2 2
mbohu

Inconsistencies with Atheism

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

I think that sums it up pretty good. IMO 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rick said:

this reminds me of the 21 grams experiment or some other theories about where the energy in our bodies go when we die. We know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form. Is this what some would call the soul? 

No, it’s  called heat. Same as the middle of a compost heap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rick said:

I just find this interesting "We know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form."  

So what happens to the electrical energy in our bodies when we die? 

Same thing that happens to any other electricity when you turn off the generator. Not being facetious but I fail to see why anyone thinks our electricity is any different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 minutes ago, Rick said:

but having a soul makes our existence seem much more important

Why?

 

Soul or no soul I’m still the only me I’ve got. Same for you. Isn’t that important?

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why?

 

Soul or no soul I’m still the only me I’ve got. Same for you. Isn’t that important?

It is to me but I think some people need to believe there is more to this existence.

I am fine being a meat bomb. All I can do is try to make my little part of the world a place I want to be as long as I am here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as the morality thing. I like to think I would have the principles I have now with or without religion but, as was pointed out to me on here a while back I was raised in the church so I will never know if that is where I got my morals or if I would be the same person if I was raised by atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mbohu said:

Where do they exist?

As far as I can tell, you seem to be hung up on consciousness as a concept.  The most eloquent description of consciousness that I've heard is that it is simply the amalgamation of how our brain signals interpret and interact with the physical world they're presented.  This theory would mean consciousness is an emergent natural property of evolution, and it seems to gel with what we observe in nature.  We are not the only animals to have a sense of self or consciousness; this can be easily observed in some of the larger brain-to-body-weight creatures such as elephants, apes, dolphins, and more.  As an abstract concept, we determine where the line is of consciousness.  Just as a single water molecule is not "wet," and we don't have a clear definition of how many water molecules it would take to produce the emergent property of "wetness," so too do we not have a clear definition of at which point enough brain signals come together to form what we would call consciousness. 

All that said, I do believe that consciousness is an entirely natural and physical property.  Nothing mystical about it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

As far as I can tell, you seem to be hung up on consciousness as a concept.  The most eloquent description of consciousness that I've heard is that it is simply the amalgamation of how our brain signals interpret and interact with the physical world they're presented.  This theory would mean consciousness is an emergent natural property of evolution, and it seems to gel with what we observe in nature.  We are not the only animals to have a sense of self or consciousness; this can be easily observed in some of the larger brain-to-body-weight creatures such as elephants, apes, dolphins, and more.  As an abstract concept, we determine where the line is of consciousness.  Just as a single water molecule is not "wet," and we don't have a clear definition of how many water molecules it would take to produce the emergent property of "wetness," so too do we not have a clear definition of at which point enough brain signals come together to form what we would call consciousness. 

All that said, I do believe that consciousness is an entirely natural and physical property.  Nothing mystical about it to me.

Well, I'm going to make one last attempt to get to the point about consciousness (I think the morality thing has been explored enough by now)
As you are sitting here, reading these words, there is something awake in you. There is something that hears your mind repeating the words that you are reading. This SOMETHING is what I would call consciousness. We are assuming that all other humans have it, even though you have never been able to experience it anywhere else but inside you. You may also assume that some (or even all) animals have this. And there are philosophers who posit that the essence of it is present in everything, including elementary particles. But for all practical purposes right now, the only thing that is important is that YOU are aware of its existence inside you. (or that consciousness is aware of itself inside you)
It does not depend on you DOING anything, and if you have practiced certain types of meditation or have ever experienced being consciously aware during deep sleep, you will know that it also does not depend on any kinds of thoughts. This awareness, this "being conscious of existing or perceiving" requires no thoughts or actions.
Now, many people will say that it will cease to exist as soon as the neurons in your brain stop to fire, but there is really no evidence either way that this is true or false. At best we can say that we see the expression of consciousness cease (or change) at that point.
You WILL, of course, notice yourself, at the moment when your brain's neurons cease to fire, but no matter which way it goes you won't be able to tell us.

Now, the theory of emergence is an interesting one, but at least as far as the popular example of "wetness" is concerned, that is often used to explain it, it doesn't really hold water here (pun somewhat intended).
"wet" is a bit of a nebulous term, but we can probably define it as a combination of certain physical properties, such as molecular cohesion inside a substance, surface tension, cohesion to other substances, a phase of matter, etc. All these are physical properties, and while some only are perceivable when there are a certain number of molecules of a substance present, they do relatively easily follow from the physical properties of the molecules and their fields.
That really isn't the same here with that inner awareness of yourself. If that's not at least somewhat clear, I don't know how to better express it. Again, I am not talking about any expression of consciousness. It is quite conceivable, for example, that you can do, talk and even think the exact same way without this consciousness, without there being any internal awareness that you are doing any of thee things. From the outside, no one could tell. (And no, the Turing Test does not test for conscious awareness, it tests for certain complexities of expression and logic) The only thing is, you KNOW you are aware. You can only know that for sure from the inside.
So, if that was an emergent property of a certain level of physical complexity, then this type of emergence would really be entirely unique and unprecedented. It would not compare to the combination of physical properties that we call "wetness" emerging from the presence of a certain number of molecules of a given substance.
If you don't agree, that's fine, but we may just be talking past each other in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well, I'm going to make one last attempt to get to the point about consciousness (I think the morality thing has been explored enough by now)
As you are sitting here, reading these words, there is something awake in you. There is something that hears your mind repeating the words that you are reading. This SOMETHING is what I would call consciousness. We are assuming that all other humans have it, even though you have never been able to experience it anywhere else but inside you. You may also assume that some (or even all) animals have this. And there are philosophers who posit that the essence of it is present in everything, including elementary particles. But for all practical purposes right now, the only thing that is important is that YOU are aware of its existence inside you. (or that consciousness is aware of itself inside you)
It does not depend on you DOING anything, and if you have practiced certain types of meditation or have ever experienced being consciously aware during deep sleep, you will know that it also does not depend on any kinds of thoughts. This awareness, this "being conscious of existing or perceiving" requires no thoughts or actions.
Now, many people will say that it will cease to exist as soon as the neurons in your brain stop to fire, but there is really no evidence either way that this is true or false. At best we can say that we see the expression of consciousness cease (or change) at that point.
You WILL, of course, notice yourself, at the moment when your brain's neurons cease to fire, but no matter which way it goes you won't be able to tell us.

Now, the theory of emergence is an interesting one, but at least as far as the popular example of "wetness" is concerned, that is often used to explain it, it doesn't really hold water here (pun somewhat intended).
"wet" is a bit of a nebulous term, but we can probably define it as a combination of certain physical properties, such as molecular cohesion inside a substance, surface tension, cohesion to other substances, a phase of matter, etc. All these are physical properties, and while some only are perceivable when there are a certain number of molecules of a substance present, they do relatively easily follow from the physical properties of the molecules and their fields.
That really isn't the same here with that inner awareness of yourself. If that's not at least somewhat clear, I don't know how to better express it. Again, I am not talking about any expression of consciousness. It is quite conceivable, for example, that you can do, talk and even think the exact same way without this consciousness, without there being any internal awareness that you are doing any of thee things. From the outside, no one could tell. (And no, the Turing Test does not test for conscious awareness, it tests for certain complexities of expression and logic) The only thing is, you KNOW you are aware. You can only know that for sure from the inside.
So, if that was an emergent property of a certain level of physical complexity, then this type of emergence would really be entirely unique and unprecedented. It would not compare to the combination of physical properties that we call "wetness" emerging from the presence of a certain number of molecules of a given substance.
If you don't agree, that's fine, but we may just be talking past each other in that case.

Would this thing you are wondering about commonly be called a soul? I'm unclear if you are speculating about a possibility, or stating your belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rick said:

oh yeah I understand that I was just saying that I was reminded of it by that post.

sorry I was not clear

I was raised in the Lutheran church but I am not a believer now.

I just find this interesting "We know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form."  

So what happens to the electrical energy in our bodies when we die? 

It returns to the lightning - whis is god's synapses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jakee said:

Incorrect. While we don’t really know how consciousness works we certainly have the appearance of free will, so might as well assume it exists. Pre determinism is actually a much bigger philosophical problem for religious people who believe in an omnipotent god. How can a fundamentalist Christian be moral if he believes he is simply acting out God’s plan?

 

That aside, your fundamental question about atheist can be answered very easily by looking at reality. We know that morality doesn’t come from religion, because our current moral thought doesn’t match the written teachings of any religion. Morality must be a living societal construct because there’s no other basis to be found for its current form. There is then absolutely no reason I can think of to claim that atheists are less able to engage with it than anyone else.

Have you watched the darkmatter cartoons on YouTube? They cover interesting issues like pre destiny. If god is Omni potent and yet pre determines that some of us will go to hell, that would by definition make him an evil god. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Would this thing you are wondering about commonly be called a soul? I'm unclear if you are speculating about a possibility, or stating your belief.

I wouldn't call it that. Simply because the term "soul" doesn't have a well defined meaning. I don't really know what you would mean by it, nor would you know what I mean--unless we subscribe to believing in the same ancient book or something. xD

Not speculating about a possibility, nor stating a belief--that's why it starts to get a bit frustrating to me:
This consciousness is a constant experience in me. I don't understand how it's not self-explanatory to everyone else.
Maybe you were on point about what you said (I think it was you) many many posts back about not knowing if anyone else actually is "real" and experiences themselves. Maybe I really am the only one experiencing anything after all, as it seems impossible to talk about it in a meaningful way with others (at least in this post).xD 
So, I am talking about something that I directly experience, not a concept, a belief or an idea. I think it's something that everyone experiences (but admittedly few probably pay any deep attention to), and when I talk about it I purposefully try not to use any words that are defined by something external, I also purposefully try not to refer to any religions or philosophers (even though I've studied many around this subject) because I am not interested in the concepts or beliefs. I am interested in the experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, wmw999 said:

People with functioning brains (i.e. all the necessary chemistry) who are raised in complete or near-complete social isolation (there are very few examples, obviously) cannot seem to form the same types of concepts that those who are socialized. That would seem to imply, therefore, that conceptual thought is somewhat dependent on something besides physics.

Is the fact that what it's dependent on is resident in the conjunction of a lot of physics still keep it outside the "spiritual?" Or is it kind of like parallel processing of different computers. Note, however, that at least for now, computers start with externally-installed software. Not sure how much longer that's going to be the case; what is the difference between life and consciousness?

This is getting way away from "inconsistencies with atheism," so sue me.

But on the other hand, I think that we're getting deep into individual interpretations of individuals, who then assume that everyone else assumes the same way. Which is unlikely. 

Wendy P.

Actually, all computing hardware (PC's, switches, routers, firewalls, IOT smart devices) all have some minimal version of an operating system programed into them before they boot to load the functional software.

Sometimes, it's pretty buggy. Sometimes, coming from a few foreign countries, it has various versions of functioning malware or spyware, even some tracking and sniffing devices and remote access security holes in it.

Edited by normiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mbohu said:

So, if that was an emergent property of a certain level of physical complexity, then this type of emergence would really be entirely unique and unprecedented. It would not compare to the combination of physical properties that we call "wetness" emerging from the presence of a certain number of molecules of a given substance.

So? Everything's unique. The behaviour of water is, in fact, unique. What's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mbohu said:

Not speculating about a possibility, nor stating a belief--that's why it starts to get a bit frustrating to me:

I'm sorry, you are specuating about a possibility. In fact, you're not just speculating about a possibility but positing as a certainty that we are more than just products of physical reality. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

Quote

This consciousness is a constant experience in me. I don't understand how it's not self-explanatory to everyone else.

Actually, you challenged me when I said that the existence of consciousness was self evident. No one else has had a problem with it, so I have no idea what you're getting at here.

 

Quote

So, I am talking about something that I directly experience, not a concept, a belief or an idea. I think it's something that everyone experiences (but admittedly few probably pay any deep attention to), and when I talk about it I purposefully try not to use any words that are defined by something external, I also purposefully try not to refer to any religions or philosophers (even though I've studied many around this subject) because I am not interested in the concepts or beliefs. I am interested in the experience.

If you want to talk about how you exoerience consciousness then why on earth did you start a thread about atheism? Nothing in what you've just posted has anything to do with your OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, normiss said:

Actually, all computing hardware (PC's, switches, routers, firewalls, IOT smart devices) all have some minimal version of an operating system programed into them before they boot to load the functional software.

Sometimes, it's pretty buggy. Sometimes, coming from a few foreign countries, it has various versions of functioning malware or spyware, even some tracking and sniffing devices and remote access security holes in it.

Well, yes, but we know the mechanism of installation. It didn't just grow (as yet). Once computers, completely independent of humans, begin to design and build new systems, will they still be the result of human innovation?

Computers didn't come by chance, unless you count our development of them as being a chance. Humans are by chance, and are most definitely not the culmination of years of deliberate refinement, any more than sea slugs are.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 7:27 PM, mbohu said:

Following up on the recurring topic of religion vs. atheism, and seeing that there is a good crowd of people who self-identify as atheists on this forum:...

Religion is easily defined as a communicable form of mental illness.  Some variants are more benign than others, though it is generally the more virulent that propagate most effectively.  Weaponized viruses rule.

As far as the difference between atheism and agnosticism, think smurfs.  Agnostics are polite enough to say that maybe there really are smurfs somewhere, while atheists come out and say that you must be joking.

The 'logic' by which people support Scientology or Islam or any other compendium of patent nonsense is rarely more than a study in applied fallacy.

As far as the warm fuzzy feeling that religion gives, the Onion has it nailed: https://www.theonion.com/war-torn-middle-east-seeks-solace-in-religion-1819568630

Coming to the idea of 'morality,' the moral standards of religion have been behind much of the most truly evil behavior in human history.  The religious texts I have on hand mandate genocide, slavery and a host of other things that I personally find deplorable.  YMMV.

If it is only the instructions of a mythical construct by which you would live you life in an honest and ethical manner, there is something wrong with you.

 

BSBd,

Winsor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

if you are speculating about a possibility, or stating your belief.

I was speculating on others beliefs not stating my own. The comparison with the computer hard drive just got me thinking about a few things I have read in the past. I forget what it was called maybe a pert of transcendentalism that I read about in the 70's. It was a belief that our energy is all intertwined and when we die that energy goes back into the big pool of energy in the universe. 

I look at it as another way for people to feel that we don't just end up in the compost pile. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Well, yes, but we know the mechanism of installation. It didn't just grow (as yet). Once computers, completely independent of humans, begin to design and build new systems, will they still be the result of human innovation?

Computers didn't come by chance, unless you count our development of them as being a chance. Humans are by chance, and are most definitely not the culmination of years of deliberate refinement, any more than sea slugs are.

Wendy P.

Yet we do share similar basic operating systems that do not contain anything to do with nor believe in a god, that's the malware virus content that is installed when we click on the "click OK to continue" box.

We do not "boot up" with any belief system, it is fully installed as optional programming. That was my intent of the comparison.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, winsor said:

As far as the difference between atheism and agnosticism, think smurfs.  Agnostics are polite enough to say that maybe there really are smurfs somewhere, while atheists come out and say that you must be joking.

Agnostics (asmurftics) believe that there is no way to ever know whether or not smurfs actually exist.

Atheists (asmurfiests) don't have a belief that smurfs are real because there is not enough evidence to prove their existence, but don't claim that there is no possibility that smurfs exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 hours ago, Rick said:

well that certainly makes sense. 

but having a soul makes our existence seem much more important

hence religion

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates the existence of a human soul.  The only form of life after death that is mentioned in the Bible is the resurrection of the body when God or Jesus returns to reclaim the earth.  The only exception to this is Jesus, who existed for a period of time as a spirit.  

Last year, I read the Bible from cover to cover.  This was pretty surprising to me because one of the central elements of Christianity is the hope that we are immediately taken to heaven at the moment of death.  There's nothing in the Bible that indicates that this is the case.  Where did this come from?  Is it a construct of the church?  Did I completely miss something important?

I'm no Bible scholar and I'm open to other opinions on this.  I really am puzzled by it.

With regards to a basis for morality, God help us if we rely on the Bible.  With the exception of some of the teachings of Jesus, the Bible is a horror show.

Edited by NewGuy2005
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2