Atheists....a question, if I may:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And I needn't point out that one cannot be "without gods" without asserting there are no gods.

Why, though? One can be without, say, elephants, while asserting that there are indeed elephants. Why couldn't one be without gods while asserting that there are gods. Merely, their existence would be irrelevant to them.

Good question, IB.

Actually, one cannot be "without elephants" so long as elephants exist. One may not have an elephant in his glove compartment or kitchen cabinetbut in the sense of "without gods"one cannot be without elephantsor without horsesor without orange groves.

Being "without gods"being an atheisthad a very clear meaning from its inception back in ancient Greeceand absolutely meant "the denial of the existence of gods." People, Socrates being the most famous, purportedly were put to death for atheism. Only very recent dictionaries contain the notion that atheism is anything other than "denial of the existence of gods"and that really is because dictionaries tell us how the word is being used. Modern atheistsrealizing that the agnostic position had strengths classical atheism did not possessstarted defining atheism as "without a belief in gods"rather than as a "belief that there are no gods." The debating advantages of such a move are undeniable. By avoiding the question of a "belief in no gods"the supposed atheist is able to avoid bearing any burden of proof for a pro-active assertion that there are no godsand is able to avoid the charge that atheism is essentially just a belieflike theism, except in another direction.

So-called "weak atheists" ought to abandon the use of the word (which seems only adopted for its "shock value") and use non-theist or agnostic as a designation. Atheism should be reserved for folks like Edgarwho appears to be almost the only real atheist in this forum.

0 Replies

Frank,

Spinoza's "proof" consists of equatiing "God" with "Nature" (denial of the "Supernatural") and showing that Nature is neither "moral" nor "providential".

But the problem with "proof" is that it becomes a rhetorical exercise involving assumed agreement of "set boundaries". Mathematical logic may reflect observation, and even predict it, but it is not sufficient in itself to account for it. Elementary examples of visual illusions for example show how the brain is either wired or conditioned to "see" what is "not the case" and "set membership categories" can be manipulated (by reward and punishment) such that "perception" cannot be regarded as "passive".

For these reasons "atheism" does not depend on "proof" (or its absence) even if traditional scientificism clearly gives it "legs". It depends on the utility of the God concept of the concept both at an individual and social level both of which have been historically biased in "God's" favour.

0 Replies

Frank,

Spinoza's "proof" consists of equatiing "God" with "Nature" (denial of the "Supernatural") and showing that Nature is neither "moral" nor "providential".

But the problem with "proof" is that it becomes a rhetorical exercise involving assumed agreement of "set boundaries". Mathematical logic may reflect observation, and even predict it, but it is not sufficient in itself to account for it. Elementary examples of visual illusions for example show how the brain is either wired or conditioned to "see" what is "not the case" and "set membership categories" can be manipulated (by reward and punishment) such that "perception" cannot be regarded as "passive".

For these reasons "atheism" does not depend on "proof" (or its absence) even if traditional scientificism clearly gives it "legs". It depends on the utility of the God concept both at an individual and social level both of which have been historically biased in "God's" favour (reward wise).

0 Replies

I am an agnostic atheist, if that counts. I am convinced of the non-existence of all of the culturally-defined and anthropomorphized gods of which I am aware, such as the Judeo-Christian God, Allah, and various pantheons such as Greek/Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Hindu, Chinese and Native American gods (I cannot rule out the possibility that other kinds of gods exist).

Merriam-Webster wrote:

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

1a A Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness could not create imperfect creatures, put them into a situation where they would be forced to suffer needlessly, or fail to alleviate such suffering. I observe imperfect creatures suffering from things such as genetic defects, diseases, pests, and natural disasters that are not attributable to mankind's alleged sins. It would be possible for an omnipotent Being to alleviate this suffering, but it continues unabated. Therefore a Being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent does not exist.

1b It is impossible for an infinite Mind to exist because information transfer is inherently limited to the speed of light, therefore it could not communicate with itself. It is impossible for an incorporeal Mind to exist since the data acquisition, storage, retrieval, and processing necessary for intelligent thought requires some kind of structure.

2 No one has proposed a credible origin or modus operandi for any supernatural being or powers, or explained why it would require or desire human worship, or provided evidence that any aspect of reality has ever been controlled by a supernatural force.

I do not believe that an immortal soul exists because drugs, disease and/or trauma to specific areas of the brain can impair consciousness, memory, volition, personality, and various mental abilities. If "I" can be altered even slightly by physical damage to my brain, then logically "I" do not exist independently of my brain. When an Alzheimer's patient dies, does his soul magically regain all of the memories and mental acuity he once had? If so, how and where are these memories kept and why could his soul not access them while he was alive?

If there is no immortal soul, there can be no afterlife, much as we might wish to be reunited with loved ones in Paradise, and rejoice over the retribution meted out to those we hated.

0 Replies

Terry,

Generally your analysis runs with Spinoza's.

However you should look again at:

Quote:

If "I" can be altered even slightly by physical damage to my brain, then logically "I" do not exist independently of my brain.

No this is invalid. The brain may be necessary for a manifestation of "I" but not sufficient. From a transcendental point of view "I" could be holistic software ("cosmic consciousness" say) which fails to run on a faulty "computer". Even if we would wish to avoid the "mysticism of the transcendental" you might note that even the reductionist Dennett suggests that "I" is a social evocation dependent on language acquisition . i.e. The "self" exists in "social space" as opposed to "physical space". Note that the "change" in "I" by physical intervention might only be perceived by others rather than "self".

0 Replies

Terry, you wrote:

Quote:

I do not believe that an immortal soul exists because...

Humor me, if you will...because I see another of those ambiguities I often mention when the word "believe" is used.

And I ask this question because of the content of what follows the word "because."

Did you truly mean to share that "You do not believe that an immortal soul exists"...or did you actually mean to share "You believe there is no immortal soul?"

As you know...I do not believe that an immortal soul exists. But I do not believe there is no immortal soul.

No word game being played there. It is a significant difference.

0 Replies

Frank, I note as usual you are avoiding my demolition of simplistic notions of "proof" and are running off to play with that mesmeric word "belief !" I wonder why I'm getting the picture of a barking dog chasing a ball Smile

.

0 Replies

I don't care whether the etymology is originally greek or not, nor french. What I care about is my sense of the word.

However, here's a quick site ref - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=a
quoting -
a- (2)
prefix meaning "not," from L. a-, short for ab "away from" (cf. avert), or its cognate, Gk. a-, short for apo "away from, from," both cognate with Skt. apa "away from," Goth. af, O.E. of.
a- (3)
prefix meaning "not," from Gk. a-, an- "not," from PIE base *ne "not" (see un-).

which uses the letter a, in front, as 'not'. I remember learning it as sans or without. I suppose I could chase that down, but the perfection of my reference is your point, not mine.

On my being a hypocrit by your point of view, well, that is your balloon.

0 Replies

fascinating

0 Replies

fresco, if the soul requires a brain to run, then it is not independent of the brain. Your analogy is not accurate. Neural connections are the software. Souls are equivalent to the output of your computer, such as the image on your computer screen or the music coming out of your speakers. If the computer is turned off or destroyed, the output/image/music is no longer being generated and simply ceases to exist.

The "self" exists in mental space which is not accessible to anyone else. What exists in "social space" is the behaviors that can be observed by others as well as the various ways we use to communicate, and what others infer about us (which may or may not be accurate). Some people are aware of the degradation in their sense of "self" and other aren't. It depends on what part of the brain is affected.

----

Frank, I meant it the way I said it, but I really don't think that the difference is significant to most people.

0 Replies

Terry,

I of course cannot agree with your statement that "neural connections constitute software" . This is blatently false as its like saying that "Microsoft Windows" is hard wired into your computer.

However irrespective of the applicability of a software analogy your concept of "self awareness" is simplistic in the extreme as evidenced by the opinion of renowned reductionists like Dennett whoo sees "consciousness" as an epiphenomenon. I only cited him because of your own attempted isomorphism of "brain and self". (Isomorhism requires both necessity and sufficiency but you only attempted the first of these) You might note that reductionism ultimately breaks down at the subatomic level where physicality becomes conceptualised in "Hilbert space" and it is interesting that some neuroscientists (notably Hameroff) have advocated a concept of non-localised "quantum consciousness" in neural microtubules on the evidence of "time-reversals" and "non-locality" in perceptual circuits. Alternatively, at the opposite end of the "reductionist spectrum" we have the view of Maturana (et al) that "consciousness" is synonymous "life" and that its apparant complexity as "self awareness" in homo sapiens is no big deal. All of the issues seriously question the status of your proposed isomorphism.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I look forward to seing where this is going. Nothing to offer though, since it seems to me that you are absolutely right in what you say in the final paragraph of your post.

However, I think it is most strange that atheists, who are so hellbent on disproving the notion of god, do not ask for a definition of what god is. Seems to me this would be a crucial step in disproving anything; to have a clear idea of what it is.

Well, a friend of mine classes god as the binding force that holds the universe together. He made his point that the table we were sitting at wasn't blinking in and out of existence. But the fact is, when you look at the make up of matter, that table is mostly empty space, and the only reason it's solid is the probability that every atom wont vibrate in exactly the same direction at exactly the same time. Otherwise, there's nothing really to prevent it having the consistency of water. No binding force, just odds.

0 Replies

Simply interesting...

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

Based on the concept of logic I have this to offer.

The dictionary defines something as being "logical" as being "Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year."

As we have no prior evidence or record of a god like being, we also have no recorded evidence of anything being supernatural.

Thus it would be unreasonable to claim that such a being could exist. It is then completely reasonable and logical to say that such a being does not exist.

The existence of a god is not anymore logical than the existence of planets made out of Belgian Chocolate. Both are equally illogical.

Surely a god is inherently a contradiction of current established records in regards to physics and the laws of nature.

The dictionary defines a "god" as:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions and the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. Being both omniscient and omnipotent is a logical fallacy and have major internal contradictions. Being supernatural by definition means that you are contradicting the established laws of nature.

The ONLY logical conclusion is that a god(s) do not exist. A god could never have existed in the past as the laws of nature had to be different, in order for the god to be able to exist. This would no longer make IT a god as IT would not be "supernatural" but simply natural. The same would count for the future existence of god. Because the concept contradicts the logically established principles and laws of physics and nature, one can logically say a god never existed, does not exist and could never exist.

Based on my argument above, the laws of nature had to change to enable an unnatural being to exist. There could thus never be a god as it would then become a natural being and thus no longer be a god by definition. It would have to subscribe to the laws of nature and physics in order to exist, which would disqualify it from being a god in the first place.

If God made the Universe and it's natural laws, then it by no means follows that He would be subject to and limited by the laws of nature.

How could He be subject to something that wasn't in existence before He made it?

Even scientists who hold to the Big Bang theory postulate a 'time before' the origin of the Universe when physical laws may not have existed as we know them.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Frank, I meant it the way I said it, but I really don't think that the difference is significant to most people.

Well...since they say two different things...anyone interested what is actually being said should find it significant.

In the first instance, the person says: "I do not believe that an immortal soul exists."

This is a statement about what the person is not willing to "believe."

I do not "believe" that an immortal soul exists.

There is nothing in this comment that commits me to "believing" that an immortal soul does not existmerely that I am not willing to go on record as believing it does.

On the other hand, if a person says: "I believe there is no immortal soul"that person is committing to a beliefand the belief is that there is no such thing as an immortal soul.

Just as I do not have enough information to make an assertion (or hold a "belief") that there are no immortal soulsI also do not have enough information to make an assertion (or hold a "belief") that there are none.

There is as significant a difference between those two statements as between: "I do not believe in any gods"and "I believe no gods exist."

I'm not interested if "most people do not see a difference", Terry. I am interested in whether or not you do.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

There is as significant a difference between those two statements as between: "I do not believe in any gods"and "I believe no gods exist."

I agree with that. There is a significant difference between the two statements. A huge, blatantly obvious difference. Those who do not see it should revise their grammar skills and their basic reasoning skills.

An english teacher I once has told us that there is no difference between the terms "would" and "could". To say that the statements in Frank's post are equal is almost an error of the same magnitude.

0 Replies

Frank:

The proof that there is no god is you yourself.

If there was a god he would have struck you dead several times by now.

He would have smote you about the head and shoulders until your non-existent immortal soul flew up and out and around the room before fleeing towards Nirvana, the place not the band.

(Or he could have made it look like an accident)

Either way, there's no way an intelligent extra-super-duper being would want you in his creation. Think about it. Truth. Beauty. Grace. Holiness. Sweetness and Light. (the actual things, not the singing duo. Oh, wait, you don't know them, nevermind.... )

Do you really think you fit into that kind of universe? I say no. I say if there was a god he would have had your number and your number would have been up. Poof!

Or maybe he would drown you along with 300,000 residents of Banda Aceh, just to cover his tracks.

Joe(A loving God would be driven to distraction and despair)Nation

Atheists....a question, if I may:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know