You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
You’ve completely bent the meaning of Shadowsot’s post to push your own anti-nontheist bias. In this case, I believe he was using “imagination” as a synonym for “creativity”. And creativity is far, far more highly valued by the “non-theist community” (if such a thing exists) than it is by the various religious communities.
I assure you that creativity is NOT metaphysical. It is recognizing a problem and thinking of new ways to solve it.
You answered your own objection in your penultimate sentence by using “conscious”. We all at times arrive at tentative conclusions or solutions by sub-conscious reasoning. That has nothing to do with the spiritual or metaphysical. The difference between atheists and theists in regard to this subconscious reasoning is that the atheists will recoginze the incompleteness and search for more information, while the theist accepts the idea on FAITH, no matter how far from reality or silly it turns out to be.
You’ve completely bent the meaning of Shadowsot’s post to push your own anti-nontheist bias. In this case, I believe he was using “imagination” as a synonym for “creativity”. And creativity is far, far more highly valued by the “non-theist community” (if such a thing exists) than it is by the various religious communities.
I assure you that creativity is NOT metaphysical. It is recognizing a problem and thinking of new ways to solve it.
You answered your own objection in your penultimate sentence by using “conscious”. We all at times arrive at tentative conclusions or solutions by sub-conscious reasoning. That has nothing to do with the spiritual or metaphysical. The difference between atheists and theists in regard to this subconscious reasoning is that the atheists will recoginze the incompleteness and search for more information, while the theist accepts the idea on FAITH, no matter how far from reality or silly it turns out to be.
Occam
I take the words as they come and that post fit in with the flow. It is you who is ascribing a meaning to his post that was not in evidence. You even admit it. In doing so, you committed the logical error of equivocation.
In addition, your riff on “creativity” and how the other religions view it is erroneous. Mainstream religions recognize that one cannot know the divine without letting go of what one thinks one knows and being prepared to enter the unknown-which is a good definition of “creative”. Atheism is one of the few religions that embraces what it considers factual and resists, what to it, is the unknown.
Your final riff on “faith” is also erroneous. “Faith”, as used by the mainstream religions, is the process of attuning oneself to the divine, to the metaphysical, if you will. It has nothing to do with rote repetition and blind acceptance of what passes for knowledge. That type of behaviour is left to Atheists and other fundamentalist religions.
Atheism’s fatal flaw is that it considers that the limits of its perceptions, especially about religion, the metaphysical and cognition, is the limit of all there is to perceive. Big mistake.
You’ve completely bent the meaning of Shadowsot’s post to push your own anti-nontheist bias. In this case, I believe he was using “imagination” as a synonym for “creativity”. And creativity is far, far more highly valued by the “non-theist community” (if such a thing exists) than it is by the various religious communities.
That is exactly what I meant, one of my favorite scientists is Richard Feynman, who was renowned for his imagination.
In common discourse they are frequently used interchangeably.
OK, if you didn’t mean it the way I interpreted it but rather the way Factfinder responded to, then he’s completely right in his criticism of your post.
OK, if you didn’t mean it the way I interpreted it but rather the way Factfinder responded to, then he’s completely right in his criticism of your post.
Occam
Except that I didn’t criticize that post. Try not to make up stuff to suit your agenda.
You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.
You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.
How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?
OK, if you didn’t mean it the way I interpreted it but rather the way Factfinder responded to, then he’s completely right in his criticism of your post.
Occam
not sure you understood. I’m agreeing with you.
Personally, I find the more I know, the more imaginative or creative I feel.
You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.
How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?
It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.
You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.
How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?
It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.
Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?
As for productivity, your “definition” depends on how productivity is measured, who is doing the assessment and what his or her world view is. Subjectivity does not rise to the level of definition. Try again.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community.
And you would know that…how?
I’m a little offended, in fact. I’m an atheist and I write music, screenplays, and software. These activities require a lot of imagination.
Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
Ridiculous. I suppose I shouldn’t use my eyes either because I don’t fully understand how they work?? Oh, I guess I shouldn’t think either since we don’t completely understand how the brain works.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
No, for you it is part of the metaphysical. For us, imagination arises from activity in the brain.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Yeah, that kind of “knowing” is not very rigorous, is it? It’s more like a feeling. You’re deriving knowledge from a feeling. Remind me to be skeptical of any “knowledge” you might share with us.
Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?
Can you provide evidence that imagination comes from a soul or is beamed down from God? No? Well, then I would say it makes a lot more sense to think it comes from the brain. When the brain dies, so does imagination. When the brain is damaged, it can affect imagination. Certain parts of the brain light up in an fMRI when a person is imagining things. Drugs affect imagination. And finally, there is no contradicting evidence against the possibility of imagination arising from the brain.
You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.
How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?
It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.
Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?
As for productivity, your “definition” depends on how productivity is measured, who is doing the assessment and what his or her world view is. Subjectivity does not rise to the level of definition. Try again.
http://www.imagery-imagination.com/wherebrain.htm Here is something that might help with the evidence part; in regards to measurment/definition, you’re right sort of-subjectivity can not be avoided. However, some workable way of measuring an individual’s imaginative capacity can still be accomplished.
“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community.
And you would know that…how?
I’m a little offended, in fact. I’m an atheist and I write music, screenplays, and software. These activities require a lot of imagination.
Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.
Ridiculous. I suppose I shouldn’t use my eyes either because I don’t fully understand how they work?? Oh, I guess I shouldn’t think either since we don’t completely understand how the brain works.
For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.
No, for you it is part of the metaphysical. For us, imagination arises from activity in the brain.
Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.
Yeah, that kind of “knowing” is not very rigorous, is it? It’s more like a feeling. You’re deriving knowledge from a feeling. Remind me to be skeptical of any “knowledge” you might share with us.
Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?
Can you provide evidence that imagination comes from a soul or is beamed down from God? No? Well, then I would say it makes a lot more sense to think it comes from the brain. When the brain dies, so does imagination. When the brain is damaged, it can affect imagination. Certain parts of the brain light up in an fMRI when a person is imagining things. Drugs affect imagination. And finally, there is no contradicting evidence against the possibility of imagination arising from the brain.
Your entire rant depends upon the theory that the brain has something to do with imagination and metaphysics (which, by the way, is not possible since “metaphysics” means beyond the physical and the brain is physical, so the two are mutually exclusive). Plus, and more significantly, there are people without any discernible brain structure who nevertheless live and function at high levels. Oops, there goes your brain theory.
If you write music and plays you are shortchanging yourself by mistakenly confining your self and your explorations to the physical.
Also, you are wrong to infer that spiritual knowledge is a “feeling”. Spiritual knowledge is a gestalt, a whole, as compared to your method of linearity and incremental additions. It is your (and all Athiests’) decision to lock yourselves into a plodding, linear and piecemeal way of thinking that prevents you from encountering what some of the religious and spiritual people do.
