For Atheists

[Uber Genius]

Valuable insight into substance dualism.

 

[Tayla]

the "soul" is synonymous with our psyche - an emergent property of our nervous and endocrinal system.

I have trouble considering consciousness as an emergent property. An example usually given is the wetness of water, but this is nothing like consciousness:

1. The atoms still obey the laws of physics.
2. The wetness is better explained as a category constructed by the mental facilities of the brain.

Consciousness is nothing like this:

1. Consciousness is nothing like matter.
   
2. There is no godlike creature external to the consciousness being observed to construct the category.

I think the only other option is some form of dualism: matter and mind.

 

[Tayla]

Well, I'm a Jungian at heart

Seems to me some of Jung's key teachings regarding such things as: (1) unconscious activity, or (2) knowledge and drives shared across cultures; that these cannot be explained by brain function nor by materialistic physics. Seems this stuff is just calling out for someone to acknowledge a spiritual realm they can all reside in comfortably.

 

[Tayla]

we like to think of ourselves as "I" - a monolithic, self-contained, single entity. Yet more than half of the cells in ourselves do not even carry our DNA. We are not so much isolated individuals as sprawling arcologies inhabited by symbiotic, cooperating species working in unison to sustain our system.

I sense a mixing of metaphors. Examples, (1) rocks that think, (2) cultures embodied in DNA. (I'm highly exaggerating to make the point clear.)

It seems to me the (a) physical material, and (b) non-physical non-material, aspects of reality are distinct. For example, the spiritual "I" doesn't care about the contents of the DNA of the material body it is associated with, except insofar as the capabilities of the brain constrict the ability of this "I" to express itself through its body.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If the "I" was a separate, unchanging essence (which it is clearly not, since our identity is shaped by so many distinct, sometimes conflicting parts, changes throughout our lives, and is directly affected by our physiology in every way that matters), then it would have to be so distinct from what we commonly identify as such as to be virtually unrecognisable.
In short: a hypothetical spirit pilot that was NOT shaped by the endocrine system (emotions), memories and experiences (the brain), and the way other people react to and interact with it (the body and its appearance) would bear virtually no resemblance to anything we identify with as our "self".

 

[DennisTate]

and the evidence of the spirit is ..... ?

also, you must note, spirits are irrelevant to what evolution has to say... the way you are trying to disprove evolution doesn't follow... it is rather a logical fallacy....

take this as an example:
how can you believe aliens exists if some trees are apple trees?
what do apple trees have to do with whether aliens exist or not?
---------
what does spirits have to do with whether evolution is true or not?

also, evolution is a fact, and there is abundant amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.



Quija/Quiji boards...



Have you heard of El Chupacabra ?
I don't know if you believe in that, but I have heard some preeeetti convincing stories about it...



perhaps there isn't , perhaps there is... evolution does not say anything about there being or not being life after death. i think whom ever told you about evolution put little dishonest words while they told you about evolution ... or ... you have some misconceptions about it due to your religious background.

Well.... for one thing limiting evolution to less than 4.5 billion years, (the probable age of the earth), and to four dimensions of space - time is illogical.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

 

[DennisTate]

Ouija or Ouiji. "Wege" is a pretzel company in Pennsylvania.


Yet you're trying to assert proof of a post-mortem spiritual existence, with no tangible, quantifiable evidence.



The "Big Bang" theory and the notion of an afterlife are not mutually exclusive concepts. Georges Lemaitre (Belgian Catholic priest and MIT PhD) developed the progressive space theory in 1933, which led to the "big bang" and "big crunch" theories later.

The notion of a creator god and the big bang aren't necessarily exlusive.
The creator god makes the primordial particle, the particle does what it's supposed to do, and the universe ebbs and flows. The "God-as-watchmaker" view I've seen attributed to 18th century Deism is along those lines. God makes everything and lets it run on its own.

The notion of a creator god and the big bang aren't necesarily mutually dependent, either. The primordial particle just has to exist.

I agree........ a Big Bang or Big Flash event...... or perhaps a nearly infinite series of them going back to nearly infinite time in the past...... is a possibility that in no way contradicts the possibility of intelligence beginning and evolving in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy.

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

[Larniavc]

Ok how do you like these views.




How can you believe in no god if there is proof of some spirit out there.

The reason is there is wege boards. I don't know if i spelled it right, but i think yall know what i am talking about. Idk if you guys believe in those. but I have heard some pretty convincing stories. IF there was no God then there would probaly not be life after death

Idiomotor effect.

Next reason to believe, please.