Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > Ask an atheist

Ask an atheist Want to know atheists' viewpoints on things? Want to better understand the atheist worldview?
Here's the place.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 14th February 2017, 08:12 PM
stylofone's Avatar
stylofone stylofone is offline
I am no feeble Christ, not me.
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,144
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Douglas Adams' puddle was also a bit hasty in ascribing purpose, in this case, to the hole that seemed to have been created to be its home.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg puddle.jpg (71.1 KB, 67 views)
Reply With Quote
Like wolty, Svadifari, Banjo liked this post
  #22  
Old 14th February 2017, 11:02 PM
Xermes Xermes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 6
Cool Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Mjt said View Post
Really? You think you're that important, that your consciousness is that vital to anything that it must go on after the death of your physical body? Why?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know too much
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14th February 2017, 11:48 PM
Xermes Xermes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 6
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

It feels like I've slipped into a bit of a rabbit hole! Was that a trick question for Newbs? Lol!

To address the porpoises....I'm thinking if there is reason rather than random evolution, it is about being part of a bigger machine rather than an externally applied purpose. Svadifari's dead snail would be just as much a part of it and I don't have a problem thinking my consciousness goes to the pub when I'm asleep. The point being that just because I don't remember it when I'm awake doesn't mean it didn't happen.....and if it can step out while I'm asleep without damage, why not when I'm dead?

Please remember, I'm not trying to sell any of this. It's a vague theory that sits comfortably in the background of my mind. The only evidence any of us can draw on is our own life experience. I came into this forum because of an active disdain for religion, not because I think I have any special knowledge.

Its a funny thing..as I'm writing this I have the TV on SBS and it has gone from some radical terrorist calling very loudly for some grisly holy murder...to a local cryogenic facility for people to have their bodies preserved for future revival.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14th February 2017, 11:50 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is offline
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,386
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Xermes said View Post
Its a funny thing..as I'm writing this I have the TV on SBS and it has gone from some radical terrorist calling very loudly for some grisly holy murder...to a local cryogenic facility for people to have their bodies preserved for future revival.
Both of whom are full of shit.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3


Last edited by Goldenmane; 14th February 2017 at 11:50 PM. Reason: tags
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15th February 2017, 12:07 AM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is offline
What Me Deluded?
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 5,597
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

All that publicly accessible knowledge (which so few do access) you yourself have obviously garnered by self application and the far more important esoteric, gnostic "knowledge", that which is so very real though beyond the authority and criteria of falsifiability which mundane knowledge is subject to, as to validity, can't just be doomed to all go to waste, unshared and terminated within you when you're dead or get dementia. The crime of all eternity. Otherwise we are facing nihilism. That's a travesty. Unacceptable. The truth has to be shared and with who else but the AFA, fellow enlightened autodidacts.

The knowledge and consciousness, this cognitive faculty is so stupendous, actualised, transcendental; it obviously endures forever, accumulating knowledge, learning and in adeptness until after countless incarnations, the worthy searcher/saint claims buddahood, the purpose all along driving consciousness the soul's epic journey and quest.

It's a conceit. What is it telling me really?
__________________
We can know something only if it is both true and knowable, Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15th February 2017, 05:29 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Xermes said View Post
It feels like I've slipped into a bit of a rabbit hole! Was that a trick question for Newbs? Lol!
I can't say for the entire extent of this forum, but I've never seen it and don't think it's the case.

I expect it's quite unusual for people to not believe in gods yet believe in immortal souls.

For most of us, I think you've either undermined your own disbelief in gods, or have not properly considered how the two beliefs are functionally similar rhetorically in that they both lack for any scientific evidence whatsoever.

The problem with immortal souls is really quite profound, and if immortal souls are the reality, then I think it calls into question absolutely everything we know about the universe - it's most fundamental composition all the way up to and including every single system therein. Nearly everything in the universe is subject to thermodynamic laws, the way in which energy can be exchanged into different forms to do work, to allow stuff to do other stuff.

Every single item around you is or was subject to thermodynamic laws from your body to the refrigerator. All of them require energy in, whether that be nutrition to undergo digestion and metabolism in your body, or electric current wired into your fridge via the plug.

None of these things would work - none of them would do stuff - none of them would be there in the first place without this most fundamental of ways in which stuff in this universe works.

But souls.... they have this unknown energy source that leaves no trace when it's extracted, no trace when its used, and no waste exhaust. Toss in the immortal and you have cosmology shaking beliefs - insofar as we know, that must be impossible. Immortality is not something anything can possess.

This pushes your belief firmly into the woo category - a place that exists outside the remit of science, logic, reason, or evidence.


Quote:
Xermes said View Post
To address the porpoises....I'm thinking if there is reason rather than random evolution, it is about being part of a bigger machine rather than an externally applied purpose. Svadifari's dead snail would be just as much a part of it and I don't have a problem thinking my consciousness goes to the pub when I'm asleep. The point being that just because I don't remember it when I'm awake doesn't mean it didn't happen.....and if it can step out while I'm asleep without damage, why not when I'm dead?
That's another funny argument - another non-sequitur because your final summation doesn't follow from what you've said.

If you don't know something, that doesn't make it automatically possible. It just makes it untested. We don't list knowledge in 3 categories: known, unknown, and unknown but let's just pretend its real and make some assumptions on top of it.

That we don't know something doesn't really give us the license to act is if we do. That's why the requirement should be testability - can we test this to see if it's true? If we can't, then there's a problematic assumption in the notion because how could we know about it in the first place if there's no way to observe it? Any claim about the nature of the universe has to be potentially falsifiable, or else it just ain't useful at all with respect to describing reality.



Quote:
Xermes said View Post
Please remember, I'm not trying to sell any of this. It's a vague theory that sits comfortably in the background of my mind. The only evidence any of us can draw on is our own life experience. I came into this forum because of an active disdain for religion, not because I think I have any special knowledge.
I'm sure I don't just speak for myself when I say that any criticism of this proposed idea is restricted wholly to the idea itself, and is not in any way targeted at you as a person!

I am sure people seek different things in discussion fora, but for me it's to wrestle with ideas, to have my mind changed and to change other peoples' minds. As such, even though you're absolutely not selling it and I certainly don't mean to suggest otherwise, the idea is now there, written, on this forum, and consequently will be critiqued!
Reply With Quote
Like Athe1st liked this post
  #27  
Old 15th February 2017, 07:38 AM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,222
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
I don't see how that would work. Logically, gods and immortal souls are interchangeable concepts. God is, after all, a mind without body, a spirit with no need for physical presence. Without matter [or energy of course!]
It doesn't make any sense to me either. To reject one belief that lacks any meaningful evidence but at the same time embrace another belief that lacks any meaningful evidence.

I have known people who believed in God but not in an immortal human soul. I understand that the Sadducees (a Jewish sect) did not believe in an immortal soul or an afterlife. I don't know much about Taoism, but I understand that there is some level of belief in Gods but generally no belief in an afterlife.

I have also known avowed atheists who believed in ghosts.

Getting into an area that I know almost nothing about now, but didn't Plato believe in an immortal soul but not in God/s?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15th February 2017, 09:19 AM
Mjt's Avatar
Mjt Mjt is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: rural
Posts: 5,898
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Xermes said View Post
It feels like I've slipped into a bit of a rabbit hole! Was that a trick question for Newbs? Lol!



To address the porpoises....I'm thinking if there is reason rather than random evolution, it is about being part of a bigger machine rather than an externally applied purpose. Svadifari's dead snail would be just as much a part of it and I don't have a problem thinking my consciousness goes to the pub when I'm asleep. The point being that just because I don't remember it when I'm awake doesn't mean it didn't happen.....and if it can step out while I'm asleep without damage, why not when I'm dead?



Please remember, I'm not trying to sell any of this. It's a vague theory that sits comfortably in the background of my mind. The only evidence any of us can draw on is our own life experience. I came into this forum because of an active disdain for religion, not because I think I have any special knowledge.



Its a funny thing..as I'm writing this I have the TV on SBS and it has gone from some radical terrorist calling very loudly for some grisly holy murder...to a local cryogenic facility for people to have their bodies preserved for future revival.


There is a slight difference. While you're asleep your pilot light is still on.
When you're dead it's gone out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Twisted Sister
Reply With Quote
Like Stubby, Strato liked this post
  #29  
Old 15th February 2017, 12:02 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,023
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Xermes said View Post
Svadifari's dead snail would be just as much a part of it and I don't have a problem thinking my consciousness goes to the pub when I'm asleep. The point being that just because I don't remember it when I'm awake doesn't mean it didn't happen.....and if it can step out while I'm asleep without damage, why not when I'm dead?
Except you have no evidence that it does anything of the sort. Present some evidence and at least some of us would reconsider our position.

Memories are a function the brain, it stores memories, we know that because we can recall them by exciting parts of the brain with electricity, we lose them when parts of the brain get damaged, and yet here you are talking about a disembodied consciousness and memory? Where would it store these memories, how does it transfer them between the magical and the physical. of course you are saying it doesn't, so there's apparently no connection between the brain and "soul."

Of course emotions are part of the brain as well, we can tickle the brain and make you cry, we can poke the brain and make you laugh, we can stir it up with drugs and make you go mad!

None of these things of course are transferable between the brain and the soul apparently, there is no mechanism. This soul appears to be a humourless, emotionless, memoryless, disembodied parasite of some sort, it's not really you at all is it? Removed of all the things that make us human, is it even part human at all? I am sure we have a treatment for that, oh yes it's called rationalism!
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
Like Strato, Darwinsbulldog liked this post
  #30  
Old 15th February 2017, 12:57 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,618
Default Re: Soul of an atheist

Quote:
Xermes said View Post
It feels like I've slipped into a bit of a rabbit hole! Was that a trick question for Newbs? Lol!

To address the porpoises....I'm thinking if there is reason rather than random evolution, it is about being part of a bigger machine rather than an externally applied purpose. Svadifari's dead snail would be just as much a part of it and I don't have a problem thinking my consciousness goes to the pub when I'm asleep. The point being that just because I don't remember it when I'm awake doesn't mean it didn't happen.....and if it can step out while I'm asleep without damage, why not when I'm dead?

Please remember, I'm not trying to sell any of this. It's a vague theory that sits comfortably in the background of my mind. The only evidence any of us can draw on is our own life experience. I came into this forum because of an active disdain for religion, not because I think I have any special knowledge.

Its a funny thing..as I'm writing this I have the TV on SBS and it has gone from some radical terrorist calling very loudly for some grisly holy murder...to a local cryogenic facility for people to have their bodies preserved for future revival.
There woz once a twerp called "Darwinsbulldog" who believed in "there must be something more", but I had the good fortune to:-

a: Be reasonably scientifically literate...and

b: Had some friends who pointed out the error of my ways.

So now, I don't believe in any god, disembodied soul, spirits etc whatsoever, except the mud god Pikkawokki, and he is entirely natural and explicable by science. Certain muds contain minerals that defeat pathogens.

Purpose means intent. Function does not imply intent or purpose. I intend to make a chair to sit on. That is design by purpose. This is perhaps understandable, as we are surrounded today with stuff designed by us -a cognitive species with good manipulators -our hands.

Richard Dawkins coined a term "designoid" which mean things that appear to be designed on purpose, but are not. Life falls into that category.

So how do "designoid things happen?

Let us think of a non-living process. Every day on earth, there is some animal or other shitting or pissing on the ground. How come we can drink fresh water? Magic yes? No. First, the shit and piss breaks down, though chemical physical and biological means.

But let's focus on water. The sun heats the earth, and water on the ground or in oceans, including the moisture in piss and shit, evaporates. The process of evaporation goes a long way to purifying the water, and as we all know, when that water vapour cools and is saturated, it falls as more of less pure snow or rain.

Is that process designed? No, it is not necessary to invoke design. It certainly seems convenient that this natural process, which is a type of filter, allows us to drink reasonably pure water.

DNA is no different. DNA replicates itself. [Roughly speaking, but there are RNA molecules called ribozymes, that are self replicating]. When DNA or RNA replicates, mistakes are made. Not many, but you are talking about fucking gigatons of the stuff world-wide.

This gives DNA and RNA enourmous opportunities to explore "designoid space" Designoid space just means that some of the variation will turn out to be "functional" in particular circumstances.

What do I mean by that? RNA is just chemistry. And as we know from chemistry, changing the temperature, pressure, pH etc can affect the speed and direction of the reaction. So ribozymes [some RNA molecules] have the capability to act as a catalyst for various reactions, and some of these reactions happen to be essential for life.

Because DNA and RNA only differ by one atom of oxygen in the ribose sugar part of the molecule, it is no stretch of credibility to realise that DNA is just a variation of RNA. The thing is that DNA is more chemically stable than RNA, so any proto-life that happened to use DNA as an archive for it's chemical tricks would undergo strong positive selection. So for an extremophile that lived in hot springs discovered an enzyme that would not break down under such conditions, "storing" the innovation in DNA, rather than having to re-invent the wheel in RNA all the time would be a winning advantage.

Knowledge of evolutionary biology is far from complete, but we can confidently say there are no deep mysteries to it, in that although we may not know everything, we can be confident that it is a natural processes that can evolve without a cognitive agency. [Go, spirits etc].

And although our knowledge of chemical evolution is also far from complete [and may remain so in minute details here and there because we are talking about events that occurred nearly four billion years ago], we are confident that the designoid agency requires no inputs from intelligences -real or imagined- to work.

That leaves the origin of physics and our universe. But again, there is no reason to suppose, even in our relative ignorance, that anything other than natural processes were involved.

In short, creator-gods are simply surplus to requirements, and have a lot of trouble [Pikkawokki notwithstanding] existing, except in the imaginations of mystics. [But Pikkawokki was not a creator-god anyway, merely a cure for diseases].

The universe simple does not appear magical. If it was, science could not possibly work. Science has to be repeatable and predicable. Ergo, science in a magical world would be useless. Therefore we do not live in a magical universe!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Like Mjt, Goldenmane, Soup Dragon liked this post
Thank Strato thanked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.