Why I am an athiest

@igm,

There actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively harmless. Evolution is not one of those. Evolution was the main philosophical corner stone of Nazism, Communism, and the various eugenics movements of the last 150 years. Evolution is a flavor of junk science with upwards of 200,000,000 dead bodies lying around to its credit, that's why it matters that we get rid of it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

@Moment-in-Time,
Quote:
But according to the New Testament Jesus and his father are one and the same

Olivier wrote:
Except Jesus was a human being. Humans who become gods is a polytheist trait. Another thing is: Jesus and his Father and the old testament God aren't the same guy. The latter is tribal, angry and jealous, while the former(s?) is all-loving and forgiving.

Devout Christians think of Jesus as God's Son, one and the same. Polytheism is the belief in or worship of more than one god. There is only one god in question here and that is god the father and his son represents him.... When you use the noun polytheism you're declaring Jesus as a god competing with his father, another god. Jesus says when you see me you see the Father for we are one. There are not two gods challenging each other. I am not referring to the Old Testament whose scriptures do not believe in Jesus. I am referring to the New Testament exclusively.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

And how come a father and his son are the same individual?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

And....what is the "holy ghost?"

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

@Moment-in-Time,
And how come a father and his son are the same individual?

I think it could be described as spiritual symbolism. God, according to the NT gave his only begotten son, Jesus, as a sacrificial lamb for the sins of man...it was to this end Jesus came into the world. He came as a messenger for his father. He said only through me can one enter unto the father. There is no polytheism regarding Christianity.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
This is where we have to parse terms carefully. We're specifically talking about beliefs, not the existence of actual space, time or the first person. I can attest to the first-hand experience of a sense of self, but I don't make the leap that that sense of self entails an actual entity. The sense of self can be experienced and even tested (neuroscientists have done some interesting stuff with this), but what is its referent, exactly?

Wait wait wait... The very idea of experience implies a subject experiencing. You can't say: "I experience x, y and z" without that leap of faith that assumes a "self", "mind" or "person" able to perceive other stuff and oneself, and aware that he/she is experiencing. So you operate from the same premises as the rest of us: that you exist, that the world exists, that you can perceive the world and perceive your own perception. Aka from the premise that you are a conscience.

Nope. I comply with conventions of language in order to communicate, so I use the first person perspective in speech and writing. This does not entail a belief that "I" am an entity. I specifically don't believe that I am a conscience. The content of consciousness changes from moment to moment, but an entity, by definition, would abide identically over time.

Quote:

The referent is what you are. And what we all are: a conscience. That's us, that's our mental world where we exist and whence we can't escape. You may be unable to define it precisely, and science may be unable to define it and replicate it, but that's no proof that it doesn't exist.

That's where I find some atheists really dumb: their own thinking leads them to deny the existence of their own thinking, but somehow they don't see the contradiction... :-)

These are your beliefs, and a bit of a strawman. I haven't denied my own existence or anything else except the existence of first-person beliefs. I take it you didn't bother to educate yourself on Pyrrhonism.

Quote:

You said some post upthread that you practiced introspection to examine your own beliefs and "jettison" them. But that in itself assumes a lot: that you are somewhat transparent to yourself, even though it's a pretty well established fact that we tend to be blind to our own weaknesses. Moreover, that presupposes a self that can not only KNOW itself but CHANGE itself in the process. That is even less of a given, it's a naked belief. Your sense of knowledge and control about yourself may well be illusionary. At least in part.

Ergo you hold still many unproven beliefs... :-) It's unavoidable, really.

Not quite. You're making a bit of an unfounded leap. How does the experience of a flow of phenomena entail a fixed entity/identity that experiences it? That sounds like the old fallacious argument that "the universe exists, so it must have been created, therefore there must be a creator" argument.

Again, can you identify a self? Can you put 3 grams of conscience in a petri dish so we can examine its qualities? What is a self?

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Why does god have to 'SACRIFICE' anybody? If he is god, just speaking the words would be sufficient. There is no one to judge god's actions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

And....what is the "holy ghost?"

Cicerone, I'm a non-believer of gods, but I am somewhat familiar with the New Testament. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (godhead) defines God as three divine persons or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three." Personally, I see the Trinity as a man-made construct and may vary with different denominations.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

@Moment-in-Time,
Why does god have to 'SACRIFICE' anybody? If he is god, just speaking the words would be sufficient. There is no one to judge god's actions.

Excellent question, Cicerone. I believe the bible was written entirely by man and as such Man has felt he had to pay in some manner for any favors from his gods. In polytheism, sacrifices were often given in tribute to their gods. So is it any wonder this tradition continued when it came to Monotheism... a lamb is usually the sacrifice in the Abrahamic religions. In the Old Testament, Abraham was tested when God asked him to sacrifice his son to him.....hence following teachings written long ago....

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Again, can you identify a self? Can you put 3 grams of conscience in a petri dish so we can examine its qualities? What is a self?

The lab is useless without one or several selves measuring or observing stuff in the lab.

Least we forget, the scientific method implies observation, which starts with the conscience by a human being that a particular phenomenon is happening. E.g. in a lab, precisely. It thus requires a state of conscience able to experience and record empirical observation.

It also requires the possibility to write down and share one's observations, i.e. communicate.

Finally, the scientific method requires analyses and theories, and therefore it presupposes that human reason, individal or collective use of reason, can help understand the word. Therefore one cannot be a scientist and consider reason an epiphenomenon. That's a contradiction in terms. There is no science without reason.

The self is everywhere in a lab.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Nowhere in there did you identify a self.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Physical biology is science, but psychological science is based on many variables that cannot be measured. A little chemistry imbalance in the brain can is difficult to identify and quantify on the surface. If behavior is studied, it still leaves out the "thinking person." Their ideas and beliefs are almost impossible to measure, because we take inputs from our environment that may change in how we think, and everybody is "different" by degrees, and how they will act in the future.

Why do people who "seem" normal, kill their own family members?

1 Reply

@FBM,

I identified you and I and every person on earth including anyone manipulating anY petri dish as a self.

0 Replies

This might be helpful: http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4OPYI8qbdEcC&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=Functional+Anatomy+of+the+Sense+of+agency:+Past+Evidence+and+Future+Directions&source=bl&ots=nptweniptd&sig=-gl0AgeclrUv8v2adGfZBvVO-ko&hl=ko&sa=X&ei=kdcdUKTBKYSZiAexkICICw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Functional%20Anatomy%20of%20the%20Sense%20of%20agency%3A%20Past%20Evidence%20and%20Future%20Directions&f=false

The sense of agency is the sense of being a self. If these scientists are correct, it is a sensation produced in the brain, experienced by the same brain.

1 Reply

@FBM,

And what else could it be? The sense of self is evidently a construct of the brain, but an amazing and all-important one.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

So, what is the self?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Why do people who "seem" normal, kill their own family members?

Because they're fed up with them?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Sometimes, but I think more often when the father looses his job, and feels hopeless.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

So, what is the self?

Or is it at least apparent now that I don't believe in it? Which is not the same as saying I believe it doesn't exist.

0 Replies

@FBM,

A self is a space where different streams of info and representations, from one's perceived present environment, memorized past, and imagination, are brought together for comparison, dialogue, dispute, analysis, synthesis and decision making. Minutes of the discussion are usually taken, at least in short-term memory. It's our mind and body's own private agora.

1 Reply

Why I am an athiest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know