Originally posted by debbiejo
After you die, you change into something else and to what degree is not really understood.
I'm not sure I believe that....it is perhaps possible - yet we don't know, do we? I have certainly seen no definite proof either for or against it.
Like I say, however, I am perhaps aesthetically inclined to belief that our existence continues with some respect - whether we become some sort of energy force, or whatever....I just hate to think that it's all for nothing, you know?
Originally posted by debbiejo
I just couldn't except that we die and become worm food. There is just too much evidence that shows that energy or change comes into play.
I've never seen such evidence. Like I've said, however, I too have trouble believing that we just "die." Yet I can't say what does become of us, and must accept that I may never know.
BTW: I'm not trying to refute what you say or undermine your beliefs; I'm just stating my well-developed existential sentiments, which I've yet to reconcile at all satisfactorily....
Originally posted by Melcórë
I've never seen such evidence. Like I've said, however, I too have trouble believing that we just "die." Yet I can't say what does become of us, and must accept that I may never know.BTW: I'm not trying to refute what you say or undermine your beliefs; I'm just stating my well-developed existential sentiments, which I've yet to reconcile at all satisfactorily....
BTW: By "well-developed," I didn't mean scholarly-so; they are rather jumbled. I meant simply that I have thought long about them.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes, but SoD is referring to "soul energy" whatever that may be, i.e. your personality, identity, consciousness. S/he isn't saying that atheists are wrong to believe that the body simply dies and nothing more after death, rather s/he is saying atheists are wrong to believe that the consciousness is not made up of energy. (Energy that must go on...not simple decomposition.)
I understand, but he still presented a simplified (and largely false) view of atheism, and used it to contrast with his own views.
As for "soul energy", positing that anything about us is something other than material is strictly illogical. If you want to say that the particles/energy that help form us will one day contribute to other forms of life, fine. Drink a glass of water and you're ingesting particles that were once (literally) part of thousands of different humans, to say nothing of other life forms. But that's not reincarnation, or a soul, or a retained consciousness. Anything beyond that, lacking substantial evidence and having nothing more than intuitive emotional appeal, shouldn't be taken seriously unless it can be justified physically or philosophically.
Consciousness is a cognitive state, brought about by neural impulses. It doesn't transfer itself in individual atoms, and certainly not in ethereal, entirely unlikely, soul substances.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I understand, but he still presented a simplified (and largely false) view of atheism, and used it to contrast with his own views.As for "soul energy", positing that anything about us is something other than material is strictly illogical. If you want to say that the particles/energy that help form us will one day contribute to other forms of life, fine. Drink a glass of water and you're ingesting particles that were once (literally) part of thousands of different humans, to say nothing of other life forms. But that's not reincarnation, or a soul, or a retained consciousness. Anything beyond that, lacking substantial evidence and having nothing more than intuitive emotional appeal, shouldn't be taken seriously unless it can be justified physically or philosophically.
Consciousness is a cognitive state, brought about by neural impulses. It doesn't transfer itself in individual atoms, and certainly not in ethereal, entirely unlikely, soul substances.
part of what you said is true, but for the greater part, there exists an explanation gap between physical cause/affect role of the body and a self aware conciousness arising from it.
your also not taking into account things like QUALIA, HOMUNCULUC, THE HARD QUESTION OF CONCIOUSNESS, EMERGENCE, PHENOMENOLOGICAL AWARENESS et etc etc etc. your explanation would largely make us "philosophical zombies", which we are not. try the terms on wikipedia or google em{if u dont know about the whole debate already}.
currently physical causes can not explain the subjective expirience of self awareness and conciousness.
Originally posted by Alliance
And your pseudo-spiritual crap is unrestrained by fact and can't explain it either.
when did i say i cud explain it???
as far as the "psuedo spiritual" goes, u wanna bet on that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_%28psychology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_character_of_experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_Room
please, EDUCATE yourself, before making such ridiculous statements. the basis for my beleif is based on nothing PSUEDO.
but then again, im arguing with a person whod rather follows DOGMATIC spiritual crap, and tries to make a case for celibacy having no psychologically negetive ramifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_realism
this might go on to illucidate my points more.
most people here{this wud apply to u and bardock too} who argue against what im saying and think its PSUEDO SCIENCE, dont understand what theyr talking about. their stance is one of naive realism which can not account for many phenomenon.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
therefore ur scared to disbelieve, once you can get past the idea that everything is awesome and that heaven is something to strive for, the "truth" becomes kinda obvious. id like for there to be a heaven, but most likely... not gonna happen
Not scared, I just don't see any practical reason to embrace atheism, whereas living one's life "as if" there is a transcendent dimension to reality does give practical advantages, specifically, a broader explanatory model, and an expanded source of comfort in times of suffering (plus, if the theists' view is right, in the end you'll know it).
(Please note that I am Not pushing the Biblical view except as metaphor. Plus, my personal philosophy embraces the physical world as described by empirical science...I just don't necessarily limit myself to it.)
Originally posted by Mindship
an expanded source of comfort in times of suffering
exactly. most people turn to religion when they cant handle their own problems. theyd love to think it was fate or its in"gods plan". most people cant accept the fact its THEIR FAULT. religion to me is just a crutch which people blame their problems on. its also a shody way to explain how we got here and where we go when we die
Originally posted by leonheartmm
part of what you said is true, but for the greater part, there exists an explanation gap between physical cause/affect role of the body and a self aware conciousness arising from it.your also not taking into account things like QUALIA, HOMUNCULUC, THE HARD QUESTION OF CONCIOUSNESS, EMERGENCE, PHENOMENOLOGICAL AWARENESS et etc etc etc. your explanation would largely make us "philosophical zombies", which we are not. try the terms on wikipedia or google em{if u dont know about the whole debate already}.
currently physical causes can not explain the subjective expirience of self awareness and conciousness.
Emergence is an observed phenomenon that doesn't support the idea that consciousness is seperate from physical forces.
Qualia is just an a "unit of consciousness"....taking it into account, as you suggest, does nothing to change my point.
And a philisophical zombie would act and think exactly as a "non-zombie" would. So where is the distinction? It's a thought experiment, but there's no definitive answer to it that refutes me.
You clearly know a bit about consciousness study, but don't just throw terms around like they somehow prove me wrong, which they don't. On a related note, wiki articles don't = a coherent point either, and I'm pretty sure both Alliance and myself are aware of the majority of the terms you're attempting to use to debate us.
At one point life didn't have consciousness, then it did at some point in evolutionary history. Humans are the only conscious beings (at least this is very reasonable to assume). So. Did we receive a special soul-gift at some point? Of course that's a bit ridiculous. Or is it more likely that thought creates consciousness? Yes, of course it is.
Whether cnsciousness is seperate from materiality or not isn't my concern. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (the Hard Question). But the point is that thought is needed for consciousness to arise. Upon death, decomposition, etc. our consciousness won't somehow survive past the body, because even if it is seperate from physical forces, it is dependant on physcial forces to exist.
So even if dualists are correct in terms of conscious thought, it does nothing to refute my point that we don't retain identity and consciousness beyond death. Random energy transfer in atoms can't account for it at all.
Originally posted by chickenlover98Unfortunately, a lot of people do use it as an excuse not to accept responsibility for their lives.
exactly. most people turn to religion when they cant handle their own problems. theyd love to think it was fate or its in"gods plan". most people cant accept the fact its THEIR FAULT. religion to me is just a crutch which people blame their problems on.
its also a shody way to explain how we got here and where we go when we dieWhenever religion tries to do science's job, shoddiness will ensue.
exactly. most people turn to religion when they cant handle their own problems. theyd love to think it was fate or its in"gods plan". most people cant accept the fact its THEIR FAULT. religion to me is just a crutch which people blame their problems on.
Thats quite an generalization...its much easier and nicer to think that there is no God, than to think there is, in my experience.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats quite an generalization...its much easier and nicer to think that there is no God, than to think there is, in my experience.
well of course it is. would you rather have a big brother figure watching you and knows everything you do. not only is that an invasion of privacy, but a destruction of free will. its easier because you dont go to church. question whats better:waking up early and wasting 3 hours or 😄 sleeping in and having fun?
i hate the concept of them knowing every single thing you do. so forgive me if i dont believe in a half concept. freewill must be exactly what it says FREE. if someone is judging me and i get punished for what i do, its only half of a promise
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Emergence is an observed phenomenon that doesn't support the idea that consciousness is seperate from physical forces.Qualia is just an a "unit of consciousness"....taking it into account, as you suggest, does nothing to change my point.
And a philisophical zombie would act and think exactly as a "non-zombie" would. So where is the distinction? It's a thought experiment, but there's no definitive answer to it that refutes me.
You clearly know a bit about consciousness study, but don't just throw terms around like they somehow prove me wrong, which they don't. On a related note, wiki articles don't = a coherent point either, and I'm pretty sure both Alliance and myself are aware of the majority of the terms you're attempting to use to debate us.
At one point life didn't have consciousness, then it did at some point in evolutionary history. Humans are the only conscious beings (at least this is very reasonable to assume). So. Did we receive a special soul-gift at some point? Of course that's a bit ridiculous. Or is it more likely that thought creates consciousness? Yes, of course it is.
Whether cnsciousness is seperate from materiality or not isn't my concern. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (the Hard Question). But the point is that thought is needed for consciousness to arise. Upon death, decomposition, etc. our consciousness won't somehow survive past the body, because even if it is seperate from physical forces, it is dependant on physcial forces to exist.
So even if dualists are correct in terms of conscious thought, it does nothing to refute my point that we don't retain identity and consciousness beyond death. Random energy transfer in atoms can't account for it at all.
digi the only real question about consciousness is how it is obtained. is it through nuerons and if so how can the conditions be just right for it. if it is just electrical connections that give us personality why is it hard to replicate? it should be easy to bestow consciousness to other animals