The problem with atheism.

[Rassah]

1). They mistake evidence for fact and mistake models based upon evidence for fact.  The theory of evolution is a perfect example. We have a large set of evidence and people interpret this evidence to support evolution.  However, utilizing the exact same set of evidence we can formulate an equally valid, opposing theory, namely one in which evolved states of consciousness lead to evolves physical states rather than vice versa.

Actually, it's all just statistical probability in a world of chaos. If we pick up a ball and drop it, there is a close to 100% chance that it will fall towards the gravitational center of the nearest body with the most mass. We know this not so much through interpreting observational evidence, as through figuring out the actual mechanics of the process. Likewise with evolution, the reason that theory allows us to predict what happens to species with such great accuracy is not so much because we have observed it in the past, and believe it will happen again just because it has happened before, but because through observation we have figured out the actual mechanics of the system, the parts that make it work, and why. We understand that if this shifts to that, and this becomes that, the end result will most likely be so-and-so. It's the difference between stating that a lever works in a specific way because you have seen it work in a specific way, and knowing that it works in a specific way because you know and understand the laws of physics that the lever, and everything else in this universe, has to follow. Due to this, I can't see how we can formulate an actual conclusion for the mechanism of evolution of consciousness. At least not beyond the "brain evolving as a computational machine."

3).  They neglect experience as a means to knowing.  This is often ironic in that many atheists also claim things like 'truth is relative' or 'logic is abstract' and then utilize abstract interpretations of evidence to deny the existence of god.  

As in reply to #1, experience does not mean knowing. Plenty of people experienced solar eclipses, and claimed to know what causes them, but it wasn't until we actually discovered and studied the mechanism of our solar system that we actually knew. And those who don't know how our solar system works, still won't be able to figure out solar eclipses just by experiencing them.

4).  They adhere to Cartesian dualism by which it is asserted that there is an unbridgable chasm between mental and physical reality.

I think atheists simply reject the idea of a "mental" reality; at least in a sense of there being anything spiritual, or beyond our physical world.

5).  They emphasize the importance of math, but they fail to realize that the most basic algebraic structure is language.  In fact, every identifiable object or concept is, by definition, its own language.  "In the beginning was the word" is true as fuck.  Language (I.e. syntax + content + grammar) lays the foundation for all of reality, and it is far more important to have a solid grasp of syntactic operations than to know how to calculate specific math problems or formulate models.  You can't understand the universe without understanding language because the universe IS a language.  

Not sure what you are trying to say here, because it sounds like you are claiming that before language (actual language, involving words and such), nothing could exist. Yet we know things existed for millions of years, reality and all, before humans came along and invented language. There was a ton of other communications methods before then, and some of them unconscious even (meteor hit moon, mood change orbit, signal received). Maybe you can restate this a bit differently?

6).  They use words like "supernatural" to refer to religious claims, but then they forget that 'chance' and 'probability' are just alternative words for unknown specific causation.  Furthermore, they experience cognitive dissonance in light of paradoxes which, contrary to popular belief, are self-resolving rather than impossible.

Chance and probability are not unknown, nor supernatural. It just means that either of two or more options can happen, and we can't predict which, but we do know what has happened after it has. E.g. you can drop metal filings all around a magnet, expecting then to fall into perfect spheres around the edges of magnetic lines, but many of the filings will fall a bit off, or in a weirdly turned way. We can't predict that, but we can easily explain that it was due to air resistance, some of them bumping into each other, and outside magnetic interference. Totally random chance probability, but nothing supernatural or unknown.

7).  They mistakenly study reality as if it is the input of our experience when it is actually the output of internally processed information.

Do you believe the universe can exist without us being there to observe it? If yes, then I'm not sure how you can hold the view that reality is the output of our internally processed information. (If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)

8.)  They don't understand the relationship between subjects and objects in the universe, or at least they cease their understanding when objects are in close proximity to the subject.  For example, they will instantly assert they are different from a tree (an object) but not different than, say, their body (also an object).  This is a problem when they then assert that the death of the body equates to death of the subject.

That's actually the thing that has been confusing people for millenia, making them think that they are somehow apart from their bodied, just existing in their heads and using their ears and eyes to look out into the world. I don't know about other atheists, but as one myself, I claim that, yes, I am different from a tree, in a sense that the tree is an organism with it's own system, but I am not very different from my body, in a sense that my body and my consciousness are all part of the same organism, linked directly together through the nervous system. The tree and my body both exist in the same system, planet earth, but that doesn't make the computational part of my organism that gives me consciousness a part of the tree.

[the joint]

Where typical atheists get off track:

1). They ...

I think you have some interesting criticisms. personally I like to be challenged in my assumptions.  But mythology from the bronze age is no answer to the perceived failings of science. The Bible is a collection of ancient mythic tales. Some are copies from earlier religions, most are clearly not "true", in the sense that they depict actual events.
For example, Noah and the ark. This story comes from Sumerian religion where it was called "The Epic of Gilgamesh".  Of course, there never was a global flood or a ship that carried the 8.7million species of living things. Like the thousands of other stories from antiquity, they seek to enlighten us with metaphor and symbolism.  

Of course, it should be obvious that you're not going to find any science in a text that predates the scientific revolution by 1000+ years.  But, that doesn't mean people were dumb back then.  I'm sure people then had ways of learning that we would consider unorthodox today, but that doesn't make them invalid.

I think it's worth noting that there exist civilizations today whose cultures are still pre-scientific.  But, what's interesting is that these cultures are the go-to for many western scientists and researchers looking for new information.  Somewhere around 80-90% of all knowledge pertaining to the effects of pharmaceutical ingredients is based upon indigenous tribal knowledge.  And, if you speak with the tribal leaders (aka 'shamans') they will tell you that they acquired most of their botanical knowledge through communication with 'spirits', often after the consumption of hallucinogenic substances such as ayuhuasca and tobacco.

For a closer look at the unorthodox learning practices of these tribal cultures, I recommend "The Cosmic Serpant: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Stanford anthropologist, Jeremy Narby.

[the joint]

1). They mistake evidence for fact and mistake models based upon evidence for fact.  The theory of evolution is a perfect example. We have a large set of evidence and people interpret this evidence to support evolution.  However, utilizing the exact same set of evidence we can formulate an equally valid, opposing theory, namely one in which evolved states of consciousness lead to evolves physical states rather than vice versa.

Actually, it's all just statistical probability in a world of chaos. If we pick up a ball and drop it, there is a close to 100% chance that it will fall towards the gravitational center of the nearest body with the most mass. We know this not so much through interpreting observational evidence, as through figuring out the actual mechanics of the process. Likewise with evolution, the reason that theory allows us to predict what happens to species with such great accuracy is not so much because we have observed it in the past, and believe it will happen again just because it has happened before, but because through observation we have figured out the actual mechanics of the system, the parts that make it work, and why. We understand that if this shifts to that, and this becomes that, the end result will most likely be so-and-so. It's the difference between stating that a lever works in a specific way because you have seen it work in a specific way, and knowing that it works in a specific way because you know and understand the laws of physics that the lever, and everything else in this universe, has to follow. Due to this, I can't see how we can formulate an actual conclusion for the mechanism of evolution of consciousness. At least not beyond the "brain evolving as a computational machine."

3).  They neglect experience as a means to knowing.  This is often ironic in that many atheists also claim things like 'truth is relative' or 'logic is abstract' and then utilize abstract interpretations of evidence to deny the existence of god.  

As in reply to #1, experience does not mean knowing. Plenty of people experienced solar eclipses, and claimed to know what causes them, but it wasn't until we actually discovered and studied the mechanism of our solar system that we actually knew. And those who don't know how our solar system works, still won't be able to figure out solar eclipses just by experiencing them.

4).  They adhere to Cartesian dualism by which it is asserted that there is an unbridgable chasm between mental and physical reality.

I think atheists simply reject the idea of a "mental" reality; at least in a sense of there being anything spiritual, or beyond our physical world.

5).  They emphasize the importance of math, but they fail to realize that the most basic algebraic structure is language.  In fact, every identifiable object or concept is, by definition, its own language.  "In the beginning was the word" is true as fuck.  Language (I.e. syntax + content + grammar) lays the foundation for all of reality, and it is far more important to have a solid grasp of syntactic operations than to know how to calculate specific math problems or formulate models.  You can't understand the universe without understanding language because the universe IS a language.  

Not sure what you are trying to say here, because it sounds like you are claiming that before language (actual language, involving words and such), nothing could exist. Yet we know things existed for millions of years, reality and all, before humans came along and invented language. There was a ton of other communications methods before then, and some of them unconscious even (meteor hit moon, mood change orbit, signal received). Maybe you can restate this a bit differently?

6).  They use words like "supernatural" to refer to religious claims, but then they forget that 'chance' and 'probability' are just alternative words for unknown specific causation.  Furthermore, they experience cognitive dissonance in light of paradoxes which, contrary to popular belief, are self-resolving rather than impossible.

Chance and probability are not unknown, nor supernatural. It just means that either of two or more options can happen, and we can't predict which, but we do know what has happened after it has. E.g. you can drop metal filings all around a magnet, expecting then to fall into perfect spheres around the edges of magnetic lines, but many of the filings will fall a bit off, or in a weirdly turned way. We can't predict that, but we can easily explain that it was due to air resistance, some of them bumping into each other, and outside magnetic interference. Totally random chance probability, but nothing supernatural or unknown.

7).  They mistakenly study reality as if it is the input of our experience when it is actually the output of internally processed information.

Do you believe the universe can exist without us being there to observe it? If yes, then I'm not sure how you can hold the view that reality is the output of our internally processed information. (If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)

8.)  They don't understand the relationship between subjects and objects in the universe, or at least they cease their understanding when objects are in close proximity to the subject.  For example, they will instantly assert they are different from a tree (an object) but not different than, say, their body (also an object).  This is a problem when they then assert that the death of the body equates to death of the subject.

That's actually the thing that has been confusing people for millenia, making them think that they are somehow apart from their bodied, just existing in their heads and using their ears and eyes to look out into the world. I don't know about other atheists, but as one myself, I claim that, yes, I am different from a tree, in a sense that the tree is an organism with it's own system, but I am not very different from my body, in a sense that my body and my consciousness are all part of the same organism, linked directly together through the nervous system. The tree and my body both exist in the same system, planet earth, but that doesn't make the computational part of my organism that gives me consciousness a part of the tree.

Oh my, I look forward to responding to this after work

[RodeoX]

Where typical atheists get off track:

1). They ...

I think you have some interesting ... 

Of course, it should be obvious that you're not going to find any science in a text that predates the scientific revolution by 1000+ years.  But, that doesn't mean people were dumb back then.  I'm sure people then had ways of learning that we would consider unorthodox today, but that doesn't make them invalid.

I think it's with noting that there exist civilizations today whose cultures are still pre-scientific.  But, what's interesting is that these cultures are the go-to for many western scientists and researchers looking for new information.  Somewhere around 80-90% of all knowledge pertaining to the effects of pharmaceutical ingredients is based upon indigenous tribal knowledge.  And, if you speak with the tribal leaders (aka 'shamans') they will tell you that they acquired most of their botanical knowledge through communication with 'spirits', often after the consumption of hallucinogenic substances such as ayuhuasca and tobacco.

For a closer look at the unorthodox learning practices of these tribal cultures, I recommend "The Cosmic Serpant: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Stanford anthropologist, Jeremy Narby.

I totally agree. People everywhere are just as smart as people anywhere. As you point out, they just have a different way of putting it into perspective and passing it on. The idea of provable facts and logical inquiry is a relatively new phenomena. To ancient people and those who still live in an ancient way, facts are not as important as "truths". In the Noah example, the ark and the flood are just a vehicle for getting at the idea of punishing the wicked even if wickedness has become the norm.  
The Bhagavad Gita, the book of the dead, etc. they have similar messages and concepts.

[the joint]

1). They mistake evidence for fact and mistake models based upon evidence for fact.  The theory of evolution is a perfect example. We have a large set of evidence and people interpret this evidence to support evolution.  However, utilizing the exact same set of evidence we can formulate an equally valid, opposing theory, namely one in which evolved states of consciousness lead to evolves physical states rather than vice versa.

Actually, it's all just statistical probability in a world of chaos. If we pick up a ball and drop it, there is a close to 100% chance that it will fall towards the gravitational center of the nearest body with the most mass. We know this not so much through interpreting observational evidence, as through figuring out the actual mechanics of the process. Likewise with evolution, the reason that theory allows us to predict what happens to species with such great accuracy is not so much because we have observed it in the past, and believe it will happen again just because it has happened before, but because through observation we have figured out the actual mechanics of the system, the parts that make it work, and why. We understand that if this shifts to that, and this becomes that, the end result will most likely be so-and-so. It's the difference between stating that a lever works in a specific way because you have seen it work in a specific way, and knowing that it works in a specific way because you know and understand the laws of physics that the lever, and everything else in this universe, has to follow. Due to this, I can't see how we can formulate an actual conclusion for the mechanism of evolution of consciousness. At least not beyond the "brain evolving as a computational machine."

The bolded section doesn't make sense to me.  Do you have any idea what statistical probability is?  Probabilities are the result of mathematical laws embedded into Universal syntax, and this suggests the opposite of chaos.  Furthermore, we can't infer from an observation of apparent chaos that it is indeed chaos (due to the problem of induction).  Even if we asserted chaos to exist, it would by definition require an absolute lack of syntax, and therefore it could not even function as a system.  Continuing with this thought, if we then assert that systems arose out of an absolute lack of a system, we run into a mistake to the one Descartes made.  If chaos were real enough to have an effect on the Real Universe, then chaos would be included in the Real Universe, and therefore it would share some fundamental, structural syntactic property with it.  Looking at the contra-positive, if chaos is real, then the unreal is not chaos.  This would prove problematic for your predictive view of the Real Universe.

Speaking to your thoughts on evolution, my point is that if I asserted that evolved states of consciousness lead to evolved physical states, there wouldn't be any evidence that you could show me that would disprove my assertion.  Moreover, not only could I utilize the same evidence that you would use to support your assertion to support mine, but I could provide additional evidence to support my assertion including the 1) dynamic interactions between mind and body coupled with 2) the real-time changes to the genome via interactions with the environment.  I could even expand the context and encourage you to take a broader look at DNA, most notably that DNA is commonly shared by every living creature, and secondarily that the vast majority of DNA in our genome is inactive.  What scientists have yet to figure out is that this inactive DNA is a series of genetic predispositions that, given the right catalysts, could be expressed -- all you would need is, for example, a frame shift mutation in a given cell that alters its genetic expression and resulting phenotypes.  Genes are passed generation to generation in a process similar to a copy machine.  When you take a copy of a document and scan it, and then scan a copy of a copy, and then a copy of a copy of a copy, etc., you will notice some superficial changes in the copies.  The underlying structure is basically identical, but the topographical characteristics vary.  My gripe with the theory of evolution is that it is rooted in a positivist worldview and doesn't even try to take into account the ways in which our intentions affect our bodies and subsequently our genomes; in other words, the buck stops too soon.  'Species' are thereby differentiated according to something as superficial as their sexual compatibility, and yet somehow a genetic mutation of a human that renders him infertile does not classify him as a different species.  This immediately raises an issue since 'species' is basically impossible to define without running into any exceptions.  It's not really a problem for Darwin, but it's a problem for modern evolutionary theory since it can't accurately model speciation upon genetic processes and then link it to adaptation in a cohesive way.

3).  They neglect experience as a means to knowing.  This is often ironic in that many atheists also claim things like 'truth is relative' or 'logic is abstract' and then utilize abstract interpretations of evidence to deny the existence of god.  

As in reply to #1, experience does not mean knowing. Plenty of people experienced solar eclipses, and claimed to know what causes them, but it wasn't until we actually discovered and studied the mechanism of our solar system that we actually knew. And those who don't know how our solar system works, still won't be able to figure out solar eclipses just by experiencing them.

You'd be surprised.  There is a difference between knowing something and knowing 'about' something.  Knowing about something requires mental abstraction.  Thoughts operate at a lower level of syntax than reality itself - we think in 'yes or no' terms, and in fact every sentence, thought, concept, and idea can be broken down into, essentially, 0's and 1's.  This is what allows us to linearly process the world around us, most notably via thinking.  What you typically miss out on in your everyday awareness is all the parallel processing going on for you in the background.  Now, you probably don't notice it because a parallel process won't ever take the form of a thought. Sometime, you should learn meditation and see what happens when you totally shut up your thoughts and let all the underlying processes emerge in full view.  I promise you, you'll see reality as you've never seen it before.

When you think about something, you 'act' as though there is an absolute chasm between you and the thing, even though in reality this isn't the case.  In truth, subjects and objects are homogenized for they both work in tandem to comprise basic linguistic structure, and this can be experienced and known directly.  You can never get that through thinking.  God : reality :: man : thoughts.  Reality is god's constraint, thoughts are man's constraints.

4).  They adhere to Cartesian dualism by which it is asserted that there is an unbridgeable chasm between mental and physical reality.

I think atheists simply reject the idea of a "mental" reality; at least in a sense of there being anything spiritual, or beyond our physical world.

What do you call the experience of a feeling if not mental?  Likert scales exist for a reason.  Furthermore, as I've stated previously, the physical world you study is the result of internal processes.  Einstein knew this very well considering he developed the theory of relativity.  The theory itself implies that things only move in relation to one another, and the most fundamental anchor that you use as a relational base from which to navigate through this reality is yourself as a subject.  Additionally, everything that is sensed is in the past.  For example, even when we observe something, it is in the past since it takes a given time for light to travel to us.  This means that the information you call 'input' is already processed information.

5).  They emphasize the importance of math, but they fail to realize that the most basic algebraic structure is language.  In fact, every identifiable object or concept is, by definition, its own language.  "In the beginning was the word" is true as fuck.  Language (I.e. syntax + content + grammar) lays the foundation for all of reality, and it is far more important to have a solid grasp of syntactic operations than to know how to calculate specific math problems or formulate models.  You can't understand the universe without understanding language because the universe IS a language.  

Not sure what you are trying to say here, because it sounds like you are claiming that before language (actual language, involving words and such), nothing could exist. Yet we know things existed for millions of years, reality and all, before humans came along and invented language. There was a ton of other communications methods before then, and some of them unconscious even (meteor hit moon, mood change orbit, signal received). Maybe you can restate this a bit differently?

I'm not claiming any 'before' even though it might have sounded that way from the Bible passage.  I'm saying that without basic linguistic structure (syntax, content, and grammar) there would be neither existence nor non-existence.  There could be no system of any kind, no logical structure, no object, not even chaos.  Having a good understanding of linguistic structure is important especially because it helps you understand the limits of its descendant disciplines (e.g. mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).  And, since language itself is more fundamental than these disciplines, including mathematics, it can also highlight what is missing from these disciplines that prohibits us from using them to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Universe.  If we know what is missing, we can try to figure out how that can help us know more than the other disciplines alone can teach us.

6).  They use words like "supernatural" to refer to religious claims, but then they forget that 'chance' and 'probability' are just alternative words for unknown specific causation.  Furthermore, they experience cognitive dissonance in light of paradoxes which, contrary to popular belief, are self-resolving rather than impossible.

Chance and probability are not unknown, nor supernatural. It just means that either of two or more options can happen, and we can't predict which, but we do know what has happened after it has. E.g. you can drop metal filings all around a magnet, expecting then to fall into perfect spheres around the edges of magnetic lines, but many of the filings will fall a bit off, or in a weirdly turned way. We can't predict that, but we can easily explain that it was due to air resistance, some of them bumping into each other, and outside magnetic interference. Totally random chance probability, but nothing supernatural or unknown.

What about an interpretation of zero probability and only impossibility?  If event 'x' happens and event 'y' does not happen, how do you know 'y' was possible?  To me, it seems 'y' was only impossible. Again, probability and chance is simply another way of saying "I don't know why this happened."  Perhaps there is some operation functioning at a higher syntactic level that guides processes such as radioactive decay in a causal way, but at our lower syntactic level of perception we perceive it as a 'chance' or even 'random' function?  This seems more likely to me given that time itself is relative, and thus all 'chance' events are relative to themselves...

7).  They mistakenly study reality as if it is the input of our experience when it is actually the output of internally processed information.

Do you believe the universe can exist without us being there to observe it? If yes, then I'm not sure how you can hold the view that reality is the output of our internally processed information. (If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)

I call that age-old question a "non-question."  It's interesting, but ultimately it's not even worth discussing, and quantum physicists would agree with me.  I don't know if I would use the word "us," but I would say I don't believe the Universe can exist without any observers anywhere.  I believe the Universe is born out of the mind of god, like a thought (tele-cognition?), and that the dynamic relationship between god and the Universe is essentially a process by which God seeks to know himself.  I do believe, however, that God (subject) and the universe (object) can homogenize and that there would no longer be a Universe per se.  Get a load of that...I think we're all here because God is a mental masturbator on a mission.

8.)  They don't understand the relationship between subjects and objects in the universe, or at least they cease their understanding when objects are in close proximity to the subject.  For example, they will instantly assert they are different from a tree (an object) but not different than, say, their body (also an object).  This is a problem when they then assert that the death of the body equates to death of the subject.

That's actually the thing that has been confusing people for millenia, making them think that they are somehow apart from their bodied, just existing in their heads and using their ears and eyes to look out into the world. I don't know about other atheists, but as one myself, I claim that, yes, I am different from a tree, in a sense that the tree is an organism with it's own system, but I am not very different from my body, in a sense that my body and my consciousness are all part of the same organism, linked directly together through the nervous system. The tree and my body both exist in the same system, planet earth, but that doesn't make the computational part of my organism that gives me consciousness a part of the tree.

Logically, I would again point to the subject-object relationship in disagreement with your statement that your body and 'you' are the same.  But, I can also say that from my experiences with meditation, I know (i.e. I recall a direct experience) that consciousness does not need to be localized to the body, but rather it can expand into what you would consider "external" things.

I also disagree with the words you selected in saying that there is a part of your organism that "gives" you consciousness.

[lophie]

Islam or Atheism - Which Makes More Sense? Lawrence Krauss & Hamza Tzortzis

http://youtu.be/uSwJuOPG4FI

Yeah that is a nice watch. Bear in mind friends that both theists are atheists would lose the benefits and the fruits of this discussion when they either try to make the discussion all scientific or all philosophical. It is always has been a little bit of both. Due to the nature of the subject the handle.

[Rassah]

Something that might put our extremely new and recent religion into perspective
http://www.waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

(Note the Egyptian empire ruled and had their own religion for longer than the time between Christ and now)

[hawkeye]

In case people hadn't noticed, we are gods.  If we were to go back in time 2000 years with the technology we had today we would be declared as a God or gods by the primitive, superstitious people of the time.  We could heal the sick.  We could create sound and images, (TV and radio), seemingly from nothing.   Fly through the air, etc.

It's not until fairly recent times that superstition has started to be purged from society.  Just look at the witch trials, they weren't all that long ago.

So that begs the question, if God (assuming he exists for the sake of argument) was to come to Earth how would people know that they were the maker of the universe and just not some being from a super advanced technological civilization?  There's no possible way you could know.

It's virtually impossible to imagine what kind of technology there will be 100 years from now.  Never mind a 1000 or a million.  Look how far humans have come in a mere (cosmologically speaking) 100 years.

[hawkeye]

As for the initial question.  Yes, life is largely pointless.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.  The only point of your existence is to pass your genes on.

That doesn't make life any less enjoyable for this atheist.  I can have fun, care for my family and friends, learn about the world, etc.  All these things and more bring me enjoyment.   I really don't see a need for believing what is more than likely a fantasy and wasting countless hours of my precious life sitting in a pew.

Life is about the journey.   Enjoy the journey, don't worry about getting to the destination because it's non-existence, the same as before you were born. 

[PrintMule]

As for the initial question.  Yes, life is largely pointless.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.  The only point of your existence is to pass your genes on.

That doesn't make life any less enjoyable for this atheist.  I can have fun, care for my family and friends, learn about the world, etc.  All these things and more bring me enjoyment.   I really don't see a need for believing what is more than likely a fantasy and wasting countless hours of my precious life sitting in a pew.

Life is about the journey.   Enjoy the journey, don't worry about getting to the destination because it's non-existence, the same as before you were born. 

But when someone close to you dies, you don't get to believe that he is getting to a "happy place".

[Rassah]

As for the initial question.  Yes, life is largely pointless.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.  The only point of your existence is to pass your genes on.

That doesn't make life any less enjoyable for this atheist.  I can have fun, care for my family and friends, learn about the world, etc.  All these things and more bring me enjoyment.   I really don't see a need for believing what is more than likely a fantasy and wasting countless hours of my precious life sitting in a pew.

Life is about the journey.   Enjoy the journey, don't worry about getting to the destination because it's non-existence, the same as before you were born. 

But when someone close to you dies, you don't get to believe that he is getting to a "happy place".

You can imagine all kinds of fairy tales about them, but you'll just know they are fairy tales. Plus both heaven and hell are terrible.

[BitChick]

As for the initial question.  Yes, life is largely pointless.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.  The only point of your existence is to pass your genes on.

That doesn't make life any less enjoyable for this atheist.  I can have fun, care for my family and friends, learn about the world, etc.  All these things and more bring me enjoyment.   I really don't see a need for believing what is more than likely a fantasy and wasting countless hours of my precious life sitting in a pew.

Life is about the journey.   Enjoy the journey, don't worry about getting to the destination because it's non-existence, the same as before you were born. 

But when someone close to you dies, you don't get to believe that he is getting to a "happy place".

You can imagine all kinds of fairy tales about them, but you'll just know they are fairy tales. Plus both heaven and hell are terrible.

How do you know heaven is terrible?  What if it really is a real place with no more pain, sorry, sickness and death?  What if earth only gives a faint glimpse of the beauty that is there?

I know we already had a slight discussion about how it seems that the Christian perspective of heaven makes it seem like an empty place to be without any struggles to overcome, so I guess it would seem boring in a way?  I think we will know about our struggles here on earth though and it will become part of us.  Each of us were created for intimacy with God and with each other.  It will be a place where we will "know and be completely known" by others and God and be fulfilled in that.  I think that there will be plenty to do there too.  Being a musician I will have time to write music and play.  There will be more time to travel and spend with friends etc.  Just my thoughts.

[Rassah]

How do you know heaven is terrible?  What if it really is a real place with no more pain, sorry, sickness and death?  What if earth only gives a faint glimpse of the beauty that is there?

We as humans *need* the pain and sorry. It's what defines us as human. I think without it we would quite literally go insane within a few decades, and definitely within a few centuries.

I think that there will be plenty to do there too.  Being a musician I will have time to write music and play.  There will be more time to travel and spend with friends etc.  Just my thoughts.

Thing is, if there are places to see and things to do that are provided to you by heaven, then all it is is a simulation. I might as well just plug myself up to a feeding tube, and wear virtual goggles plugged into SecondLife for the rest of my life. There are plenty of things to see and do in our own universe. Our entire universe in fact. And as a species, we are defined by our curiosity and our drive to explore and spread ourselves to other places. Thus we derive a lot of satisfaction from working on, and achieving the capacity to do that, whether that is as small as hooking up with someone local, or as big as being able to travel across the world or to another planet. If heaven is a virtual place that simply offers us these things, then we'll know we're just in a virtual reality type environment. If "heaven" is a state were we, as souls, are able to travel and interact with the entire universe, actually exploring the real world on our own and without (many) limits, then this "heaven," which is something that would actually keep us (or at least me) happy is something entirely different.

[BitChick]

And as a species, we are defined by our curiosity and our drive to explore and spread ourselves to other places. Thus we derive a lot of satisfaction from working on, and achieving the capacity to do that, whether that is as small as hooking up with someone local, or as big as being able to travel across the world or to another planet. If heaven is a virtual place that simply offers us these things, then we'll know we're just in a virtual reality type environment. If "heaven" is a state were we, as souls, are able to travel and interact with the entire universe, actually exploring the real world on our own and without (many) limits, then this "heaven," which is something that would actually keep us (or at least me) happy is something entirely different.

Lets say that God gives us our curiosity and drive and the joy and satisfaction for being able to create things (we are made in His image so that makes sense to me) why would it be any different in Heaven?  The only thing that will be different is our finite bodies (the ability to die) and the evil and painful things in this world.  Sounds like a great place to me!

I think we will have a chance to be extremely close and get to know everyone there (not in a sexual way but in an innocent but yet intimate way) and no one will be jerks there.   That sounds good too!

And how do you know we are not in the "virtual" world right now?  I really like the movie the Matrix (the first one of course) and it made me think of what this earth is really like as a Christian in weird sci-fi sort of way.


I like you Rassah.  I hope you know that!!  You are a truly a "thinker!"  A much greater one than I could ever hope to be.  Just be careful your intelligence does not get in the way of knowing God-  if God really is true and does Love you  (which I believe to the core of my being as you probably already know).

[Rassah]

Sorry for taking a while to reply...

Moreover, not only could I utilize the same evidence that you would use to support your assertion to support mine, but I could provide additional evidence to support my assertion including the 1) dynamic interactions between mind and body coupled with 2) the real-time changes to the genome via interactions with the environment.  I could even expand the context and encourage you to take a broader look at DNA, most notably that DNA is commonly shared by every living creature, and secondarily that the vast majority of DNA in our genome is inactive.
...
Genes are passed generation to generation in a process similar to a copy machine.  When you take a copy of a document and scan it, and then scan a copy of a copy, and then a copy of a copy of a copy, etc., you will notice some superficial changes in the copies.  
...
My gripe with the theory of evolution is that it is rooted in a positivist worldview and doesn't even try to take into account the ways in which our intentions affect our bodies and subsequently our genomes;

I myself an not a microbiologists, but both of my parents are, and dad is a geneticist as well, so I grew up around microbiology, often hearing stories and explanations about how genetics, cancers, speciation, and other such things work. Reading the part in bold I instantly thought, "wait, that can't be right..." Just because we don't know what the function is does not mean it is "inactive." But in case you don't want to take my word for it, here's a source "The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type." (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html) and also (http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/)

Regarding the copy machine, that's a bad analogy. With that, each successive copy is degraded more and more. With genes it's more digital, with a closer analogy being copying a file over and over, with a tiny chance that some 0 or 1 somewhere will get corrupt due to being written onto a bad sector. I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that though...

Also, are you suggesting that we can change the chemical structure of molecules deep within our bodies simply by thinking about them or by interacting with our environment? We're not talking about moving a muscle here, but about actual extremely complex and specific chemical reactions in very tiny and specific body areas. Sure, we can force some changes with things like radiation, but typically, a gene being switched results in some very very bad consequences (cancers, viral infections, etc).

You'd be surprised.  There is a difference between knowing something and knowing 'about' something.  Knowing about something requires mental abstraction.  Thoughts operate at a lower level of syntax than reality itself - we think in 'yes or no' terms, and in fact every sentence, thought, concept, and idea can be broken down into, essentially, 0's and 1's.  This is what allows us to linearly process the world around us, most notably via thinking.  What you typically miss out on in your everyday awareness is all the parallel processing going on for you in the background.  Now, you probably don't notice it because a parallel process won't ever take the form of a thought. Sometime, you should learn meditation and see what happens when you totally shut up your thoughts and let all the underlying processes emerge in full view.  I promise you, you'll see reality as you've never seen it before.

I think you may be ascribing way too much importance to yourself and to the rather plain act of your brain simply trying to make sense of the signals sent to it by your senses. Yes, our brains work via abstraction, with everything being stored as a concept in the network I described, rather than data in 0's and 1's. But there's really not much beyond the physical space physically affecting our senses, which send physical signals to our physical brain, which tries to make sense of the data in whatever way it ended up wired up to do.
A long time ago when I was still in high school, I used to take yoga. The last 10 minutes of every class was dedicated to deep meditation, where we had to lie on our backs and imagine parts of our bodies falling asleep one by one, "feeling" the energy drain out of them. Almost every time I was able to enter a complete state of meditation, where I was fully conscious and awake, but no longer aware of the surrounding real world, just existing in my head in a sort of white fuzzy space. It allowed me to escape from the world and be lost in my thoughts, in my own little world. I even used the technique once when I was buried on a beach after a sand tunnel I was digging collapsed on top of me. I was under there for about 3 minutes without air until my dad and some other people dug me out, but instead of panicking, I forced myself into that meditative state, shutting down most of my body so I wouldn't need to breathe and use up energy. As soon as I felt that I was free, I instantly woke up, breathed in, and went into the water to wash off the sand, being more embarrassed than anything. In that state, instead of white, I couldn't see anything other than just black, alone with my very slowed thoughts. So, I've meditated before, but I can't really see learning or "seeing" anything in that state beyond what I already know. There is no new input of data to be gained there.
Sometime, you should learn about the scientific method and see what happens when you totally open up your mind and let all the people who have enormous passion for the things they are studying teach you about the things they understand way better than the rest of us. Instead of trying to figure things out by reflecting on them I mean.

I think atheists simply reject the idea of a "mental" reality; at least in a sense of there being anything spiritual, or beyond our physical world.

What do you call the experience of a feeling if not mental?

Mental in a physical sense, not in a spiritual, outside of reality sense. Just chemical and electrical physical changes being interpreted by the brain.

Furthermore, as I've stated previously, the physical world you study is the result of internal processes.

Do you mean to say the results of our understanding are based on and limited by our senses? Or do you mean the physical world itself, with it's structure and composition, is the result, and thus influenced, by our internal processes?

Einstein knew this very well considering he developed the theory of relativity.  The theory itself implies that things only move in relation to one another, and the most fundamental anchor that you use as a relational base from which to navigate through this reality is yourself as a subject.  Additionally, everything that is sensed is in the past.  For example, even when we observe something, it is in the past since it takes a given time for light to travel to us.  This means that the information you call 'input' is already processed information.

Not sure why this is relevant, since relativity simply says that everything is relative to something else, not that something must be the center or a relational base to something else. The sun can be the base compared to which we are hurtling through space, and be just as relevant and important as us being the base.

I'm saying that without basic linguistic structure (syntax, content, and grammar) there would be neither existence nor non-existence.  There could be no system of any kind, no logical structure, no object, not even chaos.  Having a good understanding of linguistic structure is important especially because it helps you understand the limits of its descendant disciplines (e.g. mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).  And, since language itself is more fundamental than these disciplines, including mathematics, it can also highlight what is missing from these disciplines that prohibits us from using them to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Universe.  If we know what is missing, we can try to figure out how that can help us know more than the other disciplines alone can teach us.

I speak several languages, and know the weird little quirks and intricacies between them, and I'm still confused by what you're claiming. Some would also say that physics and mathematics itself is a type of language and can be used to communicate. Or are you redefining language into something completely different, where the meaning of the word is so general (space!) that it's practically meaningless?

What about an interpretation of zero probability and only impossibility?  If event 'x' happens and event 'y' does not happen, how do you know 'y' was possible? To me, it seems 'y' was only impossible. Again, probability and chance is simply another way of saying "I don't know why this happened."

Based on inferring the mechanical workings of a system? If I roll a tire down the hill, I know that in such a system the centripetal force will keep the wheel upright and keep rolling to the bottom, but that there is also a chance that the uneven terrain and gravity would force the wheel to fall on it's side instead. Both are possible, since both follow the laws of physics and are a possible way of how this "system" can work, but there's a higher chance that one will happen than the other. If the wheel falls over and tumbles sideways, we know why it might have happened (hole or rock on the hill), and can verify our hypothesis by inspecting the hill. Sure, we "don't know why this happened" until we investigate, but we sure as hell have good guesses that aren't something like "god/ghost/demons/someone's mind did it."

...but at our lower syntactic level of perception we perceive it as a 'chance' or even 'random' function?

Ah, the old "there is no way for us to perceive it, so you can't prove it's not true" argument. Often heard as "Prove to me god doesn't exist," or "God is beyond out comprehension, understanding, and senses." If that's the case, then there is no point in measuring or testing for such a thing. It has no influence on our "lower syntactic" world, since it exists on a higher one. And if it does influence our "lower syntactic level of perception," they we should, and have, been testing for it for a long time. So far, the tests haven't shown anything other than random data.

I call that age-old question a "non-question."  It's interesting, but ultimately it's not even worth discussing, and quantum physicists would agree with me.  I don't know if I would use the word "us," but I would say I don't believe the Universe can exist without any observers anywhere.  I believe the Universe is born out of the mind of god, like a thought (tele-cognition?), and that the dynamic relationship between god and the Universe is essentially a process by which God seeks to know himself.  I do believe, however, that God (subject) and the universe (object) can homogenize and that there would no longer be a Universe per se.  Get a load of that...I think we're all here because God is a mental masturbator on a mission.

So how do you explain the evidence of universe's existence for billions of years before we were even mud in some pool? It seems rather self-centered of you to think that our species is that important. Frankly, same problem religion tends to have in general ("we're special!")

Logically, I would again point to the subject-object relationship in disagreement with your statement that your body and 'you' are the same.  But, I can also say that from my experiences with meditation, I know (i.e. I recall a direct experience) that consciousness does not need to be localized to the body, but rather it can expand into what you would consider "external" things.
I also disagree with the words you selected in saying that there is a part of your organism that "gives" you consciousness.

How can you be sure that's not just your imagination messing with you? Why wouldn't I be able to claim that I can actually travel to other worlds and dimensions when I'm daydreaming? And if the subject and object were different, then why does brain trauma and physical deterioration of the brain affect the subject so directly and so profoundly, often completely changing the person and their personality? To me that is extreme evidence that we are our own brains, regardless of how we might delude ourselves into thinking we are something greater "trapped" in our bodies. If you believe our consciousness comes from something other than our brains, I'm curious what your evidence for that hypothesis is.

[Rassah]

Lets say that God gives us our curiosity and drive and the joy and satisfaction for being able to create things (we are made in His image so that makes sense to me) why would it be any different in Heaven?  The only thing that will be different is our finite bodies (the ability to die) and the evil and painful things in this world.  Sounds like a great place to me!

But that's kinda my point, we're very close to solving the whole "finite bodies" thing, and then there will be practically no difference between heaven and earth for many of us. Why die and take the risk that there is no afterlife, just for the opportunity to do the exact same thing there that you were doing here?

[BitChick]

Lets say that God gives us our curiosity and drive and the joy and satisfaction for being able to create things (we are made in His image so that makes sense to me) why would it be any different in Heaven?  The only thing that will be different is our finite bodies (the ability to die) and the evil and painful things in this world.  Sounds like a great place to me!

But that's kinda my point, we're very close to solving the whole "finite bodies" thing, and then there will be practically no difference between heaven and earth for many of us. Why die and take the risk that there is no afterlife, just for the opportunity to do the exact same thing there that you were doing here?

You really think we will be able to keep the human body alive indefinitely?  Well, let's say that there was a way to do that.  How are we going to cause all of humanity to be peaceful and love each other?  At some point some crazy leader will come along like Hitler, or like Kim Jong Un in North Korea now, that wants to rule and he will nuke people just because of his power trip.  So even if we were able to live forever on earth, there is still a much deeper problem then that. 

Besides, the older I get I am not sure I would want this body for over 100 years, let alone thousands!  Granted, they could probably need to find a way to slow down the aging process too but it looks like it won't be in our lifetime regardless.

[Rassah]

Lets say that God gives us our curiosity and drive and the joy and satisfaction for being able to create things (we are made in His image so that makes sense to me) why would it be any different in Heaven?  The only thing that will be different is our finite bodies (the ability to die) and the evil and painful things in this world.  Sounds like a great place to me!

But that's kinda my point, we're very close to solving the whole "finite bodies" thing, and then there will be practically no difference between heaven and earth for many of us. Why die and take the risk that there is no afterlife, just for the opportunity to do the exact same thing there that you were doing here?

You really think we will be able to keep the human body alive indefinitely?  Well, let's say that there was a way to do that.  How are we going to cause all of humanity to be peaceful and love each other?  At some point some crazy leader will come along like Hitler, or like Kim Jong Un in North Korea now, that wants to rule and he will nuke people just because of his power trip.  So even if we were able to live forever on earth, there is still a much deeper problem then that. 

Besides, the older I get I am not sure I would want this body for over 100 years, let alone thousands!  Granted, they could probably need to find a way to slow down the aging process too but it looks like it won't be in our lifetime regardless.

Gene therapy. Your cells have a limited number of times that they can divide, so as you get older, you deteriorate more and more. We're close to being able to "reset" the cells, so you can pretty much stay as if you are in your early 20's (or ever revert to that) indefinitely. Slightly longer-term, we should be able to create artificial bodies to live in. At that point, you'll be able to have whatever body you want, or no body at all. Estimates are that this will happen within the next 40 years, but I personally think within the next 50 to 100.
Sure, some people will be tired of life, and will prefer to grow old and die. That's their choice. And some people will be power-hungry sociopaths who will do incredible amount of damage and misery. But we'll just overcome them the way we always do.
Huge # of nice people with ethics > 1 sociopath asshole.
Personally, I'll be driven by sheer curiosity to find out what exists beyond the places I have traveled to, and what incredible technologies or discoveries we will have tomorrow.

[Anon135246]

I never understand these kinds of discussions. Why can't we all just respect eachother and eachother's beliefs .

[BitChick]

I never understand these kinds of discussions. Why can't we all just respect eachother and eachother's beliefs .

Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.  Debates are good for the mind. I think that a good respectful discussion is a healthy thing!  We all have different viewpoints and beliefs and to understand each other and the world these discussions are necessary!  Sure we can have a "live and let live attitude" but there is a place for trying to understand each other and share our perspectives on things.