Neurologists today agree that consciousness has got everything to do with brain activity, and nothing to do with anything else.
Taking it to the extreme: can you ever prove that a murder took place? What if Satan invervened and made the site look like a murder had been taking place?
You do realise one can simply reject this claim as baseless, right? As if they’ve solved the problem of consciousness/mind-body dualism in one fell swoop. In fact, even assuming physicalism would not suffice to dislodge theistic claims. One just has to weigh the facts.
you’re talking about repercussions for people’s ideas and beliefs, in other words, “thought police”. I see no threats and no physical coercion. I see no tangible scarce good that a person lost in the transaction. Ideas and beliefs are not scarce, and we all learn something everyday though hopefully a principle reverberates in our actions to keep a steady course.
The burden of proof would be on the accuser who charges the leader of the cult with fraud. As always, the burden of proof does not fall upon the defense. Further, it is not fraud until you die and do not receive pussy. If that doesn’t happen, it’s rather difficult to complain from the dead.
It seems like some folk here are building the framework to justify a bueracracy to detirmin which products were fraudulent and which weren’t. It seems anti-libertarian all together. What kind of board or collective group will have the insight to dictate who’s products are legite and whos arn’t? Our government has several branches, like this one. I don’t need to explain what type of economic harm it’s caused that specific industry. I think business’s have every right to mis-represent their product. The market on it’s own is intuitive enough to punish them, along with the idiots who purchased their products. This will drive consumers to be more responsible with their purchasing decisions or suffer the consequences.
In addition, entirely without the need for law the free market has developed mechanism’s to protecet the consumer from fraud or misadvertised goods.
Allow me to present an example.
If a consumer purchased a product under the beleif that it was in working order, and later found that it was not he is free to return it. This service encourages consumers to shop at those retail stores which provide that service. This brings business to the retail store. It also encourages retailers to not carry products that seem misleading or upset the consumer causing them to return it.
Additionally, it further legitimizes a use of a middleman that functions as an additional layer of protection to the consumer. (For those out there who think middle-men are evil)
All of this done naturally on the free market without the need for law.
Well, it looks kinda obvious that consciousness has something to do with the brain, and not, say, with hand thumbs. You can cut a person’s thumbs and the person remains the same conscious person. The ‘scientific’ claim that consciousness is tied to the brain is trivial… Of course so called neuro ‘scientists’ have not solved the mind-body problem. However it doesn’t follow that the vast majority of theistic claims have any truth in them either.
Revealed religion are, in one of the senses of the term, outright fraud. That doesn’t mean revealed religion can be outlawed, but it doesn’t deserve any respect either.
Oh I don’t disagree. My point is he is appealing to evidence that won’t sway them in the slightest and which doesn’t suffice to prove his point. Even Descartes thought part of the brain was the “seat” of the soul.
That’s merely your opinion, your preference. It’s not a universal or objective truth.
Right, because that would make you a hypocrite
You better hope you don’t need to trade with people who are into revealed religion if you won’t respect their right to believe what they want. In some ways, this could be isolating from the division of labour, so your disrespect will have its costs.
Comments like this paint a bad picture of atheism.
More to the point: fraud involves the exchange of economic goods occurring due to false pretenses. In other words, a misrepresentation of a product or service that impels consumers to purchase it when they otherwise would not have. Unfortunately, it’s often impossible to uncover fraud until someone falls for it—the problem is only solved after someone finds that they were duped.
As for religious schooling, part of the difficulty lies in the fact that (as JackCuyler mentioned) if someone promises anything in life after death, it’s going to be damned hard to complain that they didn’t deliver on it unless you manage to manifest yourself in the world of the living. Now, on the other hand, if a religious school promised a curriculum that incorporates evolution and they fail to deliver on that, then fraud becomes a valid consideration.
Do universal truths exist?
There’s an important difference between respecting a person’s right to believe in fairytales, and respecting the fairytales themselves.
That is not a title contract but a contract based on promise.
Absolutely.
Juan hasn’t changed course for months and if I’m wrong - Juan let me know - but of course Juan knows that’s his preference - he’s never said otherwise. So you’ve been arguing with Juan for days now on this point - and nobody can absolutely be right neither you nor Juan - so I don’t know why you’ve argued with him unless you really believe you can persuade his preference.
And Juan - I think using the term fraud might be a bit confusing for as you know it’s usually used in its unlawful connotation on this site.
There never can be justice without universal truth (justice is a species of truth). So to answer your question - absolutely.
But only mathematical truths can be proven.
You’re going from an “ought” to an “is”.
He blurs that distinction regularly. When recently called to explain himself on religion, after two years of attacking religious beliefs, he waffled and murmured about the veracity and potency of his rhetoric as it related to being part of libertarianism.
Months.
Nonsense.
I don’t think you understand the issue that I am addressing. Check your premises.
Conflation abounds. The problem is, I have found, joyfully so, that libertarians are generally a little smarter than your average statist, and are less likely to be swayed by aggressive but ultimately, empty rhetoric.
What about promising no life after death?
I DEMAND A REFUND!
How dare you offend people with this moral nihilism & blatant intolerance for religious thinking! >
A certain Inquisition would like a word with you…