I'm an atheist, and lover of science.. but I had to wonder, what if there is something beyond our p

reply to post by humphreysjim


What defines "rational" is understanding that you don't understand 99% of the universe. Keep an open mind. This is what drives most science. We still do not know if the universe is finite or infinite, but people like to think they know the answer and stand on it. Just stating that life ends is, in my opinion, the irrational side of thinking. This existence is so complex, and we only know very little about it. We still have to discover things like if dark energy exists or how we came to be... and you're telling me there's DEFINITELY without a doubt no experience after what we refer to as "death".

Try to think about before you were born, maybe you will find the answers there.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

I can't argue with something that is unfalsifiable. I like to try, but it usually goes nowhere. You will only keep widening the goal posts.

That's precisely the problem. Less rational and more religiously minded people tend to believe in unfalsifiable things, as is their right. It's not my thing, but don't expect them to be convinced by arguments to the tune of "we have not found evidence for XYZ, therefore XYZ is not real", because "XYZ" is clearly a belief that cannot be proved either way, and these beliefs are carefully crafted in this manner as they are comforting - and untouchable by science.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Wait, you've changed your post a few times. Do you dream? I do. I have experienced dreams. Have you experienced a soul? Not me. I have never experienced a soul. Have you?

Dreams are an event, not a thing or substance. Can you bottle running? Can you measure laughter? No, but you can experience them.

Can you experience or measure soul? Nope.

Sorry about changing the post, I meant to add another post but accidentally overwrote my original, as I put in the edit. The dreams comment should have been additional, it's a bit of a mess now.

Dreams are not a thing, exactly, they are something you experience, and believers will say that souls are not a thing either. You cannot measure a dream, or a soul. Can you experience a soul? Well, believers will tell you that it is the soul that allows us to experience in the first place. Do I believe them, or think their argument is compelling? Not really, but to say there is no evidence of anyone ever finding a soul is not really evidence there is no such thing, because we would not expect evidence for an immaterial thing.

I get your point. I could say the same thing about unicorns and hobbits. So we must accept that the possibility of those things existing are there.

Actually, this is very interesting. Maybe the soul is like a dream, insofar that it is an event, which I assume would be the totality of all events (ie. dreams, memory, bodily functions, thought etc) that stem from the human body. Now that is a soul I could believe in and observe.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

I get your point. I could say the same thing about unicorns and hobbits. So we must accept that the possibility of those things existing are there.

Those are a little different because hobbits and unicorns are supposedly physical things, and as such evidence of their existence would at least be possible. It depends how you define hobbit, where they are supposed to live, and so on, in which case we could go there and look for them and expect to see evidence of their existence.

Same with Unicorns, we might expect bodies, and unicorn droppings, and maybe even photographs and video evidence.

Not quite the same as for an immaterial soul, imo.

Originally posted by LesMisanthropeActually, this is very interesting. Maybe the soul is like a dream, insofar that it is an event, which I assume would be the totality of all events (ie. dreams, memory, bodily functions, thought etc) that stem from the human body. Now that is a soul I could believe in and observe.

That's pretty much the definition for "consciousness" right there, and a lot of people who believe in a soul believe it is just that...except, it can exist outside of the physical body

reply to post by miniatus

I believe in god. To me, god is the structure and communication of the universe. I don't know what god is or whether we look like god and really don't care. My belief in this tie with "God" is strong. It appears that there are other sorts of energy beings. I don't know or understand what they are. I have witnessed things that are impossible by science's laws in my life and upon investigating I found corruption within the interpretations of the research steered by human desire and ommissions. Science seems like a religion to me and I'm not too hot on religions being even close to pure.

Just because I believe in god doesn't mean I have to choose a religion. I like praying in the woods where the only perfumes. deodorants, and aftershave is created by nature. They don't bother my breathing at all. This tie to god is easily explained, it's the angels and demons, Fairies, Genies, etc... that people throughout history, including today, speak of. This is of great interest to me to identify what these things are and where they come from. I have had a few things happen that defy the law of physics and I somehow think these beings may have protected me or I somehow created some type of energy field without my conscious knowledge of it. Either way science does not explain this and says it's not real.

I consider myself a man of science, with a lifetime of studying things. When you see things in direct conflict with accepted science it makes you think. Not one or two times, dozens of times. My belief is that science wants us to believe in them so much that they are sidestepping things so we have definitive answers where they should be studying the exclusions applied to their theories more. Another words I have lost faith in science and it's facts full of exceptions. Exceptions that people neglect in their discussions. I can't pick on any individual science and cannot lump everyone into the same pot. Some scientists are good but it seems their research is often set aside because it is not glorious. Instead people are fed an interpretation of the research and this interpretation is often steered by motives for monitary or prideful gain.

I feel like a parrot sometimes, I keep inserting motive in my posts addressing evidence.

Do we need evidence to believe in a supreme entity that controls the universe? Last I checked the answer was no. Do we need evidence to verify everything we observe? No. I believe in whatever god is because I want to. Belief in god doesn't effect my daily life that much. I believe in the Earth as the giver of our life, if it wasn't here we would not be either. It supplies the food we eat and supplies us with all we need. Trouble is we want things we do not need and we are destroying it's ability to take care of us. I, as one individual, can't do much but Rant about it. I pray to god through nature/Gaia/the mother. The woman is of the earth, Jesus was of the mother with virgin birth, so it seems to me he would be of the earth. I haven't a clue but would never cut down someone elses beliefs unless they were shoving it down my throat.

I don't condemn atheists unless they attack other religions. They have a right to believe in what they want. I believe once we die we just join Gaia as part of this world. This allows life to go on. I know I am not going to heaven so what the Hell's the difference, The writings of the bible don't say anyone goes to heaven until the end.

So now that I have opened myself up to attack I will see what happens. I hate discussing religion, I get attacked from every possible side.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I'm only using light as a possibility of why it cannot be seen, like things that only appear under UV....we cannot observe it normally but with the right science and equipment we can.

I am a theistic skeptic, and I think that the confusion you're experiencing, OP, is that you're confusing science with philosophy.

Science has a framework of methodological naturalism -- it is, intentionally, limited to the search for natural explanations of natural phenomenon which can be observed and measured. Ergo, despite what some will claim, science not only has nothing to say about the supernatural, it cannot say anything about the supernatural. Skeptics do not "disprove the supernatural", they simply prove the natural explanation, which dismisses the supernatural claim.

Questions of the supernatural are relegated to philosophy, and one need not adopt a view of philosophical naturalism, the claim that there is nothing but the observable and measurable, simply because they believe that science is based on methodological naturalism. I am an example of one who holds that position.

Because they address completely different things, there is no conflict in being a methodological naturalist, but rejecting philosophical naturalism. So don't feel like you need to take an irrational anti-science position, simply because you want to explore whether there is anything beyond that which is observable and measurable.

Originally posted by rickymouse

I consider myself a man of science, with a lifetime of studying things. When you see things in direct conflict with accepted science it makes you think. Not one or two times, dozens of times.

Have you shared those experiences on this forum? Is there a thread on them, and if not, can you tell us about them briefly here? I am interested.

I myself have never experience anything I could not rationally explain in some way.

I was meditating the other day and I realized that I was at the point between a deep, lucid relaxation and 'going' to sleep.

Where is sleep? If I go to sleep, where do I go? If I go, how do I know I'll come back? Why do I trust that I do come back - again the verbs, coming and going. Like waves.

Why did that line - being there and going there - why did it suddenly seem so clear?

My own consciousness might be a waveform.

I think it’s all a matter of perception and intuition. People are materialistic or spiritual – never both.

We have been detuned for millennia, thanks to the mystery schools. Knowledge is materialistic, wisdom is spiritual.

Now-a-days we are provided with low/negative energy food sources, bombarded with electromagnetic radiation (among many other forms) and ‘brainwashed’ from birth by entertainment. Our pineal glands are essentially non-active. I believe this is why many cannot remember their dreams.

But belief in a creator and non-belief in a creator utilize the same logical fallacies and provide for the same circular discussions, no matter how you spin them.

I refuse to be a hypocrite, therefore, I do not care what anyone believes or does not believe as long as they seek to be a better ‘being’ in some form or another.

Acceptance and Forgiveness.

reply to post by miniatus


How does it feel to see the world with a new set of eyes?

Once you open your mind to the possiblity the science will actually help explain things better rather than prove your old point of just dying and fading away.

Why would someone say they are an Atheist? To say you don't believe in god would be safer. Over eighty percent of the population of the world believes in one god or another or a controlling entity. If you are Christian only half the people in the world don't think you are right, being an Atheist over eighty percent don't think you are right.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

I'm only using light as a possibility of why it cannot be seen, like things that only appear under UV....we cannot observe it normally but with the right science and equipment we can.

I think what you are getting at is a soul's wavelength. If the soul oscillates at a wavelength that we cannot perceive with the scientific equipment that we possess then its no wonder we haven't detected it. I mean what if it oscillates in another dimension and has special properties that allow it to interact with the human brain?

Originally posted by rickymouse
Why would someone say they are an Atheist? To say you don't believe in god would be safer. Over eighty percent of the population of the world believes in one god or another or a controlling entity. If you are Christian only half the people in the world don't think you are right, being an Atheist over eighty percent don't think you are right.

To say I'm an atheist is to say I don't believe in God, any God... To be a theist means to believe in one or more deity and since I don't, I'm an anti-theist .. or atheist.. Why would saying I'm an atheist be safer than saying I don't believe in God? ..

The irreligious population is growing.. not declining.. just some examples:

Estonia: 75.7% do not believe in God
Sweden: 65% do not believe in God
Canada: 53% do not believe in God
China: 50% do not believe in God

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

What defines "rational" is understanding that you don't understand 99% of the universe. Keep an open mind. This is what drives most science. We still do not know if the universe is finite or infinite, but people like to think they know the answer and stand on it. Just stating that life ends is, in my opinion, the irrational side of thinking. This existence is so complex, and we only know very little about it. We still have to discover things like if dark energy exists or how we came to be... and you're telling me there's DEFINITELY without a doubt no experience after what we refer to as "death".

Try to think about before you were born, maybe you will find the answers there.

I do agree... I love science, science is a beautiful thing.. but many people of science can be quite arrogant .. If anything, we should be humble in the realization that we know so little..

Originally posted by humphreysjim

That's pretty much the definition for "consciousness" right there, and a lot of people who believe in a soul believe it is just that...except, it can exist outside of the physical body

edit on 10-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

I know, they also believe it is ego, lifeforce etc. And consciousness doesn't exist either. It is a word only, a convenience of language and an abstraction used to describe many events, things and processes. And no, it doesn't exist outside of the body! I appreciate the sarcasm though.

reply to post by miniatus


There is a difference. I got this from Wiki. " A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%." People lie in polls all the time.

There are a lot of people who don't believe in god/gods/dieties but there are few that put themselves out there to say they are anti-theists. I can't say "God" is real because there is no proof. I still say I believe there is something controlling things and I call that God I guess. Either way, I am still going to Hell according to some religions because I hardly ever go to church. I'll go once in a while with the wife when she goes. You don't need a church to believe something is structuring everything we perceive. No religion has a patent on god.

I would say that any idea is worth consideration. However, it's hard to act upon the consideration of an after life, which makes it all the more sweet.

I think believing that there is no true death of your 'self' may be detrimental to the control of the human populace and their actions.

reply to post by miniatus

There's some worthwhile science and scientific speculation by some of the world's leading scientists which supports the idea of the brain having both a classical and a quantum holographic mind, which interacts and exchanges informaiton with a holographic universe, such that small mind exchanges information with the zero point field or askashic field (Big Mind) also known as the akashic chronicles or by some, the "book of life", which has recorded everything that has ever happend from every angle and perspective via an eternal evolutionary process including the rise and fall of prior universes.

Scientists to look at would include

Carl Pibram - holographic mind
David Bohm - physicist, holographic universe
Roger Penrose - physicist, quantum mind
Irvin Laszlo - physicist, akashic field
Bernard Haisch - physicist, zero point field
Amit Goswami - physicist, downward causation and the self aware universe

These are but a few who are exploring what many refer to as the new paradigm of science.

From what I can tell, materialist monism (the idea that matter alone is primary and consciousness exclusively an epiphenomenon of matter) is dead and has now been replaced by what Goswami calls "monistic idealism" (consciousness is the ground of all being and becoming). In the latter framework of understanding, the basic consciousness of the universe, which is an typoe of organic, unified, cosmological, informational matrix, is forever retained, and thus may be considered to reside outside of or transcendant of, the space-time continuum.

It should be noted that only the framework of monistic idealism is capable of satisfactorily resolving all the quantum paradoxes, which cannot be resolved within the context of a classical, Newtonian, materialist monism, and therefore, one must be discarded in favor of the other, even though the propositions put forward by monistic idealism involving as they do absolute wholeness and integration, make doing science the way its been done (breaking things into pieces and examining them both separately and in terms of their interaction with one other parts) rather difficult.

But make no mistake, the idea that consciousness resides exclusively "in the scull" is a dead and dying worldview, which simply cannot hold up in light of modern science and quantum theory. Perhaps the ancient wisdom and spiritual traditions were not so far off the mark after all.. wouldn't that be funny, if atheism is disproven by the latest findings of modern scientific inquiry!

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by Soloro


I like the religions where you come back as a frog or lesser animal if you mess us. Keeps people in line