Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2014, 09:00 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Yes I know. This is a Wall of Text.

If you want to read it then read it. If you do not want to read it then don't read it.

You have Free Will so don't blame me if you choose to read all of this.

Quote:Quote:
...why would we assume that the highest level of awareness possible would have to be defined in terms of a "person"?

Why would we?

Finally a person that disagrees with everything I say gives me one point!

After 10 pages of discussion one person noticed one of my points that they agree with and actually says so.

So I am simply calling "gizmo" the highest level of awareness or being possible possible.

I am saying that awareness creates the Universe or all the Universes not the other way around. But I am not talking about a person. I am talking about a being. This being is not all knowing or all powerful because knowledge and power are human concepts.

The Theist assumptions are based on human desires.

Humans desire power. No matter how much power a human has they desire more. Especially religious nuts. So they imagine God as an all powerful person so they can imagine getting all their desires.

When a Theist talks about an all knowing God they are only talking about knowledge in relation to power. In order to be able to do anything you have to be able to know how to do something. So if you want to be able to do everything then you must know everything.

This type of knowledge is not real. To a Theist God has the only Free Will. God knows everything that has happened or will happen from the beginning of time to the end of time.This is because God planned everything. So God decided what he wanted to happen from the beginning to the end of our Universe and then designed the Universe and everything in it. This is the divine Watchmaker that Richard Dawkins makes fun of.

I think I now understand what most Atheists see as the problem with a Pantheist God .

It is Awareness itself.

I am an Atheist and I do not believe in the Christian God. I do not believe in the Jewish God or any other God person from any religion.

I do believe in Awareness. I am aware so I know that awareness exist. But I do not mean by the word Aware what most Atheists mean by aware.

This is the problem.

Atheists tend to argue against every theistic concept of God they can imagine or that they think I am defending.

But I am not a Theist and I claim that God could be a real thing. So I am asked to call God something like gizmo.

I will simply call God... Awareness

God = Awareness

Again I have given the Theist nothing !

Although you can make the argument that a person experiences awareness you can not say that awareness is a person.

I have hands and eyes and feet but I am none of these things.

I am not an eye. I am not a foot.

I have thoughts opinions and emotions. But I am not my thoughts and I am not my emotions any more than I am my opinions.

You could say that I am the person having my thoughts and emotions. But person is only a description of me in the sense that I have a human body and I have developed a personality.

But if I can develop a personality then I am not my personality. I am the observer. I experience my consciousness and I experience my body. My brain receives sensory input from both my environment and my body. My brain like a computer can process symbols into languages like English or like Math.

I am aware of these process because I am awareness itself. I am what is aware of thoughts. I am not thoughts themselves.

Nothing you have been taught about who or what you are is true.

If you sat and meditated on the question "Who am I?" you would see this.

Let us say that your name is Sam and you are a skinny man.

So you ask yourself... who am I?

And the thought you immediately have is I am Sam.

Is this true?

No because if Sam was what you are then by changing your name you would cease to exist. If you legally changed your name from Sam to Frank and everyone called you Frank and you used Frank for anything that required you to say your name or print your name you would still be the same person (being) .

Can you say I am a skinny man? No because if you gained weight or had a sex change you would still exist as the same being.

The only thing that is necessary for you to be able to say that you exist is your awareness. When you die your brain will shut down. If your thoughts slow down as you are dying you will still exist as a being. If your thoughts stop do you still exist?

Only if you are still aware. You can exist without thoughts. You can not exist without awareness.

Is there awareness after death? Most Atheist hope not. But if there is awareness after death then you will still exist.

Does this prove anything the Theist says is right ? Hell no!

Even if awareness does continue to exist after death this in no way proves anything any religion has said about death as true.

If you choose to stop posting on this message board will you cease to exist ? No. Just because I can not see you or interact with you doesn't that you do not exist.

If I see you on webcam and we are talking and you shut of the webcam did you cease to exist. I could say that you are not there anymore. I do not see you and I can not talk to you. I can not experience your existence in any way. Even if I never experienced your existence in any way ever again it would not prove that you could not experience your own existence in any way.

If you die and your body is gone no one on Earth will be able to experience your existence in any way. This would not prove that you no longer exist in any way.
This would not prove that you do not experience existence in any way.

But even if your awareness survives death it does not mean that you will survive death in the way you would want or benefit from.

You most likely like having a body. You enjoy thinking and pursuing pleasure. You probably like interacting with the world and other people.

So if you felt you were aware like in a dream and you could not see a world or feel your body you probably would not be very happy. So the only way that life after death would be worth anything is if you could start over and become human again. No spiritually healthy being would want a game with only one or two levels given the choice. Talk about boring.

Game of Life

1. The Atheist Game

One Level

A.Life.
B.Death is not a level but the end of the game

2. Theist Game

Two Levels

A. Life
B. Afterlife Death is the final level and is either a reward or punishment forever based on how you play the game. Over 10,000 Religions claim to have the only rule book by which you can win. None of these rule books make any sense and seem to benefit more the people that made them then the people that follow them.

If you pick the wrong book to follow you are tortured forever in fire. There is no reasonable basis to pick one book over another. If you pick the right book (Assuming there is a right book and God isn't a sadist) You get to go to Heaven where you can continually praise and worship this Deity while giving up anything you could possibly enjoy...forever

Pantheism or Atheism Plus

Two Levels (2.1?)

A. Life
B. Afterlife Death is the final level.
C.Death is not the end of Awareness but awareness is just like being one radio wave among other radio waves. Your body rots in the ground and you are aware of becoming. A piece of you becomes aware of a worm or what ever is eating your body. If the worm gets eaten by a bird then that part of your awareness is that of the bird.

You may be aware of being the bird but there is no awareness of ever being you. Either a little energy or most of your energy become mostly the nutrient composition of soil. This feeds trees and plant life. By giving your awareness to a tree you become that tree. But again you have no awareness of who or what you were before. If animals eat from that tree you can become part of the awareness of that animal.

If a human being eats that animal you will become the awareness of their cells. The human in question will use cells to build new life and you can then move to that new life through egg or sperm. When a baby develops that baby will have no awareness of you. As the baby develops a brain your awareness is used to fuel that brains ability to become aware.What ever awareness is left over joins the cells. Eventually that brain will achieve consciousness. That consciousness will have nothing to do with you. If there is any memories to be absorbed into that consciousness they will be subconscious memories and will nothing but fuel for imagination and dreams.

This version of the game still only has two Levels Life and Death. But the process of dying is much slower. This is as close as you can come to the Atheist Nihilistic vision where your awareness is meaningless but you still technically have awareness in the least significant way. This view helps explain what science can not without using God of the gaps. The Universe is God but God here means simply means something like a gas leak, That is awareness is a product of the Universe that exist to make life possible.Nothing more than that nothing less than that.

Reincarnation

Infinite Levels

A. Life is a video game and you get to pick your own character to play.
B. Death You return to the Source where there are no boundaries. Your soul can share the experiences of any soul cluster. Your choice. You pick some of the things you want experience> Again like a video game where you choose your options for rebirth.
C.Life Game 2 . Each level you are stronger and can remember more things. You do not want to remember more than one life at a time so you store things in subconscious. You can access all your memories in sleep and contact other minds in dreams. Dreams are just like death but you get to keep waking up to the same body and live where you left off the night before. (Its like saving a game)
D. Death Each level of death you become more aware and remember more what and who you are.At any point in this game you can quit and return to the Source. To return to the Source you must eliminate all desire at the root except for compassion, When you become Love energy and Awareness and nothing else you can enter the Source. If you are not ready to return to the Source and you do not want to live yet another human life you can join the other older souls in your chosen soul cluster.When you are bored with that you can enter another game.
Repeat

To me Reincarnation is useless without Pantheism

But Reincarnation plus Pantheism makes more sense then regular Pantheism and would be much more meaningful. If you make no effort to be as Aware as possible you will go through what I described as Pantheism before. You will reincarnate in bits and pieces and feel your awareness everywhere but you will never remember or experience anything again besides dying. Yuck. If you get tired enough you will simply give up and not even experience death or life in any sense of the word. Your Atheist dreams will finally come true but you won't be able to dream.

But of you make every effort to be aware then ...see above A B C and D



Whether Awareness is ...

Atheism

Finite and ends at death



Reincarnation

Is Infinite and part of a cycle of souls



Pantheism

or is nothing but a by product of a Universe used to create life on the planets that have them.

...

You are still awareness.

You are nothing else but this awareness.

If the ultimate nature of the Universe or Fundamental nature of Reality is Awareness
then that is God

In Atheism God is suicidal
(Awareness chases every desire but the greatest desire is to cease to exist)

In Pantheism God is asleep

(Pantheism is somewhere between Atheism and Nihilism)
For some Atheist Annihilation is the ultimate reward for other Atheist awareness should annihilate in death but this process should take forever

In Reincarnation God is trying to wake up


Take your pick.

I can't prove any of them and the Atheist has no more claim to truth on this then the Pantheist or Reincarnation Paradigm.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 09:35 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 09:00 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  I am saying that awareness creates the Universe or all the Universes not the other way around. But I am not talking about a person. I am talking about a being. This being is not all knowing or all powerful because knowledge and power are human concepts.

That is simply incoherent. Since we know the universe is older than our awareness, your idea is a non-starter.

Quote:The Theist assumptions are based on human desires.

Humans desire power. No matter how much power a human has they desire more. Especially religious nuts. So they imagine God as an all powerful person so they can imagine getting all their desires.

When a Theist talks about an all knowing God they are only talking about knowledge in relation to power. In order to be able to do anything you have to be able to know how to do something. So if you want to be able to do everything then you must know everything.

This type of knowledge is not real. To a Theist God has the only Free Will. God knows everything that has happened or will happen from the beginning of time to the end of time.This is because God planned everything. So God decided what he wanted to happen from the beginning to the end of our Universe and then designed the Universe and everything in it. This is the divine Watchmaker that Richard Dawkins makes fun of.

I think I now understand what most Atheists see as the problem with a Pantheist God .

It is Awareness itself.

I am an Atheist and I do not believe in the Christian God. I do not believe in the Jewish God or any other God person from any religion.

I do believe in Awareness. I am aware so I know that awareness exist. But I do not mean by the word Aware what most Atheists mean by aware.

This is the problem.

Atheists tend to argue against every theistic concept of God they can imagine or that they think I am defending.

But I am not a Theist and I claim that God could be a real thing. So I am asked to call God something like gizmo.

I will simply call God... Awareness

God = Awareness

Then why bother with the word or the concept 'God'? It just muddies the waters while serving no function.

Quote:ATake your pick.

I can't prove any of them and the Atheist has no more claim to truth on this then the Pantheist or Reincarnation Paradigm.

Evidence. It's about evidence, not proof.

The evidence is all for consciousness being entirely brain-based.
There is absolutely no evidence for any other basis. None, nada, zilch, zip, zero.

So, yes, we do in fact have a better claim.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-07-2014, 10:03 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Wall of text or not....doesn't bother me. I think what bothers me is that you type in absolutes. You make claims and statements. When what you have are ideas.
And pride in ownership of the ideas.

Dude just share and talk. No one needs to keep score.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:That is simply incoherent. Since we know the universe is older than our awareness, your idea is a non-starter.

What are you talking about? What do you mean we know?

Based on what?

Your birthday? The history of mankind?

You can't just make statements like that without qualifying what you mean.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 12:35 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Wall of text or not....doesn't bother me. I think what bothers me is that you type in absolutes. You make claims and statements. When what you have are ideas.
And pride in ownership of the ideas.

Dude just share and talk. No one needs to keep score.

What is your definition of absolutes?

Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative?

That's the dictionary definition. What is yours?

It is a nonsense word suggesting that there are is something that exist that not in relationship to anything else.

There is no such thing. And I never claimed there was. If you think I made that claim then by all means explain.

The Primacy of consciousness has nothing to do with absolutes.

If the Universe creates consciousness then that does not lead to absolutes.
If awareness creates the Universe that has nothing to do with absolutes.

Besides I covered all ideas. Not just Pantheism or Reincarnation ...

I also covered Atheism.

And even in Atheism there is Awareness in the equation.

Awareness is in every equation.

That is not an absolute.

Are you really sitting there typing and denying that you are aware that you are sitting there typing?

Really?

Again I wasn't making any claims except that awareness is in every possible way of looking at the Universe.

That was the only claim I made.

You are right that all I did was make statements.

Any sentence I type is a statement.

If you have any ideas of what Reality is besides the ones I mentioned then by all means enlighten me.

Because obviously I am just sitting here worshiping myself for having ideas.
And here you are with complete certainty of what Reality is ?

Since you obviously know so much more then me and my foolish ideas and you alone have the key to the ultimate nature of the Universe... please share

It does not take that much intelligence to sit on a message board and tell someone that everything they say is wrong. Like a Christian you can demand evidence for anything someone says then when you get evidence you can demand evidence for that.

I made a lot of good points on here and the response I got was a liar.

A liar that claimed I was quote mining and he never could prove it.

A liar that said I used a non sequitur who then lied about the meaning by saying that non sequitur included any sentence which made no sense. He then lied and said he knew the definition. He then gave me the definition after he looked it up. But if he actually had looked it up before accusing me of it he never would have used that argument.

I then proved I didn't quote mine.

And I proved that every point that I made. I even proved he was a liar about the definition of non sequitur including sentences that didn't make sense.
And to top it off I proved that the sentence in question wasn't vague and incoherent.

I got tired of talking to an idiot brick wall and having to prove everything over and over and explaining how simple logic works or what fallacies are and how they work.

So instead of quoting other people or making arguments I shared a lot of ideas. Big deal.

At least I have ideas and my own thoughts. I have not heard one person here even attempt to tell me anything original in an idea about Reality.

If you can come up with an idea that I did not cover and you can substantiate it beyond a shadow of a doubt with evidence please clue me in.

If you really can do this I personally will submit your name for the Noble Peace prize. And if you get that prize I will never post on here again and I will be your slave forever.

I'm waiting
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 01:18 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(25-07-2014 09:00 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  Yes I know. This is a Wall of Text.

If you want to read it then read it. If you do not want to read it then don't read it.

You have Free Will so don't blame me if you choose to read all of this.

Ooo, attempted snark Big Grin 0 points. What I was pointing out is that though you may put a lot of thought and effort into your post *because* I have free will, *if* it is a wall of rambling text, *then* I and indeed 99% of everyone whom you're attempting to reach with your message, *will not read it*.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
...why would we assume that the highest level of awareness possible would have to be defined in terms of a "person"?

Why would we?
So I am simply calling "gizmo" the highest level of awareness or being possible possible.
Is there a maximal level of awareness?

Quote:I am saying that awareness creates the Universe or all the Universes not the other way around.
This is pure assumption. Why would you think that?

Quote: But I am not talking about a person. I am talking about a being. This being is not all knowing or all powerful because knowledge and power are human concepts.
And "being" is... not a human concept?

Quote:I do believe in Awareness. I am aware so I know that awareness exist. But I do not mean by the word Aware what most Atheists mean by aware.
I believe in bunny rabbits.

Quote:Although you can make the argument that a person experiences awareness you can not say that awareness is a person.
Can you say that awareness exists outside of the intelligences that we know, which are all animal? You can *believe* that, but you're back to an assumption then.

Quote:Nothing you have been taught about who or what you are is true.
... because you have some strange definition of "true" that I am not aware of?

Quote:If your thoughts stop do you still exist?
Do your thoughts stop if you are sleeping? You are drawing conclusions from human scale experiences and emotions which are unjustified, IMO.

Quote:Is there awareness after death? Most Atheist hope not. But if there is awareness after death then you will still exist.
Exist... what does that mean? You can play semantic games all day. If time is a 4th dimension and we are 3 d beings perceiving ourselves moving through time then no matter what, we still exist. We are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, all of which AFAIK are practically indestructible. If I die, they still exist.

Consciousness is not independent of the matter we are made of - smash yourself on the head with a brick and see.

I'm done. Exercising my free will and refusing to read further. I don't want to read book length stuff when even your first few premises are shaky - let's argue those.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-07-2014, 02:15 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Quote:
ATake your pick.

I can't prove any of them and the Atheist has no more claim to truth on this then the Pantheist or Reincarnation Paradigm.

Evidence. It's about evidence, not proof.

The evidence is all for consciousness being entirely brain-based.
There is absolutely no evidence for any other basis. None, nada, zilch, zip, zero.

So, yes, we do in fact have a better claim.

Finally a real argument ! After 11 pages of of people pontificating and using debaters tactics.

This argument does have a basis. It has been known a long time that science can trace back consciousness to the brain. One point for you.

But this does not answer all the hard problems of consciousness.

Quote:The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colours and tastes.[1] David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness,[2] contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".[3]

Hard problem of consciousness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this is a moot point really. At least to me. Because it goes on to say that if the brain is not the only explanation needed for consciousness then there has to be something "nonphysical"

To me nonphysical is a contradiction in terms. If those arguing for the hard problem are secret theist and nonphysical means supernatural they can kiss my ass.

You may disagree with me forever that QM has anything to do with consciousness but I want to point out that I see this as the only possibility of the hard problem carrying any weight.

QM is the only known science that could account for the hard problem in a physical way. The debate to me on whether there is a hard problem can only be about whether we can link QM to the Brain.

I agree with you that we live in a physical universe. And I agree with you that the brain creates the process of consciousness.

And I have already submitted the idea that the brain is like a quantum computer. Many Atheists say that there are no QM effects in the brain. This surprises me for several reasons.

1. Quantum Computers do now exist so there is an example or model
2. All attempts to create an AI that matches the human brain or has any state of awareness has failed on the digital computer even though scientist modeled our brain
3. And three if our consciousness were found to be based on QM effects in the brain it would shut up creationist once and for all.

Number 3 is true because all religion is based on the Supernatural.

So far the hard problems of consciousness have not been solved based on the brain alone. So Theist would argue that some aspect of consciousness is "nonphysical" and claim that means supernatural.

But QM is all about physical Reality! People like me may claim that Reality is a bit different now and that there is strange behavior in QM. I might even claim that the observer or awareness effects reality. This could be seen as mind over matter. But if mind is a QM effect then mind is not nonphysical.

Yes I have seen idiot Christian websites that try to claim that strange QM effects prove the supernatural. But these idiots have no idea what supernatural means.

1. Supernatural means non physical. Meaning the effect would have to be in a Reality that we can not observe and follows no physical laws

2. In Religion Supernatural means affecting Reality in a way that only God can

3. This is because God is supernatural that is nonphysical not living in our reality and not subject to any laws or rules

This is all the definition of magic or what you guys like to call woo.

But if my theory is right and QM effects are in the brain and this is responsible for what we call there hard problem ... then there is no room for a "supernatural" God.

Most Atheist say that there is no evidence for God but admit that they will probably never be able to say with out absolute certainty that there is no God.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that you can not prove a negative and it will never be proven that God does not exist.

Many Theist wrongly conclude that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it is evidence for absence. That is what falsifying a hypothesis means. Unlike Theist I do not mistake evidence for proof. Evidence builds a case.

Quote:Principle of Falsification:
Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities.

A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has ``proved its mettle'' and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively. Later corroboration generates a series of hypothesis into a scientific theory.

The effects of QM in the brain are falsifiable. If everything you would expect if QM had no effect in the brain was tested

...you could falsify the hypothesis "There are no QM effect in the Brain that could effect consciousness" That would provide overwhelming evidence of a Quantum Mind.

If that happened Theist would forever have to shut up about mind body duality or nonphysical minds or the supernatural.

Our very souls would have been proven to be some aspect of a quantum wave function.

And Quantum Wave Functions are Physical Reality.

If we ever developed a Theory of Quantum Consciousness then Religion would be dead and all the Deepak Chopras would have to shut up.

It is because of the hard problems of consciousness and the measurement problems in QM that quacks and charlatans have it so easy.

Think about it like this...

Why did Homeopathic Medicine ever succeed in becoming popular?

The answer is because at the time it had no competition from real science at the time.

Quote:By 1900, there were 22 homeopathic colleges and 15,000 practitioners in the United States.[52] Because medical practice of the time relied on ineffective and often dangerous treatments, patients of homeopaths often had better outcomes than those of the doctors of the time.[53] Homeopathic remedies, even if ineffective, would almost surely cause no harm, making the users of homeopathic remedies less likely to be killed by the treatment that was supposed to be helping them.[40] The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science-based medicine.[28]

In other words it wasn't popular because it worked so well but because the other treatments available were so dangerous and ineffective.

Homeopathy may have not been dangerous in its beginning since there was no real medicines that you were missing out on. But it was in no way effective.

We are having the same problem with the hard problems in consciousness. These problems can not be solved by simply relying on studying the biochemistry of the brain on the atomic level.

Because of this religious nuts and quantum medicine quacks rush to fill the vacuum.

But if there are QM effects the brain then Supernatural has been proven as unnecessary for a mind or soul to exist.

The Soul can no longer be seen as a possible "Ghost " in the machine because a Quantum Function is Physical therefore not a Ghost.

Even if this gave evidence for a immortal mind it still would not support religion.

Because we have mapped the QM Universe. We could map this reality. Religion does not allow for you to map heaven. So if the mind is QM (Physical) then no heaven or hell is possible because those places are nonphysical.

You could no more take a Quantum Mind to Hell then you could take a Brain to Hell since both a Quantum Mind (Function) and a Brain are by definition Physical.

I am telling you that if it is possible to do what I am suggesting all magical or supernatural explanations are completely dead forever.

The Theory of Evolution has killed Genesis. This is proven by the fact that most Theist have now jumped ship from Creationism. Most Theist now support a form of Evolution.

The same will happen when science develops a quantum theory of mind.

Why because Theist have always argued that the mind is not based on materialism. This is a trap for Theist. Because if we have a Quantum Theory of the mind we can say your right the mind has been proven to not be based solely on materialism. It also has a Quantum Nature. So our proof that the mind is not based on materialism is also proof that the mind is Physical. We get them coming and going.

This will close the final gap in God of the gaps. They won't even be able to find arguments that work like "transitional fossils" .

There is no similar argument against a QM Mind Model Theory. The mind will be seen as a Physical property once and for all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 02:22 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Quote:
Is there awareness after death? Most Atheist hope not. But if there is awareness after death then you will still exist.
Exist... what does that mean? You can play semantic games all day. If time is a 4th dimension and we are 3 d beings perceiving ourselves moving through time then no matter what, we still exist. We are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, all of which AFAIK are practically indestructible. If I die, they still exist.

I am not playing semantics we just draw the line differently.

I agree that if I die then the protons and neutrons and electrons that made up my brain still exist. Where we differ is that I see the possibility for consciousness or awareness in the subatomic particles.

So we both agree that these things exist even after we die.

We only disagree about what this means.

There is an old joke that ends with we already established what you are we are just haggling over the price.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes thespiritualanarchist's post
26-07-2014, 02:31 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 02:22 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  I agree that if I die then the protons and neutrons and electrons that made up my brain still exist. Where we differ is that I see the possibility for consciousness or awareness in the subatomic particles.
I am not discounting the possibility. But it's also possible that you get subsumed into the great invisible cosmic crocodile's digestive tract - as far as I can see that's equally likely. What evidence can you put forward for the existence of consciousness after you die?

Edit: By the way, thanks for keeping it short this time Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Ooo, attempted snark Big Grin 0 points. What I was pointing out is that though you may put a lot of thought and effort into your post *because* I have free will, *if* it is a wall of rambling text, *then* I and indeed 99% of everyone whom you're attempting to reach with your message, *will not read it*.

Yeah I know but the way I have been attacked on here I am not sure that it would make any difference.

I am going to try to make my post shorter. But I would be completely shocked if this backed anyone off from going for my throat.Some people have made some pretty weak arguments against me. And a lot of people have ignored or misrepresented most of my points.

Some people have used debaters tactics and have outright attacked me. I am not sure this will change if I shorten my post but I will try it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: