Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Not as much as it used to be. Adding the word "material" just confuses it. The brain is as material as a table, and consciousness is an activity of the brain; that's how I see it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: Is that your final answer?
- Thread starter Katzpur
- Start date
Not as much as it used to be. Adding the word "material" just confuses it. The brain is as material as a table, and consciousness is an activity of the brain; that's how I see it.
If you are interested in a different approach, Philosopher Alva Noe examines this in his recent presentation.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
In fact, to take it further, in a sense I believe that consciousness is an illusion. What I mean is, we have a feeling or sense of ourselves as an entity that exists separate from the rest of the world, like a little person peering out from inside our head, but this is just an accident of how our brains work. We are an integrated part of the entire complicated world around us. It's just that you can't have sight or hearing without experiencing it as someone who sees or someone who hears. I think that it would be more accurate to say that "hearing is happening" than to say that "I heard it."
To put it differently, I think Descartes was wrong ("I doubt, therefore there is an 'I' that is doubting) and G.E. Moore was right (The one thing that cannot be doubted is 'red patch now.')
Sorry this is so hard to express; I doubt that I have expressed myself comprehensibly, but I tried.
To put it differently, I think Descartes was wrong ("I doubt, therefore there is an 'I' that is doubting) and G.E. Moore was right (The one thing that cannot be doubted is 'red patch now.')
Sorry this is so hard to express; I doubt that I have expressed myself comprehensibly, but I tried.
Jackytar
Ex-member
Interesting comments, Autodidact.
Have you seen this... ?
The Mystery of Consciousness by Steven Pinker.
Jackytar
Have you seen this... ?
The Mystery of Consciousness by Steven Pinker.
Jackytar
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, but I have read some Pinker. I like him, but he's a little too smart for me. I often have to read it a few times, or a little of him and a little someone else, before it starts to click.
Jackytar
Ex-member
This article originally appeared in Time magazine. Not too cerebral (no pun intended). Meant for general consumption. I thought you might like it because it talks about consciousness theory and research (such as it is) that coincide with your thoughts. Perhaps you're smarter than you give yourself credit for.
The comments are interesting as well.Jackytar
Last edited:
Jackytar
Ex-member
Gave this a look the other day. (I have a Tivo that streams youtube on my TV. Pretty cool.) Maybe it was over my head but I didn't get the gist of what he was claiming - which was a new way to look at consciousness that could somehow solve the inscrutability of the mind. Something about how the world is perceived in an interactive way that takes place outside of our skull? And that this leads to the notion that consciousness transcends the brain (the material). Interesting nonetheless and thanks for posting the link. Perhaps I need to watch it again. I was kinda sleepy.
Jackytar
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Atheists are atheists because there is no evidence for God. Asking someone to believe in God because God cannot be disproven is just as asinine and arbitrary as asking someone to believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for or against the existence of unicorns.
Atheists don't believe something without sufficient justification to (evidence). However an assertion that God DEFINITELY does not exist is just as irrational as claiming God DEFINITELY does. Therefore rational atheists claim "There is no evidence for God, but no way to disprove the existence of God. Therefore, I believe God probably does not exist."
A theist cannot claim "There is no evidence for God, but no way to prove the existence of God. Therefore I believe God probably does exist." This is for the simple matter that reading that sentence you see how nonsensical it sounds. Why would you believe in something if you have no reason to? No evidence, no way to prove it, so why would you jump to that conclusion?
Atheists don't believe something without sufficient justification to (evidence). However an assertion that God DEFINITELY does not exist is just as irrational as claiming God DEFINITELY does. Therefore rational atheists claim "There is no evidence for God, but no way to disprove the existence of God. Therefore, I believe God probably does not exist."
A theist cannot claim "There is no evidence for God, but no way to prove the existence of God. Therefore I believe God probably does exist." This is for the simple matter that reading that sentence you see how nonsensical it sounds. Why would you believe in something if you have no reason to? No evidence, no way to prove it, so why would you jump to that conclusion?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
psychological programming and indoctrination.....:sad:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
The question I asked was more of a rhetorical nature, but yes, you're right.
ellemennop
Freshman Member
Faith is a constant process of evolution for every human being-- you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who believes the exact same things they did ten years ago. A lot of atheist are so on the basis of skepticism, in that they have never been presented with credible fact about the existance of a god. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense that they might possibly change their minds if credible proof were presented?
Say you don't believe in leprechauns, because you've never been presented any proof that they exist. Wouldn't you start to question that disbelief if you saw a leprechaun in the flesh?
I agree with linwood, there's a certain amount of prejudice attached to "atheist" that doesn't accomany "agnostic", so sometimes it's easier to refer to yourself as the latter and avoid unnecessary awkwardness.
Besides, why are you trying to slap a label on people? Let them define themselves as they want without generalizing them in a way that makes them easier for you to understand.
Say you don't believe in leprechauns, because you've never been presented any proof that they exist. Wouldn't you start to question that disbelief if you saw a leprechaun in the flesh?
I agree with linwood, there's a certain amount of prejudice attached to "atheist" that doesn't accomany "agnostic", so sometimes it's easier to refer to yourself as the latter and avoid unnecessary awkwardness.
Besides, why are you trying to slap a label on people? Let them define themselves as they want without generalizing them in a way that makes them easier for you to understand.
Hitchey
Member
That is my final answer. There is no God.
Are you familiar with Dawkins' scale of belief? I define myself as a 7.
Smoke
Done here.
That's a very Buddhist way of looking at it.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
That's a very Buddhist way of looking at it.
Yes, it is. I find that most of what I learn from modern science is in accord with Tibetan Buddhism as the Dalai Lama explains it.
xela
New Member
It depends how you define 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Those who call themselves such don't even agree! Some say everyone is technically agnostic about everything since you can never be 100% certain. Therefore, the term 'agnostic' holds little additional meaning with respect to god. Some say the terms have different meanings: 'a-theist' meaning without belief, and 'a-gnostic' means without knowledge. Hence you can be both. You can not believe in god because (and in addition to) you have no knowledge of him. I think 'atheist' is the more common term simply because it has become more widely used, and it can refer to technically 'atheist' or 'agnostic', however you define them. Atheists generally are open to evidence for god.
Last edited:
imaginaryme
Active Member
I am whatever you say I am, and if I wasn't; why would I say I am?
~Eminem
It's real easy. Take notes.
God does not exist for the simple reason that existence limits god; by definition, god is that which is beyond limit, beyond understanding, and thus beyond relevance.
~Eminem
It's real easy. Take notes.
God does not exist for the simple reason that existence limits god; by definition, god is that which is beyond limit, beyond understanding, and thus beyond relevance.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Yeah, so I've learned!
I'm sort of one of those people myself. I have a very strong belief in God, but technically I can't say "I know there's a God," so I would have to say I'm an agnostic with strongly theistic leanings. Most theists, though, act as if they think they're going to be struck by lightning if they say that.
Perhaps. I guess I just haven't run into a lot of that type. On the other hand, I spend very little time trying to convince anybody that there's a God. I personally don't care all that much whether they think there is or not, and I appreciate the ones who don't feel compelled to tell me how stupid, naive, misguided, delusioned and brainwashed I am for being a theist.
xela
New Member
If you say you don't know, what do you base your beliefs on? I think many atheists find it hard to conceive of a god, since 'god' is so horribly defined and contradictory; it's hard to imagine what evidence there could be for a 'god' when you can't even define it coherently! Evidence is the key.
Luminous
non-existential luminary
observation and imagination.