The title of this sub-forum is inaccurate and counter-productive

#1
Believer and skeptic?

Believer in what? Materialism? Physicalism? Special Relativity? Taoism?

The fact is that everyone is a believer - in something. In fact, many who spout the accepted science cliches are more ardent believers than those whose beliefs involve a deity or deities. It can qyutie easily be shown that though it is semantically correct - the phrase "I don't believe . . " is always a passive restatement of "I believe." The atheist is an active believer in the non-existence of a deity. The materialist is a firm believer in the primacy of the physical.

So again . . believer in what? Yes I get that the accepted use is to reinforce the " science isn't about beliefs" fallacy. Of course science, like any other methodology, rests on many beliefs. And when science has become a euphemism for materialism those beliefs are even more numerous.

As for "skeptics"- a genuine skeptic is a rare occurrence. What are termed "skeptics" in the context at hand - are those who have strong and passionate beliefs that are more status-quo. Like all fervent believers they are driven to attack those beliefs that are not in line with their own.

A genuine skeptic is dispassionate about most of his/her beliefs and functions with an open-mind that examines mainstream concepts no differently.than it examines concepts that are on the periphery of society.

That's it for the inaccuracy.

Counter-productive because in reinforcing the value system that sets mainstream beliefs as superior to all else, it obscures the real points in - the nitty-gritty of this "debate."
 
#2
Believer. Here it means consciousness persists after death. It means people are able to will objects to move. Obe and nde are proof of humanity's transcendence.
You have not noticed believers do an excellent job of defending their own self defined status quo?
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#3
I have to agree with Saiko. The title only made (a little) sense when the other forums were supposed to assume mind =/ brain. But now they don't; only threads marked with Mod+ assume something like that.

The forum names are now based on some vague metaphysical assumptions, rather than on broad topics.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#5
It's not perfect but it gets the message across. It's good to have this forum for the type of arguing that goes on here. Maybe another name would be better but the forum itself is a good idea.
Possibly, but I don't know how it's fundamentally different from the other forums, except when a thread is tagged with Mod+. And I don't know what it means to tag a thread in B&SD with Mod+.

~~ Paul
 
#7
Believer. Here it means consciousness persists after death. It means people are able to will objects to move. Obe and nde are proof of humanity's transcendence.
You have not noticed believers do an excellent job of defending their own self defined status quo?
Not necessarily. I can believe 95% that consciousness can't be explained within the current materialist paradigm, but frankly I am more uncertain about life after death. For example, it could be that even though our consciousness is non-material, after death it always/usually/sometimes disintegrates into sub-components that get re-used.

David
 
#8
Not necessarily. I can believe 95% that consciousness can't be explained within the current materialist paradigm, but frankly I am more uncertain about life after death. For example, it could be that even though our consciousness is non-material, after death it always/usually/sometimes disintegrates into sub-components that get re-used.

David
All of what you wrote bespeaks of a desire for human transcendence or continuance beyond our corporeal selves.
To the underlined. A lot of people are certain of it.
 
Top