic appearance and describe the same thing but it's accuracy is based on the quantity of information used to express it.

What's your favorite rube goldberg? Quantity or complexity of effect can be misleading. You recognize that in the ant....how about us? How can we imply that our fear is more accurate, or on some other level....when you have no criticism for the ant that would not apply for the man? Aren't both sitting at nil presently with regards to level of consciousness- if we decide to downplay the role of observation?

(Insects lack sufficient hardware to provide recognizably mammalian emotional responses, would ant emotional response be lesser somehow for being different? What are the differences between the two that stick out to you?)

[boothj1985]

Seeing an insect run for its life doesn't mean it is experiencing the same level of fear a human does when they're running for their life. Think of color-depth for instance. The more colors an image is made up of like 8-bit vs 24-bit has a big impact on how realistic and vivid the image appears. The image may have the same basic appearance and describe the same thing but it's accuracy is based on the quantity of information used to express it.

What's your favorite rube goldberg? Quantity or complexity of effect can be misleading. You recognize that in the ant....how about us? How can we imply that our fear is more accurate, or on some other level....when you have no criticism for the ant that would not apply for the man? Aren't both sitting at nil presently with regards to level of consciousness- if we decide to downplay the role of observation?

(Insects lack sufficient hardware to provide recognizably mammalian emotional responses, would ant emotional response be lesser somehow for being different? What are the differences between the two that stick out to you?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ani...of_neurons. http://mri.ucsd.edu/irina/Publications_f...202005.pdf. The second article doesn't say exactly that the number of neurons involved determines the intensity of a sensation but the mere fact that neural activity has been shown to correlate directly to feeling, it only seems logical to assume that the less material one has to work with, the less they can experience.

[abaris]

As far as determining a being's level of consciousness based on what we see, I think the same issue of personification that makes religion have so much weight comes into play.

Using Pluralis Majestatis here? You claim to see it, but you refrain from looking at the experiment done by the ones having expertise in the field and therefore an informed opinion or even theory.

Rhythm already adressed the rest of your post, so I let that slide.

it only seems logical to assume that the less material one has to work with, the less they can experience.

Conjecture.

[The Grand Nudger]

The second article doesn't say exactly that the number of neurons involved determines the intensity of a sensation but the mere fact that neural activity has been shown to correlate directly to feeling, it only seems logical to assume that the less material one has to work with, the less they can experience.

Rasetsu has a wonderful case study that argues against this specifically (not Ras', mind you, but something Ras' has brought to the boards attention once or twice). Maybe we'll be graced with the presence of greatness. Essentially, a man with a very...very small brain (relative to the average) managed to live out a "normal" life. While they estimate that he is moderately below average intelligence, nothing suggests that he "feels" or experiences less than we do, somehow. So even in a creature where there does seem to be a correlation it doesn't always hold. This ignores that even if "more nuerons" where a way to get "more experience" it may not be the only way. Quality over quantity, perhaps. My reference to the inadequate hardware an ant has - in reference to mammalian response, was not one of quantity - as the case of "the man with no brain" would make that a fairly weak proposition. Mammalian response is not just "more" of something (and can indeed be "less" when it comes to neurons and associated structures)..it's the whole package which makes it familiar, that drives our observations of behavior...upon which we form conclusions of consciousness, or motivation. An octopus has more neurons than a rat - but we recognize the rats behavior more readily and ascribe human experiences like fear etc more liberally. In both we might ascribe "consciousness" - but what does fear look like in an octopus, and how can we quantify the fear of an octopus (if there is any) relative to, say, a human being? Speaking of quantity and insects....a colony of ants has roughly the same amount of brain that a human being does - why don't we see an analog for human consciousness at the colony level, given the collective and communicative nature of ants -or do we?

On top of all of that, is consciousness so impressive as to be regarded as different from any other mechanism which achieves a similar observed effect - or the same observed effect?

So what is logical about that assumption? Specifically? I don't see any answers, any easy assumptions when it comes to consciousness and experience.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here's why I think I should reject all religious texts: when my bullshit detector goes off too often, I am rational in concluding that the book I'm reading is full of shit.

At that point, any good insight to be gleaned is a matter of blind chance, and I do better by reading a book written by someone with an education, who can strip the good points of the superstition.

[Nope]

Booth, I am not trying to reach believers so I don't need to meet them on their terms. Away from the computer, I am a pretty laid back person who avoids most arguments. Although I think that the world would overall be better without religion, I understand that people believe for a variety of reasons most of which involve some vulnerability of theirs. I don't say that with smugness but with a lot of compassion. It isn't my habit to deconvert other people because I don't know how they will react. Maybe they need the assurances that someone greater loves them. Maybe religion is all that is holding them together. As I don't try to deconvert people, why would I need to meet them on their own terms?

Only if they see you acknowledging the good morals of their faith they will be hard pressed to question the assumption that atheists main motivation for not believing is to have no accountability.

I have heard this before especially from people who follow Ray Comfort. It is a stupid reason created by people too arrogant to ask atheists why they stopped believing. It is illogical. Why would I stop believing in a god to escape punishment that I don't believe is going to happen?

How is profanity or adult films/images an issue?

It was quoted from the article in your OP.



I am still not certain what you mean by rejecting religious texts. In my house,there are several copies of the bible and I think some of the stories are interesting. I view them like mythologies or fairystories, both of which I like to read.