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 LesMisanthrope


The one that one has experienced while acknowledging that it is not science but personal experience.

reply to post by daskakik


I agree. But there is not a single reason to believe there is a soul. I would love to know there was a such thing but my hopes and wishes don't make it true at all. If soul takes place in the body, then it's safer to conclude that the soul is in fact the living human body.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by daskakik

 

I agree. But there is not a single reason to believe there is a soul. I would love to know there was a such thing but my hopes and wishes don't make it true at all. If soul takes place in the body, then it's safer to conclude that the soul is in fact the living human body.

For you there is no single reason.

For those who have experienced it there is at least that single reason.

You could both still be wrong.

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...

Try playing with the notion that information exists, and has more than one form of existing. When something happens or a change occurs, a "fact cluster" emerges to represent that occurrence or change. That "fact cluster" is information, and is a form of information called "residual information". The truth about information is that unlike material existence, it does not have a half-life rate of decay. Information is eternal, since once a fact emerges, it does not cease to exist -

*example*

• Change A happens, causing the fact that Change A happened to immediately exist
  
• Change A happened and will never NOT have happened
  
• The fact that Change A happened is information
  
• That fact, as information, will - due to the permanence of ramification - always exist; thereby information is eternal

When the material brain interprets the DNA and memory-centric residual information, and applies that interpretation to the configuration of "action item" information clusters, what you end up with is dynamic information. This is the information that "tells" your arm to lift and your feet to coordinate with each other to allow you to walk and even stand still.

The human brain is uniquely capable of sentience, which means that it can place itself within an ongoing causal trajectory. It can also examine itself as placed within that causal trajectory, and this is what we call self-ness or consciousness. Each burst of configured sentience collects with all previous bursts from the same authoring brain, and when that brain ceases to exist as a functioning system, the sentient collective of associated informational bursts continues to exist - as is the case with all forms of information.

It's not about energy. It's about information.

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?

"Ghosts" can be manifestations of either residual information or dynamic information, and the paranormal research community refers to them as "Residual Hauntings" and "Intelligent Hauntings" respectively. Again, it's just rare manifestations of material reaction to the impact of information - whether residual or dynamic in nature.

Yes, this is a little counter-intuitive, but it is the actual connection between science and spirituality. It will eventually be widely embraced once it has been completely and seriously examined by responsible thought leaders. Until then, it'll be a food fight between materialists and those who intuitively know that there's more to reality than what meets the eye. Or the analysis technology, for that matter.

Originally posted by daskakik

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.

Thanks for the reply. Concerning disbelief (and remaining with Oxford in an attempt to keep continuity) there could be two paths:

1. Inability; or,
   
2. Refusal
   

Now, I do not know the personal affairs or state of mind concerning the OP or anyone else here; however, I have no reason to believe them incapable of understanding they have not:

1. Been everywhere there is to be;
   
2. Seen everything there is to see; or,
   
3. Experience everything there is to experience
   

Therefore, we can rule out inability to believe.

In regard to refusal, this also becomes an issue of admitting and conceding the facts of the situation. Since the three conditions (A,B, and C, listed above) are an admitted and conceded state of affairs, and the scientific method is demanded, then the hypothesis (and subsequent state of belief) must be limited to agnosticism.

Something, somewhere, possibly a deity, could exist.

To state, "I'll believe it when I see proof of it," is a logical statement is inaccurate.

The argument against a deity has been one of logic and intellectual honesty. If an advocate of intelligent design or creationism came to any thread and stated, "I'll believe (substitute evolution, or especially abiogenesis, for the word it) when I see proof of it," imagine the resultant outcry from members of the ATS Community.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
I think everyone can take comfort in the fact that the Universe is so vast and mysterious, that we will never figure it all out, and that death can never actually be proved to be the end - it just isn't possible, some will believe, and others will doubt, but we will always be clueless.

Are you kidding? I'm usually the one bashing mankind as brutal savages, but look at how much knowledge we've obtained in just a thousand years. My gawd, Watson and Crick just figured out DNA's double helix in 1953. Now we're cloning animals! We've successfully mixed spider DNA with goat DNA!

If we don't kill ourselves off, the knowledge we will obtain in the NEXT thousand years will be staggering. What will we learn in a million years? Five million years?

We WILL figure out everything in the universe. We WILL figure out how to create life from scratch. We WILL become gods in our own right. And, if we can become creators of universes, then there's no reason why a god couldn't have created our universe.

reply to post by miniatus


I saw this thread yesterday and wanted to answer but I didn't have time.

I am also an atheist, meaning that I don't have a belief about a god. I am logically minded enough, however, to know that we don't know everything there is to know... Clearly we came from a source of some kind. Is it a big man in the sky? It's doubtful - EXTREMELY doubtful (that's why I don't believe in that).

But that's the thing with letting go of old, irrelevant beliefs... Once we let them go, what is left to think? I have come to believe that there probably "something" more than the physical existence we are currently aware of. I don't know what it is, and I could be wrong... Maybe this is all there is. Either way, I'm OK with not knowing, until science has it figured out.

reply to post by miniatus


You have been shown proof before about how human consciousness seems to affect particles that make up matter, without a connection.

Originally posted by totallackey
Concerning disbelief (and remaining with Oxford in an attempt to keep continuity) there could be two paths:

1. Inability; or,
   
2. Refusal
   

Now, I do not know the personal affairs or state of mind concerning the OP or anyone else here; however, I have no reason to believe them incapable of understanding they have not:

1. Been everywhere there is to be;
   
2. Seen everything there is to see; or,
   
3. Experience everything there is to experience
   

Therefore, we can rule out inability to believe.

There is no reason to believe that the average member of ATS is incapable of understanding that most of us are aware that we have not been everywhere, seen everything or experienced everything. It is a given that whatever statement a person makes is based on where they have been, what they have seen, what they have experienced along with a dose of what they believe.

In regard to refusal, this also becomes an issue of admitting and conceding the facts of the situation. Since the three conditions (A,B, and C, listed above) are an admitted and conceded state of affairs, and the scientific method is demanded, then the hypothesis (and subsequent state of belief) must be limited to agnosticism.

Personal beliefs don't need to meet the requirements of the scientific method which is why they are not limited to agnosticism. In any case, there are different types of agnosticism one being:

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Emphasis is mine.

The argument against a deity has been one of logic and intellectual honesty. If an advocate of intelligent design or creationism came to any thread and stated, "I'll believe (substitute evolution, or especially abiogenesis, for the word it) when I see proof of it," imagine the resultant outcry from members of the ATS Community.

I've seen that argument. The ATS community reacts by trying to provide proof of evolution, abiogenesis or whatever idea fills the blank. When said idea is currently unknown in fact, all that is left is personal belief, which is when threads become heated.

reply to post by daskakik

Personal beliefs don't need to meet the requirements of the scientific method...

I agree. But that was not the question I posed to begin with. I posed the question, "What logical basis gives rise to the disbelief when there are unexplored areas remaining to all mankind?" To which, you replied:

The logic is "I will believe it when I see proof of it".

Now, seeing and experiencing are not "beliefs." They are events that give rise to belief. They are subjective in that each individual may experience an event in a different manner, but that does not mean the event did not occur; therefore, the event serves as a logical basis.

Since there can be no event giving rise to the definition of atheism, then atheism is logically invalid. Hence the need for further terms and definitions to describe mental states, philosophical, and religious positions.

Originally posted by totallackey

Personal beliefs don't need to meet the requirements of the scientific method...

I agree. But that was not the question I posed to begin with. I posed the question, "What logical basis gives rise to the disbelief when there are unexplored areas remaining to all mankind?" To which, you replied:

The logic is "I will believe it when I see proof of it".

Now, seeing and experiencing are not "beliefs." They are events that give rise to belief. They are subjective in that each individual may experience an event in a different manner, but that does not mean the event did not occur; therefore, the event serves as a logical basis.

True, but your question was not made to a specific person. The events that would serve as a logical basis would be personal and of no use to those who did not experience it.

That is why my answer is also general. A person will believe something when they see proof of it. What that proof is depends on the person.

Since there can be no event giving rise to the definition of atheism, then atheism is logically invalid. Hence the need for further terms and definitions to describe mental states, philosophical, and religious positions.

Of course there can because it is a personal belief based on that persons experience. It could be wrong but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I have already stated that when something is not known as fact there is no validity one way or the other. You can try to apply your rules of logic but those don't apply to personal beliefs. We are just going to go around in circles while you try to apply something that doesn't fit.

Originally posted by DjangoPhat
reply to post by miniatus

 

You have been shown proof before about how human consciousness seems to affect particles that make up matter, without a connection.

I don't believe we have been shown proof. What we've been shown is a first impression (that being the observer effect). I have yet to hear of any further experiments to either verify or disprove this first impression.

In the Double Slit experiment, when a photon is observed it seems to remain as a particle instead of changing into a wave. There are just too many questions pertaining to this.

The first time this effect was noticed, the observer had no idea that something was going to change when he looked at it. How can human consciousness affect something without even thinking about it? Is the effect caused by human consciousness, or by the eyes looking at it? Would a photon remain a particle if a dog looked at it? Why would the photon react the exact same way every time? With human consciousness involved we should be able to force the photon to fly left, right, up, down... Too many questions.

reply to post by daskakik


Forgive me for failing to state the experience of the event is purely subjective while the event (what actually occurred) is purely objective. Perhaps that will help to clear up my position and argumentation.

The question is, "Can you provide an event that would give a sound logical basis for atheism?"

Understand, after answering the question, the event would then be examined as objectively as possible.

This gets back to a very true statement of lack of complete experience. Since the lack of complete experience absolutely exists, it is illogical to assume a state of disbelief or denial.

Time that you can never see nor touch.

The future exists without end because the present always arrives.

The present exists but is already the past before we can process what just happened.

The past exists without end because the present is always pressing its newness into its stack.

All your instances of existing in "the present" are still there locked in the past. When you exit the time stream out from the future, all you are, is all you were, in all your past. It is the destiny of all that is both animate and inanimate. There is no choice. There is no mercy. There is no magical kingdom. There is what you have "recorded" into the recording medium of space itself as time floods through it.

You can, however, record at some point an escape Door. You can record at some point the fact that you have been within effective range of someone that did record the escape Door. Hopefully there was the bridging mechanism between the 2 of you called love so you will not be locked in your past recording structure for all eternity.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by daskakik

 

I agree. But there is not a single reason to believe there is a soul. I would love to know there was a such thing but my hopes and wishes don't make it true at all. If soul takes place in the body, then it's safer to conclude that the soul is in fact the living human body.

I propose to you that this "soul" is an inanimate structure composed of space as a recording medium whereby time current flowing from future into past, being distorted by consciousness, impregnates space itself with your deflections, harmonics, reflections and displacements.

The "soul" is a time vessel for consciousness to occupy or not. It starts at conception and terminates at death. I say this because of presence within space AND time as if there is a running recording device. Space is the potential field where the unique impressions are anchored. Time is the "light" that ignites space based on the presence of yourself.

Originally posted by totallackey
The question is, "Can you provide an event that would give a sound logical basis for atheism?"

I think the event that gives a sound logical basis for atheism is the discovery that there is no logical basis for theism.

This gets back to a very true statement of lack of complete experience. Since the lack of complete experience absolutely exists, it is illogical to assume a state of disbelief or denial.

It seems somewhat a contradiction to say the lack of something absolutely exists. I can't wrap my head around it. "The lack of complete experience" isn't what exists, the complete experience is what doesn't exist. My sandwich lacked onions. It wasn't the case that there existed a lack of onions on the sandwich, but that the onions didn't exist on the sandwich.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by totallackey
The question is, "Can you provide an event that would give a sound logical basis for atheism?"

I think the event that gives a sound logical basis for atheism is the discovery that there is no logical basis for theism.

Well, this would presume that all events leading to the formation of theism have been objectively examined. I am unsure this is the case. What about you? Are you sure all events that lead one to theism have been objectively examined? I am unsure your "discovery," has been made.

It seems somewhat a contradiction to say the lack of something absolutely exists. I can't wrap my head around it. "The lack of complete experience" isn't what exists, the complete experience is what doesn't exist. My sandwich lacked onions. It wasn't the case that there existed a lack of onions on the sandwich, but that the onions didn't exist on the sandwich.

My point is dealing with things that exist. Atheists claim God does not exist (i.e., disbelief, rejection) and demand proof. Since objective existence is fundamental to the discussion, the only state of existence possible with which to form a cogent argument is the state of, "lack of complete experience." That is a proven, if one is to be honest. You cannot prove "non-existence."

Originally posted by totallackey
Well, this would presume that all events leading to the formation of theism have been objectively examined. I am unsure this is the case. What about you? Are you sure all events that lead one to theism have been objectively examined? I am unsure your "discovery," has been made.

You're right; conjecture, anecdote and hearsay cannot exist objectively. Hence the reason theism persists. That doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted logically for the past 500 years.

My point is dealing with things that exist. Atheists claim God does not exist (i.e., disbelief, rejection) and demand proof. Since objective existence is fundamental to the discussion, the only state of existence possible with which to form a cogent argument is the state of, "lack of complete experience." That is a proven, if one is to be honest. You cannot prove "non-existence."

edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because

It's really as simple as opening ones eyes though isn't it. The proof is in the pudding. No deity has ever been observed or recorded. There is no objective proof of a god. Nothing exists. Nothing is there. It's that easy.

Secondly, theism is unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no way it can be refuted. Objectively, anything that is unfalsifiable isn't even worth being a hypothesis. Atheism can be refuted by God showing up, even if for a moment and saying "Hey guys, I do exist. Back to work." Hence, atheism is falsifiable, and deserves to be a logical hypothesis. extra DIV