Don’t all triangles have an inside? 
And an outside: that’s five! And a top-side and bottom-side, so seven. And some are on the side of good, and others on the side of evil. And some are over on the fork side, and others on the knife side. And bride’s side and groom’s side.
(I’ve seen a LOT of triangles at weddings!)
I find the original question confusing. What drives me?
I have a mortgage, kids and a lifestyle that involves being able to eat.
I have a job that varies between stressful, boring and fulfilling.
Refer to maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. That’s what drives me.
I don’t understand how belief in an afterlife or a deity can somehow be what propels you out of bed each morning.
Within all of that, I also have morals and ethics in how I behave and treat others. You don’t have to be religious to do that.
haha, but technically no 
A triangle is a 2 dimensional entity so outside is not a part of the triangle, it would have to be 3 dimensional to have a top and bottom side :dubious:
Well, I’ll cop to being a fanatical atheist. I’m currently planning my jihad. Death to all non-infidels!!!
If fanatical atheists are snarky and rude, I sincerely hope that fanatics of all other types switch to being fanatical atheists. It seems to be the least destructive fanaticism around.
What’s so hard to understand? Qualia don’t exist.
Your referencing papers from 1985! Let me guess, you built a time machine and went 28 years into the future? Well alot has changed in those 28 years so you got some catching up to do :smack:
Did you actually read it?
According to the 2008 PhilPapers survey, qualia theory was accepted by a whopping 12.2% of philosophers, while the majority view on the philosophy of mind was physicalism with 56.5% (physicalism obviously being the view that there’s nothing but what physics describes, and consequently, that all things in the mind are perfectly well scientifically describable).
You can accept that we can’t know what goes on inside a mind perfectly while still being a physicalist. We can’t know the full electrical state of each wire inside a microprocessor even in principle because of measurement issues (at a grosser level than uncertainty.) Doesn’t really matter, though, if the result is correct.
But we can completely describe what goes on inside the microprocessor. On a physicalist conception, that’s true for the mind, as well.
1978/1988, actually, depending how you calculate, and frequently republished or retooled since (e.g. in Consciousness Explained).What Dennett says is as true then as it is now. Qualia are all smoke and mirrors, (Incidentally, just like god).
And seriously, who gives a flying fuck when the argument was made? Is *Origin of Species * too dated to be a valid theory on evolution? Calculus must be a crock, Newton died centuries ago! No, actually, argumentum ad novitatem and chronological snobbery are just fallacious arguments.
How about, rather than snark, you point out exactly which parts of the paper have been refuted in the years since, and how that was done? Bonus points for not dragging Eugene Park into it (and why would you, I mean, it’s from 1997:rolleyes:.)
I think this question may reflect a common misapprehension that atheism must be an actual belief, something that one decides upon, endorses, stands for, pounds the table on behalf of. Of course for many this is the case, but it needn’t be.
This world is missing a host of entities that someone COULD believe in but nobody does. You probably never held the belief that spiders rule the world, but you aren’t thereby an anarachnarchist. It would be futile and endless to categorize people according to the infinitely profuse non-existent entities they did not believe in. And these absences of belief do not entail a counter-belief in the non-existence of each.
The idea of a supreme being just isn’t a live issue for a lot of us. A world without gods is the only world we know.
I always have to wonder how many proffessed christians or those from other relegions are really athiest, likewise I wonder how many athiests have a deep seated belief in god.
I professed myself as a believer while simultaneously having a ton of doubt. But I just didn’t recognize it as that. I just thought I was backslidin’ and that if I just found a good church, I’d feel comfortable again.
I think there are atheists who may not be as atheistic as they proclaim. They’ll say stuff like “everything happens for a reason!” That’s not a rational position. But I don’t know if this would count as a “deep seated” belief in God.
I think there are a fair number of self-proclaimed “atheists” who are deep down just disgruntled theists looking for a religion that appeals to them more than the one they’ve rejected. They’ll “find Jesus” (or whomever) again as soon as they find it.
Nothing says that an atheist has to be rational. Just that they don’t believe in a god. Karma, the Secret and all sorts of other BS are still all open to an atheist to believe in.
You’ve probably never tried to do this. I do - it is part of my job. I’m not saying that there is anything supernatural in either case, but voltages are so low, speeds so fast and noise margins so low that for the processor case measuring disturbs the thing being measured. Heck it took months to do one fairly simple internal measurement of one signal that had to be taken in a system environment.
So, it is both physical and unknowable.
ETA: Perhaps you think knowing the 1s and 0s inside the processor is adequate. One day, perhaps, but not today, and not at 28 nanometer. When you are debugging a new design hardly anything goes wrong which could be understood based on what you learned in logic design class. I’ve proposed that we banish 1s and 0s from logic design classes and teach voltages, so that students don’t get a false sense of simplicity. Maybe I spend too much time on the bleeding edge.
Yeah, those believers who claim to have been atheists and then got converted can rarely explain why they were atheists, or give any sort of logical justification for not believing in any gods.