The Innocent Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2012, 10:26 PM
 
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(06-05-2012 04:00 AM)Logisch Wrote:  
(05-05-2012 11:55 PM)Egor Wrote:  Here's the rub: When we die, I believe our consciousness enters a lucid spiritual plane. There we are aware that we are creating the scenery with our minds, and we can control many aspects of our environment that we cannot control now.
Ok, so why do you believe this and how would you know, or rather, how did you come up with this?


It's based on the notion that our consciousness exists independent of our physical bodies. I derive this from watching protozoa, reading research articles about training protozoa, having significant precognitive episodes, observing animal instincts, logical analysis of consciousness, the testimony of reliable witnesses who have had NDEs, visions of my own past life, and reports of others who have had past life experiences. All of that taken together leads me to believe that consciousness is not generated by a physical body.
Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 10:44 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2012 10:46 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(06-05-2012 10:26 PM)Egor Wrote:  It's based on the notion that our consciousness exists independent of our physical bodies.

If - a very big if, mind - then the organic self is the engine. I go for loss of identity and non-locality after death; locality seems to be integral with life and physical reality.
(06-05-2012 09:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Rest assured. There IS a rock . Tongue

[Image: stubbing-your-toe-22325.jpg?w=529]

Weeping

That ain't a rock, that's your toe. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
06-05-2012, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2012 10:54 PM by Logisch.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
These are testimonies of personal experiences of other people. There are many near death experiences and even people who have said they've had none and were clinically dead and brought back to life. They vary from person to person. But I don't understand how protozoa have anything to do with a spiritual plane, nor the instincts of animal having anything to do with a spiritual plane or afterlife.

Even if the people you hold to be reliable and credible, we're still dealing with a testimony of a personal experience that none of us can demonstrate scientifically (or who knows, maybe someday we can thanks to neuroscience). Neurosciences have shown, however, that stimulating the brain or having severe mental or physical stress can cause hallucinations. So even if someone has an experience, even if they are credible, how do we discern their experience from something we would call "spiritual" and something that could have simply been caused by severe stress, anxiety or the bodies reaction to something such as near death?

Someone could have one and believe with everything in them that what they experienced was jesus, god, afterlife or the light at the end of the tunnel, but how does one know? How do you tell the difference? or is understanding whether or not it is or isn't a hallucination or reaction to the brain important and therefore we simply attribute it to a god or afterlife or spiritual plane from a near death experience?

The body does amazing things when it is introduced to massive trauma. I recalling going through bluntforce trauma to my head (thankfully experienced no concussion) from a wrench smacking my forehead and tearing it open when I was working on a car from a freak accident. I recall putting my hand on my head and feeling a giant bump on my head, looking at it and seeing blood dripping from my head. All I recall is walking into the house and passing out. My wife of course freaked out and I woke up a few seconds later and realized what ha happened. The thing is I don't recall ANY of the pain, I passed out when it got the worst. We know that severe trauma can cause anything from passing out, hallucinating, experiencing strange things due to the reaction of the body to such things.

So what then do we make for the difference in those just because they were a credible person? It doesn't mean they were lying to you, it doesn't mean that they think they are wrong, in fact I'm sure they believe it since people who experience them tend to think it's real. But how does their experience hold water if we know that the nervous system can reproduce hallucinations and "visions" for various reasons that science still doesn't know yet? How does that make it spiritual when in fact it could simply just be your imagination or body reacting to something? What if for some people when they die the body reacts in such a fashion that the mind simply cannot cope with it and they hallucinate to make the experience "less shitty"... What if it is? If it isn't, how do we tell, how do we discern it and why must we assume that it's anything spiritual and not natural?

How do you know?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
06-05-2012, 10:50 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(06-05-2012 10:26 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(06-05-2012 04:00 AM)Logisch Wrote:  Ok, so why do you believe this and how would you know, or rather, how did you come up with this?


It's based on the notion that our consciousness exists independent of our physical bodies. I derive this from watching protozoa, reading research articles about training protozoa, having significant precognitive episodes, observing animal instincts, logical analysis of consciousness, the testimony of reliable witnesses who have had NDEs, visions of my own past life, and reports of others who have had past life experiences. All of that taken together leads me to believe that consciousness is not generated by a physical body.
All of that taken together is just wishful thinking.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 01:55 AM
 
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(06-05-2012 10:49 PM)Logisch Wrote:  These are testimonies of personal experiences of other people. There are many near death experiences and even people who have said they've had none and were clinically dead and brought back to life. They vary from person to person. But I don't understand how protozoa have anything to do with a spiritual plane, nor the instincts of animal having anything to do with a spiritual plane or afterlife.


Protozoa (that is paramecium caudatum) have no mechanism for consciousness and yet they display will and memory. Instincts cannot be part of the genetic code and yet newborn animals have this knowledge they've never learned. NDEs are anectdotal, granted, as are past life experiences. My precognitive episodes are direct evidence to me, but can only be anectdotal evidence for you. My past life visions may be something else, so I don't consider them stong evidence but rather supporting evidence.

Why do I consider these things spiritual? Because they seem to indicate that consciousness is not manufactured from the body and if it is not, then there's no reason to think it extinguishes at death.
Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 02:31 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Fair enough, thank you for answering your question honestly and directly.

Instincts and consciousness are most definitely interesting. There is still a lot to learn and a lot of things science still hasn't tapped into yet. But there's everything from chemical reaction to muscular or cellular reaction and reflexes which can also be perceived or interpreted as instinct as well. Those types of organisms don't have the same senses we do, so it would have to be reactionary if it runs into another organism or needs to feed since the only other way would be chemical sensory.

Some arthropods are interesting in that sense. I keep scorpions and tarantulas and have enjoyed watching and observing them. The interesting thing to me about something such as a scorpion is that when you see one interact with it's environment it seems that it can see really well and that it's very in tune with it. But after a while I learned that they actually have horrible eyes, they can really only make out brightness, primitive things and rely heavily on their sensory hairs for vibrations. Despite that, their reaction to catching their prey is ridiculously precise and it's amazing to watch something like a scorpion snag an insect mid air relying on something so primitive. But very rarely do I see them on the offensive, it's generally defensive as it is reactionary to what is around it. Tarantulas on the other hand are a bit different...

Anyway, enough of me going off tangent, my next question would be what about them do you see as will or memory that may not be able to be interpreted as reactionary or a reflex to something in the environment?

Also thank you for being honest in your replies and being cool about digging into questions that some people are often uncomfortable answering.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
07-05-2012, 06:16 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
I'm curious, what were you in this past life that you witnessed??

I so do wish I could see into the past... (might be able to find my keys faster...)

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2012 06:59 AM by lightninlives.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(06-05-2012 10:26 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(06-05-2012 04:00 AM)Logisch Wrote:  Ok, so why do you believe this and how would you know, or rather, how did you come up with this?


It's based on the notion that our consciousness exists independent of our physical bodies. I derive this from watching protozoa, reading research articles about training protozoa, having significant precognitive episodes, observing animal instincts, logical analysis of consciousness, the testimony of reliable witnesses who have had NDEs, visions of my own past life, and reports of others who have had past life experiences. All of that taken together leads me to believe that consciousness is not generated by a physical body.
Are you aware and/or have you read up on the literal mountain of evidence that suggests consciousness is an emergent property of a biological brain?

And more importantly, if and when you've read up on enough of this evidence (which continues to mount every day, much like the evidence for evolution mounted up across various scientific disciplines over the past 150 years) are you willing to reassess your conclusion that consciousness is not generated by the physical body?

How about if/when humans build computers capable of consciousness?

Also, have you read any material that explains on the many short-comings of NDE's, past life experiences, and other subjective mind states that have never been substantiated via the scientific method of inquiry (e.g. why nobody has ever taken home the James Randi Institute's $1 million dollar prize)?

I highly recommend that you make your next book review subject Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World." It may seriously blow the doors off some of the beliefs that you hold to be so fundamental (but in a good way!).

P.S. I'm a big of gambling man (mostly Poker) so I'm willing to put a few dollars down that if/when you let go of your chains of superstitious belief, that depression you're dealing with will be all but gone for good...


(07-05-2012 01:55 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(06-05-2012 10:49 PM)Logisch Wrote:  These are testimonies of personal experiences of other people. There are many near death experiences and even people who have said they've had none and were clinically dead and brought back to life. They vary from person to person. But I don't understand how protozoa have anything to do with a spiritual plane, nor the instincts of animal having anything to do with a spiritual plane or afterlife.


Protozoa (that is paramecium caudatum) have no mechanism for consciousness and yet they display will and memory. Instincts cannot be part of the genetic code and yet newborn animals have this knowledge they've never learned. NDEs are anectdotal, granted, as are past life experiences. My precognitive episodes are direct evidence to me, but can only be anectdotal evidence for you. My past life visions may be something else, so I don't consider them stong evidence but rather supporting evidence.

Why do I consider these things spiritual? Because they seem to indicate that consciousness is not manufactured from the body and if it is not, then there's no reason to think it extinguishes at death.
Protozoa do not exhibit will and memory. That's just you anthropomorphizing them. They are simply processing information, much like a Google search engine crawler (e.g. a snippet of programming code). By your definition, Google crawlers display will and memory.

Furthermore, how did you arrive at the conclusion that DNA cannot be part of genetic code?

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like lightninlives's post
07-05-2012, 12:32 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Okay, a lot to process through. Your initial post tries to categorize all atheists into different divisions, which I think is not only inaccurate but pointless. The only person who can adequately label an individual is that individual themselves. So, when you try to label other people as something that they would not label themselves as, you are not only speculating but you are making up something about them. I don't get to decide who uses the label atheist or any permutation of it, nor does anyone else get to decide who is Democrat, Republican, and even genders in our modern society are self-appointed. In trying to break down atheists into different categories you miss the point entirely of what atheism even is. Atheism is not a belief system, it is the rejection of one. We don't label people as Ademocrat or Arepublican or Acryptozoologists, because it is a pointless endeavor.

As far as your other posts go, you describe at one one point god as basically being everything in existence. If that is your definition, then what separates your definition of god from the definition of the natural universe? Is it because you imply some collective consciousness? If so, what evidence do you have for this? You talk about an afterlife, once again, where is the evidence for this?

I ask because in another one of your posts you try to once again categorize why atheists disbelieve and you make yet another incorrect assumption, that is assuming that all atheists want to disbelieve. I don't want to disbelieve in Santa, but a lack of any evidence whatsoever and the fact that it goes against some of the most fundamental laws of nature don't allow for me to reasonably believe in Santa. Now substitute god in the above sentence for Santa and my argument for not believing in god is made. The assumption that atheists desire to be intellectually superior to theists or that they believe they are is stupid. I do not believe I am smarter than someone with a BS in english because I have a BS in geology, nor would I say that I am smarter than a lot of people out there without degrees at all. It is all relative, I certainly know more about geology than someone who has never studied it, but they certainly know more about other things than I do (their own life if nothing else). If your argument is that atheists believe they are smarter or more logical with respect to the god question, I would say some certainly do, but most theists would also make the same claim. Who is right? Does it matter? Both sides argue about a subject that is inherently impossible to disprove (unless one side is arguing for the law-bending god of the bible, the un-bending laws of nature disprove that). You provide a definition of god that most theists would probably not fully agree with and your definition is unscientific (meaning it is not falsifiable).

I don't disbelieve because I want to, I reject the claim of god(s) because no evidence exists to suggest one (or many) exist. Changing the definition to a collective consciousness that is the first cause is also an idea I reject because there is yet again no evidence to support it. Are you seeing the trend? If there is evidence for something, then the most logical explanation of that evidence is what I believe. If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe it.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
07-05-2012, 12:40 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Hey Egor... I'm starting... I don't know, dude.

Here's the thing (I'm not trying to be rude, btw).

You claim to have divine inspiration for the VGJC, but you are confused as to how people are actually saved? Or, dare I say, contradictory to what is said by Jesus.

How can you be inspired by God, yet you think that there could be another way to salvation? Didn't Jesus say He was the only way? All atheists reject Jesus outright, but you say that there could be salvation for them?

Help me out, dude. Veridicanism doesn't seem very reconciled or inspired after your past couple of posts.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: