Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[redhawk23]

As a claim to infallibility, then yeah Lovecraft is just as "valid" as anything else.

As a vehicle for possible personal insight, values, useful advice, morality then not really.

I find a lot of truth in many different religions and philosophies, my problem is when they stake a claim to infallibility.

 

[redhawk23]

You're also assuming that there is a soul, or an "energy" within life, and that this thing is physical.

Consciousness is not physical. Or at least, science is yet to prove it to be physical.

consciousness is just the result of a pattern of electric/chemical pathways firing energy.

 

[redhawk23]

The mind is not a physical object. It cannot be governed by the laws of physics any more than an idea can.

And the concept of reincarnation is the idea that all souls a recycled. There needs to be a death beforehand before a reincarnation. The number can never rise, there can still only ever be one living organism on the planet.

Hate having multiple post sin a row, but I must respond.

I don't know about the laws of physics, but the mind is very dependent upon the physical vessel that contains it.

Just look at phineus gauge, he took an iron through the brain. Afterward it changed his entire personality, his entire character changed. The concept portrayed by this accident is now often employed on purpose. Lombotomies and other physical extractions of brain matter have been employed to control behavior. Now we use chemicals to rewire the brain, and control behavior, thought patterns even basic feelings, not just the ability to feel things, but the way you feel them at all. If someones entire conscious being can be manipulated in such a way, by modifying physical matter, in what way is the "mind" not simply a physical process? How is it separate?

And as for your argument against the concept of souls, many people that believe in them believe they come from a different place, or from God originally, so the issue of less organisms in the past is kind of mute. Or it may be their point anyways, that all conscious really is part of one larger consciousness. I know many people who believe in this.

 

[SuperFerret]

No loving, understanding God or gods would create a person who could not be "saved" in their lifetime. Christians and Muslims and Jews generally have a hard time thinking about all the people who their monotheistic religions had not touched for 1500 years or more.

If heaven -- and, therefore, a loving God -- exists, you get in there by not being an *******. It's as simple as that.

Those are my views on religion and God (or gods). I'm not going to ostracize or criticize anyone for believing differently; to paraphrase a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote, people should be judged by the content of their character.

You're assuming that this loving, understanding God cares primarily about humanity (and takes an active role in each one's creation). I personally don't believe this, and I think that God is more interested in the big picture than the individuals that make it up. (This is another view based off of observations of nature and how species and evolution work.)

I too believe that people should be judged by who they are, and personally, I feel if there is a God that is interested in humanity, then they will be judged in this way.

God can be loving while still condemning those who are unable to save themselves. No one human is one-dimensional, and that should be more than enough evidence against viewing any hypothetical beings that exist on a much, much higher level as being so one note as well.

So new souls are born and old souls just stick around? It's far more rational to believe that souls are just generated, as the levels of souls within organisms goes up as well as down.

I'd say it's far more rational that old "souls" go into the general pool of undefined energy when they die and then portions of this same pool of undefined energy then get reused in a myriad of ways, including becoming a new "soul". They could also be reused in other ways, of course.

 

[DBryan]

As a claim to infallibility, then yeah Lovecraft is just as "valid" as anything else.

As a vehicle for possible personal insight, values, useful advice, morality then not really.

I find a lot of truth in many different religions and philosophies, my problem is when they stake a claim to infallibility.

Lovecraft's work absolutely contains insight into, well, not so much 'values', but certainly a philosophy.

Humanity's presence and time within the Universe is tiny.

If Gods exist, we are LESSER to them than ants are to us.

In all likelihood, humanity will never leave this planet, and everything we accomplish here will mean nothing.

Any other belief system is just egotism, an attempt to make our existence seem important in the grander scale of things.

Now, I don't ACTUALLY believe this, but it is perfectly valid, and there is a strong logic to it.

I'm more hopeful, in the lines of Asimov - my hope is that we spread out into the Universe and create a human Galactic empire spanning, first, dozens of worlds, and then hundreds of worlds, that we eventually create true AI, that we discover methods to live hundreds of years. Only then could we really say that we've accomplished something that makes our species matter, compared to the vastness and timelessness of the Universe.

 

[redhawk23]

Superferret while I respect your beliefs and your standpoint I think you're just a little too pleased with yourself in using the "based on observatations" line. While your view points do appear to be based upon a more active examination of the world and critical thought, its not really what most non-religious folk are talking about when they talk about "observation." It is one thing to simply look at the world and draw inititial conclusions, its quite another to seek further evidence, outside of yourself that those conclusions are ultimately correct. All perception will ultimately be subjective, but there are ways to push to the absolute limits of perception, the edge of doubt, to push for the absolute amount of objectivity. I know you place little stock in the scientifici method, and yes ultimatley it is still just drawing subjective conclusions, the effort is at least made to expand the limits of knowledge and perception. Over time this has allowed us to push outward rather than simply being contained in ourselves.

 

[redhawk23]

Lovecraft's work absolutely contains insight into, well, not so much 'values', but certainly a philosophy.

Humanity's presence and time within the Universe is tiny.

If Gods exist, we are LESSER to them than ants are to us.

In all likelihood, humanity will never leave this planet, and everything we accomplish here will mean nothing.

Any other belief system is just egotism, an attempt to make our existence seem important in the grander scale of things.

Now, I don't ACTUALLY believe this, but it is perfectly valid, and there is a strong logic to it.

I'm more hopeful, in the lines of Asimov - my hope is that we spread out into the Universe and create a human Galactic empire spanning, first, dozens of worlds, and then hundreds of worlds, that we eventually create true AI, that we discover methods to live hundreds of years. Only then could we really say that we've accomplished something that makes our species matter, compared to the vastness and timelessness of the Universe.

"Over a long enough time scale, the survivability rate of everything drops to zero."

Living for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years will do nothing to change the inherent meaninglessness of everything we do. All meaning is subjective, so if there is no one left around to percieve and interpret it, nothing we leave behind has any meaning.

 

[DBryan]

I'd say it's far more rational that old "souls" go into the general pool of undefined energy when they die and then portions of this same pool of undefined energy then get reused in a myriad of ways, including becoming a new "soul". They could also be reused in other ways, of course.

That doesn't sound rational AT ALL.

It sounds more like, making it up as ya go along.

You say your beliefs are based on observations and yet admit there is no evidence the consciousness is physical. Your observations are merely vague, subjective interpretations of patterns and cyclical events.

If you can't prove that the concsiousness (or the "soul") is physical, then your statement that matter cannot be destroyed does not apply to consciousness.

Therefore, your belief in reincarnation is, absolutely and totally, based on FAITH.

 

[redhawk23]

That doesn't sound rational AT ALL.

It sounds more like, making it up as ya go along.

You say your beliefs are based on observations and yet admit there is no evidence the consciousness is physical. Your observations are merely vague, subjective interpretations of patterns and cyclical events.

If you can't prove that the concsiousness (or the "soul") is physical, then your statement that matter cannot be destroyed does not apply to consciousness.

Therefore, your belief in reincarnation is, absolutely and totally, based on FAITH.

He's not proposing that any particular consciousness or mental configuration continues on after death. In different terms he is stating something that is true. Our minds are just patterns of electrochemical energy, energy is not lost just transfered, reprocessed. The same goes for the physical matter of which we are made.

As for the subjectiveness of his observations, I agree, and stated as much in my last post. However, ultimately despite our best efforts all observation is subjective. Its just a matter of how far you take your efforts to be objective, but as Ferret is likely to agree, I think, this argument its almost moot.

 

[Dr.]

Let me give you an example: It is a sort of universal law that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. It is also apparent that a great many things in nature are cyclical, such as a myriad of life and death cycles in the animal kingdom, the water cycle, weather patterns, the phases of the moon, etc. So, with that information, I feel that a belief in reincarnation makes sense to me, as the "soul" (or whatever energy that drives life) cannot be destroyed, only changed, and could potentially be recycled in another lifeform (or lifeforms).

First explanation for a religious belief that I can actually respect. Kudos.

I have no problem with people coming to belief based on conclusions like this. At least it shows some thought has gone into it, some logic has been applied.

Really?

If I shut my computer off, then the unsaved document in its RAM is lost. But no violation of matter/energy has occurred and I’m not tempted to imagine that the document/information still exists in some other form somewhere else.

Why wouldn’t this be analogous to what happens to the mind at death? Why be impressed by fanciful notions of reincarnation?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Really?

If I shut my computer off, then the unsaved document in its RAM is lost. But no violation of matter/energy has occurred and I’m not tempted to imagine that the document/information still exists in some other form somewhere else.

Why wouldn’t this be analogous to what happens to the mind at death? Why be impressed by fanciful notions of reincarnation?

I don't agree with the posters observations and conclusions.

I would agree with you. While the energy used to power the electricity of a computer may 'live on', I don't think the actual information does.

I just respect anyone who is attempting to actually look at WHY they believe something, rather than just blind, illogical faith.

 

[SuperFerret]

That doesn't sound rational AT ALL.

It sounds more like, making it up as ya go along.

You say your beliefs are based on observations and yet admit there is no evidence the consciousness is physical. Your observations are merely vague, subjective interpretations of patterns and cyclical events.

If you can't prove that the concsiousness (or the "soul") is physical, then your statement that matter cannot be destroyed does not apply to consciousness.

Therefore, your belief in reincarnation is, absolutely and totally, based on FAITH.

Yes, it's faith, but it's not blind faith. That's kind of what I was trying to say.

 

[DBryan]

Really?

If I shut my computer off, then the unsaved document in its RAM is lost. But no violation of matter/energy has occurred and I’m not tempted to imagine that the document/information still exists in some other form somewhere else.

Why wouldn’t this be analogous to what happens to the mind at death? Why be impressed by fanciful notions of reincarnation?

That's a really good example.

The information in an unsaved document is lost forever, irretrivable, it does not have "energy" that will return in another form.

There is no evidence to suggest that when a person dies, their consciousness still exists.

No. Our best evidence suggests that when a person dies it is analogous to switching off a computer.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That's a really good example.

The information in an unsaved document is lost forever, irretrivable, it does not have "energy" that will return in another form.

There is no evidence to suggest that when a person dies, their consciousness still exists.

No. Our best evidence suggests that when a person dies it is analogous to switching off a computer.

I think the analogy is flawed.

Because if death is like switching a computer off and loosing an unsaved document, then reincarnation is just switching the computer back on and opening a new document.

It's still the same hardrive, same computer. The memory just doesn't hold the previous document.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't believe Superferret ever said anything about the consciousness living on though, just that the energy is transferred. The file may be lost, but what he sad is still true.

 

[DBryan]

I think the analogy is flawed.

Because if death is like switching a computer off and loosing an unsaved document, then reincarnation is just switching the computer back on and opening a new document.

It's still the same hardrive, same computer. The memory just doesn't hold the previous document.

You can't switch a human being back on.

 

[DBryan]

I don't believe Superferret ever said anything about the consciousness living on though, just that the energy is transferred. The file may be lost, but what he sad is still true.

What is this energy? How is it transferred?

It's very unscientific, this reincarnation stuff.

 

[Dr.]

I don't believe Superferret ever said anything about the consciousness living on though, just that the energy is transferred. The file may be lost, but what he said is still true.

There’s a certain beauty and awe in the thought that most of the atoms in your body were created within supernovae. And after you die, those same atoms will be put to other uses. It’s the circle of life – or, at least, the circle of matter and energy.

Now, you can call this immortality or reincarnation in you want. But those terms usually have heavy metaphysical and existential connotations. Why call something reincarnation if what you really mean is recycling?

 

[SuperFerret]

What is this energy? How is it transferred?

It's very unscientific, this reincarnation stuff.

Hi, I'm not a physicist. Also, you don't need to use the scientific method to believe. It kind of goes against that.

There’s a certain beauty and awe in the thought that most of the atoms in your body were created within supernovae. And after you die, those same atoms will be put to other uses. It’s the circle of life – or, at least, the circle of matter and energy.

Now, you can call this immortality or reincarnation in you want. But those terms usually have heavy metaphysical and existential connotations. Why call something reincarnation if what you really mean is recycling?

Because arguing semantics is lame, and who's to say that I don't believe that there's something guiding all this, whether consciously or unconsciously.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You can't switch a human being back on.

Exactly. So how is a human being dying the same as a computer being switched off?

In the analogy, life and all it's memories was being compared to an unsaved document, and the computer being compared to the mind (which houses the document until the computer is turn off and is lost).

But if you can turn a computer back on, then within that analogy, you can 'reboot' the mind (or soul or whatever you are calling it), just without the previous document.

And the analogy is flawed in other ways as well. I mean, you can switch a computer off, and still transfer the files to another computer from the hardrive... Which seems to agree more with reincarnation.

 

[bunk]

When parts of your brain are damaged, aspects of your mind can cease to exist. So it stands to reason when your entire brain is damaged you would no longer have a mind to float off somewhere.

 

[Dr.]

Because arguing semantics is lame, and who's to say that I don't believe that there's something guiding all this, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Indeed, that was my understanding of your post(s). But redhawk23 suggested that you weren’t necessarily talking about “consciousness living on” past death.

Generally, semantics in the service of conveying clear meaning is not so lame.

 

[Dr.]

Exactly. So how is a human being dying the same as a computer being switched off?

In the analogy, life and all it's memories was being compared to an unsaved document, and the computer being compared to the mind (which houses the document until the computer is turn off and is lost).

But if you can turn a computer back on, then within that analogy, you can 'reboot' the mind (or soul or whatever you are calling it), just without the previous document.

But the point of the analogy is that the original document (the mind) is lost when the machine is shut down (death). Turning the computer back on and staring a new document would be analogous to a new human life (with a new mind) being born. That’s hardly remarkable and no need to invoke terms like “reincarnation” to describe the process.

And the analogy is flawed in other ways as well. I mean, you can switch a computer off, and still transfer the files to another computer from the hardrive... Which seems to agree more with reincarnation.

No, I think the analogy still holds. When you speak of a data backup, you’re changing the terms of the analogy. Perhaps, in some sci-fi future, we’ll be able to download the mind to some other medium (another body, a machine) and achieve a kind of immortality or reincarnation that way. But in that circumstance, it’ll be clear that we are sustaining consciousness with a dedicated energy supply and a different physical medium. Absent those hi-tech interventions, however, by what means could reincarnation occur as a natural phenomenon?

 

[SuperFerret]

Indeed, that was my understanding of your post(s). But redhawk23 suggested that you weren’t necessarily talking about “consciousness living on” past death.

Generally, semantics in the service of conveying clear meaning is not so lame.

I'm truthfully unsure of whether or not consciousness lives on after death, but what I mean about guidance is more of a force or something "herding" the "souls" and such things.

I think we both know what we're talking about here, so the semantics are just boiling down to "you use this word, where I'd say it's this word".

 

[BattleCat]

Sorry if this was talked about, but ...Do/Should atheist celebrate christmas?