It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Welcome to the unknown. I do not believe a position of atheism is possible.

1) You can never lay claim to having seen everything
2) Since 1 is true, you must be open to the possibility there could be something else out there with which you are unfamiliar. And that something could be (insert adjective and noun here).

If you deny 2, then you are simply in a state of denial.

A position of atheism is perfectly possible. There's nothing contradictory with saying I'll believe it when I see it. You are still open to the possibility that there could be something else out there. You may be in an even better position than deists who see that something else and then try to have that something else conform to their preconceived notions.




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I suppose it may be a position or issue related to semantics. I am assenting to authority, in thiscase a dictionary. I realize this may not be your position. If you do not understand you simply rephrased my post in attempt argue against the point, then it truly is a matter of semantics. I think the dictionary might help resolve my position in this matter. If you understand what the definition of atheist is, then you understand why it is impossible.
edit on 11-8-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 

I have no problem with that so lets look at what the Oxford dictionary says:

Definition of atheism noun
[mass noun]
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


A rather simple definition. I'm sure we can agree that beliefs can change so an atheist will only hold his disbelief until something convinces him that he is wrong.

Also, there is nothing contradictory with an atheist believing in ghosts, astral projection or other paranormal beliefs if he doesn't attribute those things to a deity.


edit on 11-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Thank you for the post and we will agree on that definition. Would you engage in a follow up question?

What logical basis gives rise to the disbelief when there are unexplored areas remaining to all mankind?
edit on 11-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
Anyone who knows me by my posts knows that I'm a logical, scientific minded person.. and an Atheist at that.. but I decided to let my mind wonder a bit beyond logic and came up with an interesting thought.. and I'm sure others have considered this so I'm not taking credit for anything.. this is just how my mind wondered..

It's well understood, well not exactly, but understood at least.. that our thoughts, senses, emotions.. and everything that makes us "us" .. is driven by our brian.. that jello up in your skull.. it drives everything that we do and sometimes it malfunctions of course.. but it's the pilot and our bodies are the machine that it controls.

It's also firmly believed as fact by those of us that are science minded.. that when your brain ceases to function, you are no more.. fade to black.. existance is gone for you.. Well this is where I allowed myself to break out of my logic restraints ever so briefly and think... what if that isn't true? .. what if we really are some being of energy that is simply locked in our physical form? much like a cocoon for a butterfly, and what if it's not the mind that informs the body, but that energy that informs the mind merely to drive the body.. energy never goes away it merely transforms...

I do not do drugs, I'm mentally fit, I'm not under any influences =) so don't go there .. I'm just allowing myself to slide out of my typical rational ways to ponder the possibility .. I've seen "ghosts" when I was younger, it very well could just be that it was my imagination.. but if not.. something like this could certainly explain it .. I just can't imagine any way to "test" this idea.. does it really seem that far fetched? What do you think?


I tend to be scientifically/logically minded (it's my personality), and I believe in a human soul. I don't think that it is an illogical thing to believe in, although so far provable science remains neutral on the question. So don't think that you are crazy; keep testing the evidence. Science, I think, can tell us how, but not why, and the human being longs for why, does it not? Tell me, as a logical and scientific minded person, don't you use your mind to answer that question? And don't you think it is odd that you want to know why, when (if all is by random chance) there is no why, only how? Just a thought



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Whatever we are, that poop out of this cocoon, wether it be measured in grams or amounts of energy. We will be unable to escape the gravity of this planet.

So, IFF there is a god, and he created this earth for you and me to live on. Then the only possible conclusion is, that this earth is a prison ... if our true form is energy ... then this form, that dissipates into nothing, is punishment. If our true form be energy, without emotion ... then this earth, is hell.

This should be self evident, and I don't wanna go any deeper into it.

Whatever evolution there is, it isn't "you" or "me". This is "wishful" thinking ... the evolution is life itself, life on this planet ... or perhaps even, the planet itself. If you think about it, there can be no evolution of life, without that evolution affecting the planet. So, more likely whatever evolution there is ... it's the planet that is evolving as a whole, and "we" are merely a small part of that evolution.

The key of life, is to extends itself. To spread itself ... we eventually die, and leave children behind ... that is our function. So, the egoistic notion of "self" is wishful thinking. It's part of our mechanism to sustain ourselves. Just like plantlifem bakteria and a virus.

If "you" and "I" want to sustain our lives. We need to throw ourselves into science, and find a way to extend our lives, and to find a cure to the decease of death.

But, and here is the biggest part of it ... life decays, and it's decay is linked to the decay of all cells. That is linked to gravity, and to the sun itself.

Only in space, would you be able to suspend aging ... here on earth, we can only extend it.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Hey humphreysjim! I don't want to derail the thread into a full-blown debate over human consciousness (I'm sure we both probably have better things to do, and that's a subject for another thread
) but there is actually some evidence that points to the idea of consciousness being separate from the brain. A while back I read Lee Strobel's excellent work The Case for a Creator, and he has an entire chapter dedicated to this issue. I went and dug it out today. Among the tidbits there are a study supporting "evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning." Much of the chapter is dedicated to an interview with J.P Moreland, but he also points out something else interesting: when a subjects brain is stimulated to do something such as move his right hand, he is conscious of the fact that he does not want to move his right hand; suggesting that there is something beyond mere brain stimulation. (In these tests, the patients would be told to keep their hand from moving; they would grab one hand with the other to hold it still.)

I'm not saying this is slam-dunk proof of a soul, but it is evidence to the possibility that there is more to the human mind than just a brain


(Incidentally, the book is something the OP might enjoy looking into. A preview is available on Google Books.)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
What logical basis gives rise to the disbelief when there are unexplored areas remaining to all mankind?

The logic is "I will believe it when I see proof of it". Now what constitutes proof is a personal thing and is the reason why some things are proof for some and not others.

The flat out truth is we don't know but I "believe __________". This is an honest answer that leaves the door open to what may turn up in those unexplored areas.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
The flat out truth is we don't know but I "believe __________". This is an honest answer that leaves the door open to what may turn up in those unexplored areas.


You're supposed to argue the "why" ... a belief, is without the "why".

I hate to sound like the Merovingian, in Matrix. But what he says is true ... there is only "cause" and "effect". When you believe, you see the effect ... but do not search for the "cause", but replace the "cause" with "belief".

The most important thing, when you look for causality ... is to be skeptic of it. Doubt it, find fault in it ... and even if you "think" what the causality is, you need to doubt your own logic.

Or as Plato put it, God Knows, men reason ... you and I are not Gods, we're men.


edit on 11/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by miniatus
 


People have been talking about the soul for thousands of years. It takes form as spirit, life-force, ego, consciousness, divine energy etc. The soul is an idea that is slowly dying as we learn more and more of the body. And any concept of soul is the product of thousands of years of Platonic and Aristotelean abstractions of things we understood little about—in this case, the human body.

Its obvious and evident that there is no soul. And as wicked and frightening as it sounds, it is closer to reality than any other lofty idea. The soul exists as an idea and a fleeting hope nothing more.




edit on 10-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: grammar


it is not "obvious" or "evident" that there is no soul- it is simply a belief, however you wish to dress it up



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
You're supposed to argue the "why" ... a belief, is without the "why".

I'm not arguing anything. I am telling you what I believe. The only arguing that ever takes place is within me.


I hate to sound like the Merovingian, in Matrix. But what he says is true ... there is only "cause" and "effect". When you believe, you see the effect ... but do not search for the "cause", but replace the "cause" with "belief".

If one has searched and found the cause why would one continue to search?


The most important thing, when you look for causality ... is to be skeptic of it. Doubt it, find fault in it ... and even if you "think" what the causality is, you need to doubt your own logic.

Sorry that is not the way it works for me but I could see people on both sides of the fence doing just that.


Or as Plato put it, God Knows, men reason ... you and I are not Gods, we're men.

Plato was also just a man, so he didn't know either. Why would his words carry more truth than anybody else's?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by miniatus
 


People have been talking about the soul for thousands of years. It takes form as spirit, life-force, ego, consciousness, divine energy etc. The soul is an idea that is slowly dying as we learn more and more of the body. And any concept of soul is the product of thousands of years of Platonic and Aristotelean abstractions of things we understood little about—in this case, the human body.

Its obvious and evident that there is no soul. And as wicked and frightening as it sounds, it is closer to reality than any other lofty idea. The soul exists as an idea and a fleeting hope nothing more.




edit on 10-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: grammar


it is not "obvious" or "evident" that there is no soul- it is simply a belief, however you wish to dress it up


obvious |ˈäbvēəs|
adjective
easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent : unemployment has been the most obvious cost of the recession | [with clause ] it was obvious a storm was coming in
• derogatory predictable and lacking in subtlety : it was an obvious remark to make.

It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No. Yet the absence of a soul is easily perceived and understood. Nice try. Your blind belief and obedience to authority is also quite obvious.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No.

But what of those who have experienced it and found it easy to perceive and understand?

They would answer yes.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No.

But what of those who have experienced it and found it easy to perceive and understand?

They would answer yes.


They have likely mistaken it for something else.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No. Yet the absence of a soul is easily perceived and understood. Nice try. Your blind belief and obedience to authority is also quite obvious.


That is stunted reasoning, it is neither MORE or LESS obvious to believe in the absence of the soul than to believe in the soul, as both involve dying and finding out- you appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur and I'm sorry to be the person who tells you you have no clothes, but, you have no clothes.


As regards "blind belief" (this is something you are employing) and "authority", this is just baffling, you have no idea what, who or why I believe- again, delusions of grandeur



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No.

But what of those who have experienced it and found it easy to perceive and understand?

They would answer yes.


They have likely mistaken it for something else.



uh oh, not a great reply

"most probably"

"mistaken" (how do you know, how do YOU KNOW, you don't)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No.

But what of those who have experienced it and found it easy to perceive and understand?

They would answer yes.


They have likely mistaken it for something else.



uh oh, not a great reply

"most probably"

"mistaken" (how do you know, how do YOU KNOW, you don't)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 

Maybe but then again maybe not.

If it can't be proven one way or the other then neither is obvious, except on a personal level, which is where science has to accept that it doesn't know.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

It's very obvious. Is a soul easily perceived or understood? No. Yet the absence of a soul is easily perceived and understood. Nice try. Your blind belief and obedience to authority is also quite obvious.


That is stunted reasoning, it is neither MORE or LESS obvious to believe in the absence of the soul than to believe in the soul, as both involve dying and finding out- you appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur and I'm sorry to be the person who tells you you have no clothes, but, you have no clothes.


As regards "blind belief" (this is something you are employing) and "authority", this is just baffling, you have no idea what, who or why I believe- again, delusions of grandeur


Do you believe in a soul? If yes, then it's because you were indoctrinated into the idea. You didn't come up with it on your own. No sense in deceiving yourself.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 

Maybe but then again maybe not.

If it can't be proven one way or the other then neither is obvious, except on a personal level, which is where science has to accept that it doesn't know.


Common sense shows there is no soul. It has never been witnessed, measured or experienced throughout all of human history. It only lives in fable and myth. Which should one believe?




top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join