Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1465470 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
Then, how can a human overcome instincts?
I think I came across something interesting. I might be looking at it the wrong way though. Further research is required.
According to the Merriam Websters dictionary definition 2b of instinct is, "behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level". Now crossing this with the research conducted by Benjamin Libet which showed what we regard as free will first starts with subconscious brain activity. This could indicate free will at some level is instinctual or starts from an instinctual reaction in humans.
[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct]
I suppose to answer your question we can train our brain to override the initial base impulses. In essence we alter our consciousness (The relationship in which the mind interacts with the world).
^^I think the closest they could get is either flawe logic or "i feel jesus". Or guilt tripping like "Jesus loves you" or "Jesus still loves you".
Tell me who invented logic, and I'll tell you if you're the ultimate judge.
The first atheist I think
I'm using your own logic. You ask me to prove that God exists, and simultaneously state that "God does not exist" does not require proof. Here, I'm stating that you need to prove "Other social animals have free will and can go contrary to instincts", and stating the opposite (that they don't have free will or can't go contrary to instincts), and that this statement does not require proof.
There is no need for god to exist therefore the ground state of being is that he does not exist. This is how nature works. And dogs and cats can show extreme loyalty and protect their master which is not part of their instincts.
So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly.
Look, if you go to hell for not being a christian then it doesn't deserve to be called good and therefore god should not deserve to be called god. If it is on how good a person you are then why be christian. This is logical reasoning.
Speaking about abortions, I base their inacceptability on the fact that a baby is a human, regardless of its age after conception. I have seen E1337 object about that state can't interfere with abortion, and NOW I have a support.
No, a human is not a person until they have memories and experiences which give them a personality. It is a potential person but just as much a potential person as unfertilized eggs and sperm and by abstaining you are killing potential babies which by your logic is murder. And scientists can make babies in test tubes so by your logic they are killing babies by not making them. And we have a population problem anyway. I think the Hungarian law is stupid and obviously influenced by religion and all I can say is I am glad that i don't live in Hungary if they can make such stupid laws and get away with it.
Plain wrong. You already have a living human in case of abortion, and you have only a possibility to conceive in the other case. In case of induced permanent infertility, this might be considered as killing the possibility of that person to have children (normally) while choosing not to have sex with a woman might not even alter the case since that woman could be temporarily infertile due to periodical changes in her body.
As I said it is a potential person and if you abstain when you could've made a baby then you are commiting as much of a crime as an abortion. That is to say no crime at all.
I don't think that you can sum up a whole group of people with 1 person. It's like trying to sum up Germany with Hitler. Why don't you just take a statistic of the majority of catholics.
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
2+2=SATAN
Well, unless it can be explained how some cells arranged in some way can make a consciousness, it doesn't sound plausible at all to me.
That's not what you asked. We can give a basic explanation. What I don't see is how magic suddenly becomes a plausible explanation just because we don't have a full understanding of how the system works.
They'd have to be on the smallest scale, and I don't know of any. From what we know, the Universe seems to be structured according to fixed rules.
In most cases yes, Quantum mechanics for example, black holes, and apparently Dwarf Galaxies.
That's why I said "if we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal". Under that premise, I wanted to know what you thought of my posit.
Okay.
I guess I suppose there is an ethereal world outside of the physical world. Or there are two equal worlds, each unable to affect the other's rules.
That would mean any effects such as free will and consciousness would have to be entirely physical since the ethereal world has no effect on the world we live in.
An analogy would be if a music box played music but no one was there to hear it; the Universe governs everything within it but nothing is there to experience it.
This whole "if a tree falls does it make a sound" was covered in another thread, in short is still does.
I guess some (possibly the only) outer-world being -- maybe interested in investigating the physically universe, maybe interested in having some company, who can know -- reached into the physical Universe and found an area through which it could experience it: our brains.
Which breaks your first premise that it's unable to.
Brains would be most convenient, as they already have the capability to move, see, hear, touch, etc.. I say "brains" instead of "minds", because it is only after this being reached into our brains that we became sentient, and had minds.
That only sounds like it would makes sense in a realm of fantasy.
I thought it was 6 + 6 + 6 = Satan? ...or maybe I'm just being picky
That only sounds like it would makes sense in a realm of fantasy.
Sometimes I think that is where some people believe they live. At least from people I've observed throughout my life.
No, an embryo could easily die in the womb anyway
Don't bring this up please, it's moot. Your argument can still be valid without it, so don't throw in stuff that doesn't add. This is like saying murder is okay b/c people die of natural causes anyway.
but until it has memories it is not a person. So it is still a potential person right up until it starts gaining memories.
That is possible. Then again, what do they have to remember? Experiences? They are learning throughout their whole development, so they are constantly "remembering" things, in a sense.
The sperm and the egg are just a little further back in development.
Yes... and just a little further back than that is nonexistence. Again, stop throwing in arguments that are irrelevant.
But if you will accept it on r*** then why not on other things.
Because, as I said, it's a COMPROMISE. A compromise with people who view extreme cases such as r*** as more cause for legal abortions than other situations. As I said, sadly I'd honestly prefer no legal abortions at all... AND chemical castration of convicted rapists...
And couldn't someone claim they were *****?
They could, and that is an issue. But, then again, someone could get an illegal abortion in any case, so I don't think we should trouble ourselves with that in the abortion debate. That IS an issue with the whole chemical castration thing, and so THAT would only be used with those who are unequivocally guilty of the most heinous crimes.
How could an outerworld being be conscious then? Your theory needs a base but it has none as your base would have to be conscious and anything conscious needs another conscious base.
Wrong. I said that a free-will consciousness in a PHYSICAL WORLD BUILT UPON RULES needs an external base, or else it couldn't exist. The thing about ethereal is that ANYTHING is possible outside of our universe, so there's no reason why a free-will consciousness couldn't "exist" there.
By this happiness would most definitely be part of the id.
I don't see the connection. I think you are failing to make a distinction between happiness and pleasure.
Another thing to keep in mind about consciousness and free will, Benjamin Libet had conducted a study indicating that conscious action originates first in the subconsciousness. So while your decision might seem spontaneous, your brain is already actively preparing you to preform the action before you even know you will.
That study is rather interesting, although based on its description I noticed a slight problem. It said that people timed the point when they wanted to move (W) by having them use a revolving clock and noting the point at which they wanted to move. But what most people would tend to do with clocks is to want to wait for it to be perfectly on a second-mark or directly vertical or in some other precise position before acting. So they could've ended-up waiting for that in preparation for their action, which would trigger preceding brain activity.
[url]http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623[/url]
As I said, I believe emotions originating in the mind can affect the brain. So the reactions there aren't in hindrance at all to my theory. Also, I found it interesting that happiness had a general reaction as-opposed-to a targeted one... to me that supports the idea that it doesn't really originate from a portion of the brain.
So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly.
It took some searching, but I sort-of found one: Beginning of Matthew 22. It's a metaphor, God's kingdom is like a banquet. He first invited the good, but they didn't come. He then invited everyone, and some still ignored (non-Christians) and others (sinners) did worse and killed the kings servants who were telling of the inviting. He murdered them (the sinners; ie. sent them to Hell) and then invited everyone else again.
Everyone came "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes [ie. had not acknowledge God's invitation... again, nonbelievers]. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are invited, but few are chosen."
To me, this seems to state that there is a horrible fate awaiting nonbelievers, and that just seems wrong :/
Each one of these combinations constituting a mind are the result of neural processes
All of your premises up till here were correct MGW. The mind is, essentially, where your conscious thought "takes place". Then, out of nowhere, you just said "this comes from neural processes"...what? How is that a proof? That's the whole debate.
And again, you have to admit, to state that a consciousness arises from chemicals and electrons aligned in a certain way DOES sound like an incredibly arbitrary definition. You, yet again, need more substance. Though it's understandable if you're not feeling well.
Hope you feel better, MGW
Also:
are you referring to consciousness as being awake or are you referring to sentience? Because it seems like you are misusing the word.
Consciousness - n. The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
If that's not the definition of sentience, then I am sorely confused. Although sentience is the more precise term. Okay, I'll use sentience for the duration of my posts
you are killing potential babies which by your logic is murder.
Can you read? He stated the difference between making then taking life and between never making life at all.
And scientists can make babies in test tubes so by your logic they are killing babies by not making them.
Again no. But when they make babies in test tubes they're committing murder by creating life then promptly causing it to die (unless they're putting it into a woman).
And we have a population problem anyway
>_O; .. *facepalm* You're really self-destructive when it comes to arguments. Stop throwing in HORRIDLY UNETHICAL moot arguments like this. It just reveals that you don't have confidence in your valid arguments.
As I said it is a potential person and if you abstain when you could've made a baby then you are commiting as much of a crime as an abortion. That is to say no crime at all.
Well, that's why we're saying that it IS conscious, and a life that you are taking, not just potential. If not at conception, then for sure by around 6 weeks in my opinion.
That's not what you asked. We can give a basic explanation. What I don't see is how magic suddenly becomes a plausible explanation just because we don't have a full understanding of how the system works.
Define "magic"; the whole concept of sentience is that it's an abstract non-physical concept, why is it such a huge stretch to suggest that it's otherworldly?
In most cases yes, Quantum mechanics for example, black holes, and apparently Dwarf Galaxies."
Black holes and quantum mechanics aren't understood, but that doesn't mean they're random. If you cited something that is actually shown to be random within quantum physics, that'd be much more helpful. What I said was that what we DO know about the Universe reveals it to be a rule-based place.
Also, as for Dwarf Galaxies:
"the relative scarcity of the satellite galaxies, the distribution, rotation and make up of the systems, suggest that in space, the fundamental principles of physics have been misunderstood."
The article itself says that they're probably misunderstood, and says nothing about stochastic processes. (If I had to guess, I'd suppose that the rotation of the galaxy is warping space, which could accelerate the dwarf galaxies to the unnatural speeds they're describing... just throwing some physics into this thread :P).
That would mean any effects such as free will and consciousness would have to be entirely physical since the ethereal world has no effect on the world we live in.
Touché. I guess the ethereal has to be able to affect the physical world. Good catch.
This whole "if a tree falls does it make a sound" was covered in another thread, in short is still does.
But that's irrelevant. In fact, that correlates with what I said. The debate isn't whether the Universe can exist without experience, I said that it can. The analogy was meant to demonstrate that.
That only sounds like it would makes sense in a realm of fantasy.
Wasn't it you who earlier said that arguing via what something "seems" like is weak? :P I knew full-well as I typed that it sounded a little ridiculous, but for all we know that's societal conditioning limiting our cognitive potential. I guess another motive could be that it saw us and felt we'd be more interesting to watch if we had free will and weren't predictable?
Lol I realize that my psuedo-transcendentalist theory of the afterlife could be summed up by some lyrics:
Life is a waterfall; we're one in the beginning and one again after the fall.
Swimming through the void we hear the word-- we lose ourselves but we find it all.
-Aerials, SOAD :P
Okay, I thought I explained it before but clearly you ignored it.
It's called emergence. As the brains grew more complex and able to plan, self awarness formed by pure accident.
You're argument is that sentience can exist in a purely physical sense in our brains because, as our brains grew more complex, we planned and then sentience existed in a purely physical sense in our brains...
You're dodging the crux of the issue: HOW THE HECK CAN SENTIENCE EXIST IN A PURELY PHYSICAL FORM?
Let's think about what the brain is, break it down. Its some sections, which contain neurons aka structures of proteins through which electric charge can flow. "Sight" according to you is electrons being sent along a wire by light receptors. "Sound" is electrons sent by a vibration sensor. Etc. These electrons flow through the brain, following some rules and chemical processes. So, at it's most basic form, a brain is a bunch of electrons moving around between proteins according to some set rules. How can this be all there is to consciousness?? If that was all it took, we'd have conscious machines already!
You could say that something must "learn" to be conscious. Okay, so what is learning? According to you, it's when cells start reacting in a certain way to certain patterns. But that could be broken down as some proteins being moved around to reflect the pattern, and then reacting as electrons pass in a certain order. This is purely a mechanical process, and again doesn't explain why computers can't be conscious (We have programmed Hierarchical Temporal Memory structures, and yet no computer sentience appears to have yet emerged).
I want more of a philosophical breakdown of how YOU believe these mechanical processes make a consciousness; and if your argument consists solely of brains and its lobes, then you are thinking far too large-scale.
*Disclaimer: All ALL-CAPS were for emphasis, and do not reflect any frustration or ill will on the part of the typer
Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them unknown. Stephen Hawking understands them rather well.
I think you need a dose of context. He was using them as an example of scientific mysteries, and I was clarifying that, though they are mysterious, there is no evidence that they are stochastic, which must be the case for physically-based free-will to exist.
Context is everything
Furthermore, If you wish to talk about killing potential lives, This morning I killed several million potential lives when I dealt with a serious case of morning wood.
...Charming... >_< But the fact of the matter is that a sperm is not a person, and an egg is not a person, but when they come together they become a person. Whether it's a conscious person is still up for debate.
The difference is, a computer has several million connections, the human brain has well over a couple trillion, in essence, the reason we don't have sentient computers yet is because they lack the complexity.
And yes, Sentience is physical. The interconnectedness is the key.
That was totally what I was looking for in an answer >_<
Please re-read my request, and if you STILL can't come up with a proper answer then that's okay; I didn't expect you to be able to.
I want some details on what the rules are for chemical reactions and flowing electrons to constitute a whole consciousness. How does it work? At least give a hypothesis.
Hope you feel better, MGW
Yes I'm doing better. Still not 100% though, but lots of sleep seems to be helping the most.
All of your premises up till here were correct MGW. The mind is, essentially, where your conscious thought "takes place". Then, out of nowhere, you just said "this comes from neural processes"...what? How is that a proof? That's the whole debate.
No it's not out of nowhere.
"Thought" is very much an electrochemical reaction, which we have monitored a recorded.
"Perception" again this is just the information gathered from our senses, all of that is just signals read in the brain.
"Memory" again like thought we have monitored and recorded this electrochemical function.
"Emotion", every one we have is just our brain reacting to chemical stimuli. While specific may not be fully understood we do know at least this much.
"Will", this one is a bit more abstract though basically this is just the desires of a person put into action. So in some sense this could be considered a combination of thought and emotion.
"Imagination", all just mental images. In fact monitoring of the brain has found the same areas are triggered with imagination as they are with memory, indicating a strong link between the two.
"Including all unconscious cognitive processes" This one seems to be rather self explanatory.
Define "magic"; the whole concept of sentience is that it's an abstract non-physical concept, why is it such a huge stretch to suggest that it's otherworldly?
Magic; the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science.
It's a stretch because we have no indication of this other world existing. Every aspect of the way our brains function so far indicates purely physical reactions. Really your ethereal world explanation is basically the fallacy known as God of the gaps argument "we don't understand X so God did it".
Black holes and quantum mechanics aren't understood, but that doesn't mean they're random.
Didn't say anything about it being random, I said they do or at least appear to break the laws of physics. Black holes actually or one of the few macroscopic things in the universe that operate on quantum physics.
Also, as for Dwarf Galaxies:
"the relative scarcity of the satellite galaxies, the distribution, rotation and make up of the systems, suggest that in space, the fundamental principles of physics have been misunderstood."
Again didn't say it does, just that it seems to. The point is just because something may seem to not follow the law of physics doesn't mean it's not.
The article itself says that they're probably misunderstood, and says nothing about stochastic processes. (If I had to guess, I'd suppose that the rotation of the galaxy is warping space, which could accelerate the dwarf galaxies to the unnatural speeds they're describing... just throwing some physics into this thread :P).
No it's partly because an ethereal plain is acting on these stars allowing these Dwarf galaxies to exist. The scientists just think it's a misunderstanding of physics because they don't obey physics. Maybe what your saying might play part but it also requires an ethereal world for it to happen as well.
You're dodging the crux of the issue: HOW THE HECK CAN SENTIENCE EXIST IN A PURELY PHYSICAL FORM?
Quite easily.
sentience;
1: a sentient quality or state
2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
If that was all it took, we'd have conscious machines already!
There are important aspects of those processes we don't fully understand or have yet to be able to artificially replicate.
i'm getting lost... what is the discussion about now? religion? abortion? or sentience? and what do number have to do w/ anything?
You must be logged in to post a reply!