• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Any Atheists here?

Well if you alter the brain, either with chemicals, electricity or even damage.. it alters the consciousness.. Destroy the parts of the brain responsible for thought and there will be no thought.. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain. There is no evidence to suggest that it's anything more than that.

There was no consciousness before birth. There will be none after death.
 
There's strong evidence, imo, that it's causation rather that correlation.

There is no evidence that there is anything more to consciousness than the brain. There is no evidence of a soul. There is no evidence of an afterlife.

If we went around willy nilly and believed things without evidence then where do you draw the line? A belief in an after life is no more than a hope it exists.
 
Well if you alter the brain, either with chemicals, electricity or even damage.. it alters the consciousness.. Destroy the parts of the brain responsible for thought and there will be no thought.. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain. There is no evidence to suggest that it's anything more than that.

There was no consciousness before birth. There will be none after death.

that's a fair point but that only really proves that we do not see objects in themselves and are basically machine like interpreters of sensory data; doesn't mean we aren't something more than that though, think of an internet of consciousness or something that is self-realized, it's plausible right?

people should question/be critical of their faith though, or at least ask some questions. My faith isn't blind faith, it's based on my experiences and how i feel and some logical arguments, but really more so the intuitive feelings i have, i feel connected to something far greater than myself, i'll call that God. Could be delusional too but science can't say one way or the other as it goes beyond, transcends science (of today anyway). I don't disregard science or anything, i use it to assess my intuitive beliefs, i disregard what is completely illogical, like Hitler being God or something like that and along with intuition and the connection i feel, there is a cosmic consciousness or collective consciousness. That's at least a bit better than blind faith. And i'm always open to change my views as science and our understanding of the universe change. I don't know if we'll ever actually figure anything out though as we are stuck in the universe or wherever we are and can't get outside of it; i don't even know if that makes logical sense ATM but sometimes it frustrates me to think about such things.

If there's no consciousness after death then life itself is kind of absurd and meaningless. Sure we get to see the wonders of it but then we never know about it anyway, why have something at all if that's the case? the universe just sits here and life is randomly created? That's really only reasonable to suggest if there are infinitely many universes, as our universe just so happens to be fine tuned to support human life as well as other creatures. If there's one universe, as i said before, that'd be a hell of a coincidence.

the reason i don't go around just believing anything is the fact that i get these feelings and intuitions that there is something more, i don't really care if there isn't, it'd be the end of my suffering so i really don't care but i have felt it and experienced it so many times on psychedelics and in psychosis, there's gotta be something more to it but that's just my opinion and justification for my beliefs. I never get the feeling that Hitler's teapot is the culmination of all consciousness and everything that exists, though i suppose it's plausible, but in terms of probability, or gambling, if there is a God, do you think it's Hitler's teapot or maybe something else?
 
Last edited:
There is no evidence of a soul. There is no evidence of an afterlife.

If we went around willy nilly and believed things without evidence then where do you draw the line? A belief in an after life is no more than a hope it exists.

Why should consciousness/soul suggest an after-life? This is a biased notion of soul (Christian, yes -- contrast this, for example, with the Hindu version). Rejecting consciousness/soul because one's main goal is to reject Christianity seems a flawed starting point to approach the difficult spirit/matter dualism.

For the record, I suspect many atheist inclining towards materialism because it suits their hidden agenda (to reject religious views) very well. By doing this, they minimalize the difficulty of the spirit/matter problem, and take the problems of exclusive materialism for granted.

Moreover, there can perfectly be "immanent immortality" instead of "transcendent immortality." (viz. also Aristotle vs. Plato on the problem of forms)
 
Last edited:
So I am trying to tread through all that self-aggrandizing bullshit...

Most knowledgeable atheists don't make a point to reject Christianity over any other religion. I don't know how you got the idea that rejecting religious views is a hidden agenda of atheism. Atheism in and of itself is not a rejection of religion... furthermore, atheism doesn't have an agenda. To us there is no such thing as a "spirit/matter problem" because there is no evidence that "spirits" even exist.

So who has the "flawed starting point" now?
 
I don't know how you got the idea that rejecting religious views is a hidden agenda of atheism.

atheism doesn't have an agenda.
You are right, Dawkins doesn't have an agenda -- just like rickolasnice (who probably is a nice/intelligent guy in real life) doesn't have a hidden agenda here. Compare:

rickolasnice said:
They are statements / questions to inspire free thought for people to either question or learn a little bit more about their faith. As well as for them to inspire me and for me to learn more about their faith.

with
rickolasnice said:
I'd love to see a world where law is not governed by religion, where science, rationality and reason replace superstition and unfounded faith. A world where the church has no power.


rickolasnice said:
p.s. rickolasnice, this is not a personal attack. I respect you, but you just seem to have much common with the Dawkins stereotype.


===
===


[Sarcastic mode] mal3volent, you are right: the "common" (stereotype) atheist, as a rule, has much intellectual humility. His primary goal is to find the Truth, he is not at all preoccupied with rejecting (or looking down on) other people their worldviews. He is much different than a religious fundamentalist because he dares to question his own presuppositions and will always remain critical about them.

To us there is no such thing as a "spirit/matter problem" because there is no evidence that "spirits" even exist.
1° Is there evidence that "matter" even exists?

2° How many atheists even take something like a "spiritual substance" (without a God) serious? There is a strong correlation between atheism and materialism (since Hobbes), just like there is a correlation between atheism and nihilism (since Nietzsche).


===
===

Also, I think it would be good to distinguish the two latent dimensions of atheism: rational/ideological. I tend to be more appreciative for a scientist who has come to a well-balanced rational atheistic understanding of reality after many years of reflection. On the other hand, I get always slightly irritated when I encounter one of those thousand people who praise science, but don't even know how to solve a second degree polynomial equation. Most of the time, I get the impression that their "belief in science" is (ironically) parasitic on their temporarily "emotional existential discomfort" rather than the outcome of a life-long quest for "the Truth by means of reason."
 
Last edited:
Okay, I was going to make a lengthy response...but did you really just ask if there is "any evidence that matter exists"? Are you just trolling me, or what? I couldn't find any closing [/sarcastic mode] tag so I'm not really sure what your intentions are. If you are being serious, I suggest finding your way to the mental health forum.
 
if there is "any evidence that matter exists"? Are you just trolling me, or what?... If you are being serious, I suggest finding your way to the mental health forum

^ Just take an introductory philosophy class: Plato, Descartes, Berkeley, Leibniz, Hegel, A.N. Whitehead... the list goes on.

Also, I repeat myself:

atheist, as a rule, has much intellectual humility.... He is much different than a religious fundamentalist because he dares to question his own presuppositions and will always remain critical about them.

What makes people so self-confident about the presupposition of materialism?
 
Last edited:
^yes i agree completely; those people are irritating haha. I see them as being analogous to fundamentalist Christians or other groups like that. Take a step back and be critical of what you take for fact for fuck sakes!

At least you can get them all fired up by attacking science, which for most of these people i encounter is as mystical to them as religion to a 14th century boy. You guys probably would have killed Socrates back in the day.

wikipedia said:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[

the agenda is to convert others; i'm not sure why but plenty of Atheists have to go around proclaiming their Atheism, i'm surprised they don't knock on doors and hand out pamphlets. Then you get douche bags like Richard Dawkins to captivate the minds of all these people ensuring great book sales and a cult like following, without anyone ever questioning any of it. The parallels from Atheism as such and organized religion as such, start to become more than apparent which is funny. You may as well call contemporary North American Atheism an organized religion. Sorry that's a bit harsh, i just really hate Dawkins and i highly fucking doubt he doesn't have an agenda in capturing the hearts, minds and spirits of his readers/fans/whatever.
 
What one person means when they say "spirit" isn't necessarily the same as the next persons "spirit", even if they are.
 
Last edited:
^ Just take an introductory philosophy class: Plato, Descartes, Berkeley, Leibniz, Hegel, A.N. Whitehead... the list goes on.

Also, I repeat myself:



What makes people so self-confident about the presupposition of materialism?

We were talking about whether or not there is evidence that matter exists, right? That doesn't require us to even approach the topic of materialism. Even those who believe there is more than a physical realm would still acknowledge that a physical realm exists.

I've only ever taken one course on philosophy, so I'm sure you could school me on plenty of things. But I would encourage anyone to not over complicate what atheism is. For example, based on their last post RobotRipping obviously has some pent up animosity towards atheists. You have been more objective, but please do not presume anything about atheists as a whole other than we all lack a belief in a god. Thats all. Anything on top of that depends on the individual.
 
^^seems you are, like others, more against ideas propagated by organized religion. I am a Theist based on my own experiences, which do not answer the big questions at all, do not give me a security blanket or allow me a carefree life or confidence in an after life. All i know is that i exist, and that i had once existed in a universe on a planet at some time, is such a profound thing that i don't really need anything other than that to live a carefree life. It is so special of a feeling to live life, to perceive and think and be human or any creature, to experience this universe. So that universe, the collective whole of all that is, whether that be infinite many universes, or one, or 9 or whatever, is what i put my faith into being defined as God, that initial matter and energy that created us is a part of that, not even necessarily the whole or not (who knows?) but it's everything in this universe at least.

i think there are plenty of Theists who share this point of view or something similar.

To me, what you are describing is spirituality. Spirituality =/= religion. When I have a great experience doing something I love like going backpacking, I get a similar feeling. I feel like I am one with nature and that there is something old and special about the places I go and that in a way part of it stays with me forever. But analytically, im able to realize that it is just my brains way of experiencing the world around me.

I don't see how you can say God is completely imaginary and yet refer to God as a male, what God are you referring to?? If you are denying that God is a human being shaped figure, the father, son and holy ghost then i think most rational people are going to agree with you, but just because there is no evidence of God does not mean God does not exist, especially when God is vaguely defined anyway. The arguments for and against God are problematic because of such things, as well, if there is a God it is plausible that our understanding of the universe is such that it is impossible to know one way or the other, thereby leading to faith.

I refer to God as a he not because I believe that there is a God that has a gender, but because that is the meme that is prevalent in the society I live in when people refer to God. Its the same when I sometimes talk about "believing" in God, when what I am really talking about is faith.

I think it is wrong to say "you deny that God exists, but you have no way to prove that you're right". The fact is that religious people are the ones claiming that there is a god, and non-believers are responding to their claim. Logically, it is then the burden of the people who claim that something exists to provide evidence to the doubters that what they say is true, and in the case of God there is no evidence whatsoever. For instance If I were to say that unicorns were real, and you were to say "no they arent", and I were to respond "you have no way to prove they aren't real", the argument wouldn't lend any credence to the idea that unicorns are real.

Why do so many humans just have faith in God? and not in a teapot or a rock or something? Some of my first memories were of questioning how God could exist, but why was that idea of God already in my head in the first place? why does the very idea generate so much controversy, hatred, change, power?just because so many people believe/have faith in a God (or not)? it's certainly plausible in my eyes that there is another reason why such a concept fascinates us to no end and seems to have intuitively been integrated into our culture (i'd argue the collective consciousness especially) as our species evolved rationally.

It is natural for humans to want to explain the world around us. The thing that seperates us from other animals is the ability to use our intellect and our bodies to make things. So, naturally it is reasonable for someone to come to the conclusion that all of the vast, complex world around us is the work of a vastly powerful anthropomorphized creator. After these ideas are established they become cultural, and ingrained into the very fabric of an individuals personaity at a young age.

The reason there is so much conflict is because religion is very important to people for the reasons I mentioned in my last post (it explains the tough questions of the world, and comforts an individual about the inevitability of death). Usually conflict comes between cultures who have different kinds of faith, and the mere existence of another kind of faith takes away from the truth of their own faith since (like I said in my earlier post) a community whose individuals share the same faith is what makes it legitimate in the minds of the believers.

Also, conflicts can arise between religious people and atheists/agnostics because, you know, you dont actually have any proof that God exists (which is what you really need, but will never have). The fact that many people believe something is completely irrelevant to a real argument about the validity of something. Take the old beliefs that the earth being flat, or the sun revolving around the earth for example (they seem as if they should be correct, but its really just an efefct of how we, as humans, view the world from our perspective in the universe).


Maybe it's just out of fear, but there are plenty of religions or forms of theism that offer no comfort whatsoever, perhaps offer even far less comfort than Atheism. If you think you're just going to be nothing after living, well that's nothing to fear at all, that'd be fucking great, i'd be far more afraid of pretty much any other possibility than that. If death is like before you were born, you won't even know it anyway, so what's to fear? oh no your loved ones are gone forever? fuck i find great comfort in that idea but i can't be sure it's any more true than the idea that upon death i'll be blasted into DMT hyperspace or some other strange dimension or whatever.

The vast majority of people follow the tenants of religion (at least in part) because their religion promises them a reward in the afterlife. Those that have other motivations (like having a DMT trip) and basing their beliefs on some sort of life experience may not be motivated by the promise of a specific afterlife, but the goal of explaining the unexplainable question of death is still part of the belief.
 
Lets examine both sides of the "consciousness is a product of a functioning brain" argument.

One side says, "Look we can manipulate the brain to alter consciousness. You had no consciousness before your brain existed and you will not have consciousness after your brain is gone".

The "consciousness doesnt come from the brain" camp says, " Well I can think of a hypothetical caveat where your argument doesnt make sense. I have absolutely no evidence to support this claim."

I think its pretty clear which side has the stronger argument.
 
To me, what you are describing is spirituality. Spirituality =/= religion. When I have a great experience doing something I love like going backpacking, I get a similar feeling. I feel like I am one with nature and that there is something old and special about the places I go and that in a way part of it stays with me forever. But analytically, im able to realize that it is just my brains way of experiencing the world around me.



I refer to God as a he not because I believe that there is a God that has a gender, but because that is the meme that is prevalent in the society I live in when people refer to God. Its the same when I sometimes talk about "believing" in God, when what I am really talking about is faith.

I think it is wrong to say "you deny that God exists, but you have no way to prove that you're right". The fact is that religious people are the ones claiming that there is a god, and non-believers are responding to their claim. Logically, it is then the burden of the people who claim that something exists to provide evidence to the doubters that what they say is true, and in the case of God there is no evidence whatsoever. For instance If I were to say that unicorns were real, and you were to say "no they arent", and I were to respond "you have no way to prove they aren't real", the argument wouldn't lend any credence to the idea that unicorns are real.



It is natural for humans to want to explain the world around us. The thing that seperates us from other animals is the ability to use our intellect and our bodies to make things. So, naturally it is reasonable for someone to come to the conclusion that all of the vast, complex world around us is the work of a vastly powerful anthropomorphized creator. After these ideas are established they become cultural, and ingrained into the very fabric of an individuals personaity at a young age.

The reason there is so much conflict is because religion is very important to people for the reasons I mentioned in my last post (it explains the tough questions of the world, and comforts an individual about the inevitability of death). Usually conflict comes between cultures who have different kinds of faith, and the mere existence of another kind of faith takes away from the truth of their own faith since (like I said in my earlier post) a community whose individuals share the same faith is what makes it legitimate in the minds of the believers.

Also, conflicts can arise between religious people and atheists/agnostics because, you know, you dont actually have any proof that God exists (which is what you really need, but will never have). The fact that many people believe something is completely irrelevant to a real argument about the validity of something. Take the old beliefs that the earth being flat, or the sun revolving around the earth for example (they seem as if they should be correct, but its really just an efefct of how we, as humans, view the world from our perspective in the universe).




The vast majority of people follow the tenants of religion (at least in part) because their religion promises them a reward in the afterlife. Those that have other motivations (like having a DMT trip) and basing their beliefs on some sort of life experience may not be motivated by the promise of a specific afterlife, but the goal of explaining the unexplainable question of death is still part of the belief.

this argument has been hashed (both of our sides) out so many times lol i don't think the question of who has the burden of proof even matters, i have better things to do than debate about that kind of thing. I don't make a huge distinction between spirituality and religion, they are distinguishable but it doesn't really matter to me, i'll use religion for what i need and spirituality for what i need and mix and match everything i find to create my belief system/faith.

other than that, why be a devout Atheist? it's plausible a God, a pantheistic God exists, and that's what my intuition tells me as well as many others, so why not just keep an open mind and stand on the fence until we have better info? That's what i don't really understand about Atheism. Is Atheism somehow comforting or something? it seems to be a rejection mostly against organized religion but at the same time there must be much more than that driving the movement as a whole.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how you tie your shoes in the morning much less have a rational conversation. There's no such thing as devout atheism...it's not "plausible" a god exists...atheism isn't a movement...and as soon as this "more info" comes along, let me know. Until then I'll be off the fence.
 
^why would anyone trust a malevolent being? Haha. Everything you say is worth argument simply because of where it comes from, for one. You don't know what's plausible. Your entire world could be upside down. God could be an eddy in a much larger system (also, its God, but perhaps it realizes it and becomes it like you can become it/are it). You might be an eddy within that. It really doesn't have to play by your rules. You play by its rules... but you soon find they are your own. (So, yea, your rules).

"God" has been translated as the law. Jesus has been called the governor. A demon is a challenge, and a devil... And "Satan", an adversary.

What are your working definitions? Why is "God" not plausible and what is God to you?

Are you arguing against the bearded white fellow with flowing robes who has a throne he sits in? Well, I can understand your argument/why you might argue, but no matter what, you still don't know. Maybe God is exactly that. Maybe you need to deconstruct what all this might mean-- to see it not literally, before you see it actually plausible to be ... literal, at least in a sense (maybe not bearded white fellow, but who knows... God might find comfort in finding himself in a bearded white fellow with flowing robes, on a nice chair...).

God is mysterious. And it goes on forever. Elusive... yada. I don't really know. I just know that you don't either.

For the record, God could decide to, as he has, become an Asian Russian black dude, who likes stilts. I cannot deny God, and his will.
 
Last edited:
Psyduck..

So because i think that organised religion does more harm than good and I am atheist - Atheism is about opposing religion?

On that logic you could say that all white men in their 20's hate homophobia, all straight males hate sexism and everyone living in England takes drugs..

(And you ignored the next part of my statement in your first quote.. carefully cherry picking quotes that fit the point you are trying to make)

It's funny how people can oppose my views and share their own, that's all fine.. but when i oppose their views and share mine it's somehow a hateful conversion attempt :\
 
Last edited:
other than that, why be a devout Atheist? it's plausible a God, a pantheistic God exists, and that's what my intuition tells me as well as many others, so why not just keep an open mind and stand on the fence until we have better info? That's what i don't really understand about Atheism. Is Atheism somehow comforting or something? it seems to be a rejection mostly against organized religion but at the same time there must be much more than that driving the movement as a whole.

You talk as if one can simply choose what they believe. It sounds to me like you are using the word god as a metaphor for the universe (everything in it / them and the rules that govern it / them).. and mixing it with your own ideas of spirituality.

And again -

Noun
The theory or belief that God does not exist

It is nothing more than that. After that it's personal opinions from people that happen to be atheist.

So one more time - I dislike organised religion.. not theism. I don't believe in theism, spirituality or any other such thing for reasons i have already discussed.. I'm not hating on people that do, I'm simply sharing my views on it.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how people can oppose my views and share their own, that's all fine.. but when i oppose their views and share mine it's somehow a hateful conversion attempt :\
I don't oppose your views. I encourage you to strive with passion for what you consider the Good/Right/Better for humanity.

I just wanted to point out that there is no reason to pretend that your engagement with religion is primarily because you are interested in other cultures and different worldviews. Ultimately you want to replace them with your own values because you think religion does more harm than good, and in a world dominated by science, technology and reason there will "obviously" be none of those problems.***

And I toke you as an example, in response to mal3volent, to show that atheism is most of the time not a neutral rational positon, but has an ideological dimension in it.


*** Also, cf. the brilliant South Park satire

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155408/atheists-plan-to-go-to-war
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155423/atheist-war (this one is priceless)
 
Last edited:
Top