Question for Atheists...

[Subduction Zone]

Either atoms think separately or they think collectively. What do you think?

Atoms do not think. Thought is an emergent process that cannot be ascribed to the smallest of parts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol thanks. Certain collections. They have to be magnetically connected I guess. Tell me about it...lol.

Chemically connected. But once again, always an emergent process. If you want to call it atoms thinking you could, but that would not get you anywhere. You could describe the individual chemical reactions, but that tells you nothing at all about the thoughts. Take one pixel in a screenshot of an image. Tell me what it is a picture of. Now take a million pixels. Now the image is clear. Some images are so iconic that a minimal number of pixels will tell some people what it is. Almost every American can identify this person:

 

[PureX]

Humans are very good at (seeing) purpose and/or agency when there is none.

... And then becoming that agency. That did not exist until humans imagined it and became it.

What an AMAZING thing!

Makes it very hard to presume it's all just an accident of chance.

 

[ratiocinator]

Makes it very hard to presume it's all just an accident of chance.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

I always wonder why theists misuse the word "chance". Is it because they see the weakness of some of their beliefs so that they have to call events "chance" that are not chance?

 

[Polymath257]

Lol thanks. Certain collections. They have to be magnetically connected I guess. Tell me about it...lol.

Magnetically connected? Huh?

Beyond words.

???

 

[Polymath257]

... And then becoming that agency. That did not exist until humans imagined it and became it.

What an AMAZING thing!

Yes, the inventiveness of humans is amazing.

Makes it very hard to presume it's all just an accident of chance.

Well, there is the agency of the humans involved. But other than that, chance seems like the most reasonable explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Magnetically connected? Huh?


???

Yup by gravity. Or magic, you think? Single atoms don't think huh but put them together like in a bee brain and they magically think maybe through Einstein's theory, eh? My oh my...so good learning from you guys and gals about "science." What's gravity, magic and stupid strawmen arguments. Eeks. Been a trip, who needs Timothy Leary?

 

[YoursTrue]

Magnetically connected? Huh?


???

Yup. You got me...lol...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup by gravity. Or magic, you think? Single atoms don't think huh but put them together like in a bee brain and they magically think maybe through Einstein's theory, eh? My oh my...so good learning from you guys and gals about "science." What's gravity, magic and stupid strawmen arguments. Eeks. Been a trip, who needs Timothy Leary?

No magic required. Just physics and chemistry. But since you believe in magic that is a rather odd complaint on your part.

 

[Yerda]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I have already granted that there is no solution to hard solipsism.

There is a mug on my desk. With the understanding that I am talking about phenomena, and not numina, give me one metaphysical proposition that I have to assume in order to say that.


[cheesy grin]

I've had a think about this and I think you might be right about the need for metaphysics. But I'm kind of interested in where you're going with this. I suppose that there exists, at the very least, something that can have the experience of a mug and a desk. Would that qualify as statement of metaphysical character?

Hmm...what, precisely, do you mean by the term 'supernatural'? if you define it in contrast to 'natural', what precisely, do you mean by 'natural'?

You see, I have yet to see a coherent definition of 'supernatural' that isn't self-contradictory. part of the reason is an incoherence in the definition of 'natural'.

I don't know precisely. It's not a word I tend to use often because I find it tricky but for the purposes of this thread I just mean the kind of things people call supernatural - gods and the like. Beyond or outside or unconstrained by the laws of nature or something like that.

I'm more inclined to say that we will be making assumptions. And, those assumptions need to be tested. Again, part of the difficulty is figuring out precisely what is mean by 'causality'. This is another concept I have yet to see coherently defined (except in the context of natural laws).

Causality is difficult to pin down.

Some questions:

1. What does it mean to 'exist'?

2. How can it be determined whether an imagined thing actually exists? This should apply to subatomic particles, other galaxies, supernova, or deities.

3. What does it mean to be 'physical'? Is it different than being 'natural'? If so, how?

4. What does it mean to be 'supernatural'? In what way does the prefix 'super' modify the word?

5. How could we know if something is due to/caused by something supernatural (as opposed to something currently unknown and natural)?

6. Suppose two people disagree about something to do with the supernatural. How could they resolve their disagreement and know who was wrong?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the supernatural is real. Just not impossible. I don't belive in gods because I don't feel I have a good reason to, not because I think such things are impossible.

I don't know that I have good answers to these questions. I have no idea how we might determine whether something was caused by something supernatural.

 

[ppp]

I've had a think about this and I think you might be right about the need for metaphysics. But I'm kind of interested in where you're going with this. I suppose that there exists, at the very least, something that can have the experience of a mug and a desk. Would that qualify as statement of metaphysical character?

I don't ... think... so. I think that is just the logical necessity that in order for experiencing to happen that there must be a subject. It is when we go into the nature of that subject that we would venture into metaphysics (ontology). I am going to muse on that one.

 

[Bird123]

I too make no demands, but the absolute absence of evidence does not give me any reason to accept the existence of God or soul.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Has religion corrupted your thinking into believing it is about accepting?

The evidence surrounds us all. Look around you. The knowledge waits to be Discovered. On the other hand, those that do not seek discover very little. It has always been within your hands.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Humans are very good at finding purpose and/or agency when there is none.

Can you really see no purpose in anything? Start small. See where it leads.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Has religion corrupted your thinking into believing it is about accepting?
The evidence surrounds us all. Look around you. The knowledge waits to be Discovered. On the other hand, those that do not seek discover very little. It has always been within your hands.

My religion asks me to check evidence constantly.
All around myself and in myself, I see only an ocean of 'physical energy' and nothing else.
"Sarvam khalu idam Brahma" (All these things here are Brahman).

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The evidence surrounds us all.

That's what you believe because of your preferred Christian beliefs, but not everyone, not even every Christian, experiences what you believe.

Look around you.

I did for forty years, and I found nothing. I remember a scripture that states, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). Well, I sought after God for forty years with all of my heart, but I never found God. I did, however, find disappointment, heartache, and a constant feeling of hopelessness because I was left all alone to deal with the abuse, bullying, and harassment on my own while I was growing up. I also had to learn how to deal with PTSD as an adult, but fortunately for me, I have a husband who has been there for me every step of the way for the past 30 and 1/2 years.

The knowledge waits to be Discovered.

After forty years of looking for God, I discovered that either God doesn't actually exist, or if he does, he obviously doesn't give a damn about me.

On the other hand, those that do not seek discover very little

On the other hand, there are those who truly seek God for years on end only to ultimately come up empty-handed, as I did. I've said this before, and I'd like to say it again: as an ex-Christian and survivor of childhood abuse, I see God as a narcissistic and abusive parent who only "loves" you when you do or say exactly what they want you to do. And you think that if you don't make them angry, they won't hurt you, but you're not sure because they have a violent temper and are known to irrationally lash out. So, if you disobey them and make them angry, there will be hell to pay. That is not a relationship based on unconditional love, but rather one based on fear and mistrust. If God exists, then I don't believe that he is worthy of my respect and reverence, let alone my love and worship. I do believe, however, that he has earned my contempt. If God exists, then he can go to hell. He obviously doesn't think I'm worth his time, and I now don't think he's worth mine. I also see God as a sadistic and psychopathic monster who delights in inflicting pain and torturing people, as well as in causing total chaos and disasters in order to inflict pain and kill people. I certainly don't see him as loving, merciful, just, or a heavenly father.

It has always been within your hands.

It took me many years to finally realize that believing in God was an emotional crutch for me and a total waste of my time. Sadly, I wasted forty years of my life looking for God. I realized that he might not even exist in the first place, or if he does exist, he obviously doesn't give a damn that I suffered abuse while I was growing up or that I've dealt with PTSD as an adult because of the severe abuse, trauma, and constant bullying I suffered while growing up.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I used to believe that when I was a devout Christian as well, but then I removed my rose-colored glasses and faced my reality, which was that I had been ignorant of trusting in God for so long and had mistakenly assumed he would be my heavenly father. I eventually learned how to care for myself and my family, and I finally realized that I don't need or want God in my life and that I'm far better off emotionally without believing in and having faith in God.

Finally, I decided to share what I wrote in another thread on a related topic.

In my case, I have reason to reject belief in the biblical God because I was a very devout Christian for 30 years and genuinely believed in God for years before that, but I never experienced anything that other Christians claimed happened to them, even though we believed in the same God. For example, they claimed to experience peace and joy in their lives because they believed in God, while I, on the other hand, felt nothing but sadness and despair during the years I was a devout Christian. To be honest, I only began to feel peace and joy in my life after I renounced my belief in God and abandoned Christianity. Have you ever heard of the expression "playing church?" That's exactly what I did. I went through the motions and pretended to experience God, as other Christians claimed they had, but I never did. I tried really hard to experience God, but I felt such hopelessness whenever I tried and failed.

It took me a long time to admit that I had been pretending to experience God's presence in my life when I never genuinely did. I understood I had to be honest with myself and quit pretending. I realized that I was wasting my life by pretending to feel the presence of God in my life when he either doesn't really exist or, if he does, obviously doesn't give a damn about me. A couple of years ago, I did a lot of soul-searching and had to ask myself why I was so committed to clinging to the false hope that I had in believing in God. I realized that believing in God was an emotional crutch for me. I also recognized that if I was ever going to recover emotionally and change my life for the better, I needed to let go of that crutch. My mental health and emotional well-being have significantly improved since I disavowed my belief in God and Christianity. In retrospect, it was one of the best decisions I've ever made for myself. While I don't regret my decision, I wish that I had made it years earlier so that I could have avoided decades of depression and emotional turmoil.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you really see no purpose in anything? Start small. See where it leads.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I see plenty of purpose in what humans create. Not so much what happens outside of that.

 

[Polymath257]

Yup by gravity. Or magic, you think? Single atoms don't think huh but put them together like in a bee brain and they magically think maybe through Einstein's theory, eh? My oh my...so good learning from you guys and gals about "science." What's gravity, magic and stupid strawmen arguments. Eeks. Been a trip, who needs Timothy Leary?

No, not by gravity or magic. Simply chemistry for the basic interactions. The point is that 'thinking' isn't a thing, but a process. It is the result of trillions of atoms, not single ones.

 

[Polymath257]

I've had a think about this and I think you might be right about the need for metaphysics. But I'm kind of interested in where you're going with this. I suppose that there exists, at the very least, something that can have the experience of a mug and a desk. Would that qualify as statement of metaphysical character?


I don't know precisely. It's not a word I tend to use often because I find it tricky but for the purposes of this thread I just mean the kind of things people call supernatural - gods and the like. Beyond or outside or unconstrained by the laws of nature or something like that.

I also tend not to use the words 'natural' or 'supernatural' as they tend to be more revealing of our ignorance than anything else.

Natural laws are, ultimately, descriptive, not proscriptive. So, if something *seems* to go against them, it simply means we don't have the correct natural laws. We need a better description of what is going on.

And, again, this is part of the problem. Ultimately, anything that has a description follows 'natural laws' and is thereby natural. So, a supernatural is impossible by the very definition of the concept.

Causality is difficult to pin down.

Precisely. Causality is something to be tested and seen when and how it applies. And, we have found, most quantum events are uncaused in any classical sense of the word.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the supernatural is real. Just not impossible. I don't belive in gods because I don't feel I have a good reason to, not because I think such things are impossible.

I think that whether a 'supernatural' is possible or not depends of the specifics of the definition.

I don't know that I have good answers to these questions. I have no idea how we might determine whether something was caused by something supernatural.

And, until we *can* determine such, it is rather meaningless to postulate a supernatural as a cause.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not by gravity or magic. Simply chemistry for the basic interactions. The point is that 'thinking' isn't a thing, but a process. It is the result of trillions of atoms, not single ones.

I don't think so, you may think so. I figure that bees did not devise by thinking how to build hives, or ants build . anthills.