Atheism - I don't understand it

[A Troubled Man]

the Earth is relatively flat... if I lay my pencil down on the floor, it doesn't roll away.

LOL! So, you believe the earth is flat?

draw dots on a balloon, then blow the balloon up - from which point are all others expanding around? which can be called the center?

What does that have to do with your claims? Red Herring.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I believe it was St. Augustine who famously said "believe so that you may understand".

A-ManESL apparently thinks this saying holds merit ... unless of course one were to believe in atheism.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Survival of the herd is a noble ideal and is central within Christianity, (we worship a shepherd). Often when you see a pattern on a small scale, you can take that same pattern and expand it into a larger scale - like a Mandelbrot... There's nothing un-natural about spirituality, it's taking what we know and extending it to a larger sphere.

At this point, you're just stringing words together in a salad.

 

[idea]

What does that even mean?

Like someone walking up to you who tells you "Hi, I'm George"... and you know George is a rock-climber, and you look at this person, and sure enough, there's the rope, and the calloused hands, matches the description, so must be right? The Spirit matches the description, and let's you know who they are.

What you're describing is circular. You think you're getting external guidance; I have no reason to think it's nothing more than a feedback loop or an echo chamber.

not circular, there is direction - a start, a goal, a straight and narrow path, and an end, with signs and guidance along the way.

So over time you grow in certainty? Fair enough. How do I go about confirming that it's actually "the Spirit" at work and not something else?

How do you confirm it's really George? It takes time to get to know anyone... the longer you are with them, the more you come to know who they really are.

 

[idea]

Perhaps you can't, but the neuroscientists that are working within this field are learning how to do this more and more all the time.
Please don't confuse 'I can't do/understand this' with 'No-one can do/understand this' or, even worse, 'Humanity can't do/understand this'.

How Technology May Soon "Read" Your Mind - CBS News

yea, that's pretty cool. I see our mind as a receiver - like a radio, or a TV, and our spirit as the transmitter... or perhaps like the computer (another type of receiver), vs. the person sitting typing at the computer (the transmitter).

 

[idea]

But you haven't answered my question. Why do you need to "extend it to a larger sphere" and what does that even mean? How do you know or how can you demonstrate that these "patterns", as you call them, are anything other that perfectly ordinary, natural functions with no spiritual or supernatural cause or intent whatsoever?

Does ordinary really exist? When I look at life, and see what can act/think/create/imagine, I see something more than just matter and energy. I see mind/conscience/will/thought/spirit, call it what you will, but there is an entity which separates the living from the non-living.

What do you believe separates the living from the non-living, if not something akin to a spirit?

 

[jarofthoughts]

yea, that's pretty cool. I see our mind as a receiver - like a radio, or a TV, and our spirit as the transmitter... or perhaps like the computer (another type of receiver), vs. the person sitting typing at the computer (the transmitter).

So you agree that we can, at least in theory (and probably soon, in practice), read thoughts?

Oh, and our brain is much more than a passive receiver.
For instance, there are just as many, if not more, neurotransmitters going to our ears and eyes as there are signals coming from them, which means that our brain is essentially telling our senses what to see and hear.
The 'colours' that we see are not, in a certain sense, real, nor are the sounds we hear.
Just like sounds are frequencies and intervals of vibrating air (or a similar medium), the various wavelengths of light are represented as colour.
Which makes the age-old philosophical question of whether you see the 'same' colour red as I do obsolete since it really doesn't matter.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you don't mind I'll jump in on this one as well...

Does ordinary really exist? When I look at life, and see what can act/think/create/imagine, I see something more than just matter and energy. I see mind/conscience/will/thought/spirit, call it what you will, but there is an entity which separates the living from the non-living.

But you have just left out all the life that cannot act/think/create/imagine, which, quite frankly, is in the vast majority.
Acting/thinking/creating/imagining requires a central nervous system of a certain size and complexity and it is quite possible indeed to be very much alive without one.

What do you believe separates the living from the non-living, if not something akin to a spirit?

I'm not sure there really is such a clear distinction.
When hearing xenobiologists talk about the possibility for life on other planets it becomes clear that defining life is far from easy, and we cannot be so biased as to think that life requires a brain just because we possess one.

 

[idea]

So you agree that we can, at least in theory (and probably soon, in practice), read thoughts?

Oh, and our brain is much more than a passive receiver.
For instance, there are just as many, if not more, neurotransmitters going to our ears and eyes as there are signals coming from them, which means that our brain is essentially telling our senses what to see and hear.
The 'colours' that we see are not, in a certain sense, real, nor are the sounds we hear.
Just like sounds are frequencies and intervals of vibrating air (or a similar medium), the various wavelengths of light are represented as colour.
Which makes the age-old philosophical question of whether you see the 'same' colour red as I do obsolete since it really doesn't matter.

Unlike a radio/TV, I think the transmitting tower and the receiver of our bodies are not miles away, but that our spirit takes the same shape and form as our body, and is within our body - which makes it very difficult to separate the two.

whether we see the same color, or if we hear the same symphony, or taste the same food, or smell the same flower... yes, it is interesting to contemplate.

 

[idea]

If you don't mind I'll jump in on this one as well...

But you have just left out all the life that cannot act/think/create/imagine, which, quite frankly, is in the vast majority.
Acting/thinking/creating/imagining requires a central nervous system of a certain size and complexity and it is quite possible indeed to be very much alive without one.

I'm not sure there really is such a clear distinction.
When hearing xenobiologists talk about the possibility for life on other planets it becomes clear that defining life is far from easy, and we cannot be so biased as to think that life requires a brain just because we possess one.

I think life can be defined as an entity which has the ability to act (as opposed to just react)... so the tree digging it's roots to proactively find water, or anything associated with the action of trying to survive... non-living things only react... living things also have the ability to die...

instead of comparing a rock (non-living) and a cat (living) we could also compare a live cat, and a dead cat... what is the difference between a living and a dead cat, if not the loss of something akin to a spirit, in your opinion?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Unlike a radio/TV, I think the transmitting tower and the receiver of our bodies are not miles away, but that our spirit takes the same shape and form as our body, and is within our body - which makes it very difficult to separate the two.

(My bold) But there is no reason to think that such a spirit even exists.
That has been my point all along; since we have absolutely no evidence (as in; empirical objective scientific evidence) that there is anything supernatural, be it spirits, gods or faeries, we have no reason to think such things are real.

 

[jarofthoughts]

what is the difference between a living and a dead cat, if not the loss of something akin to a spirit, in your opinion?

The end of metabolism and the onset of decomposing.
And even then, the line is blurry.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Does ordinary really exist?

Do spirits?

When I look at life, and see what can act/think/create/imagine, I see something more than just matter and energy. I see mind/conscience/will/thought/spirit, call it what you will, but there is an entity which separates the living from the non-living.

But I don't see that. So how do you know your perception is accurate? How can you demonstrate that the way you see the world is actually how the world is?

What do you believe separates the living from the non-living, if not something akin to a spirit?

Biological function.

 

[Looncall]

Does ordinary really exist? When I look at life, and see what can act/think/create/imagine, I see something more than just matter and energy. I see mind/conscience/will/thought/spirit, call it what you will, but there is an entity which separates the living from the non-living.

What do you believe separates the living from the non-living, if not something akin to a spirit?

I think your perceptions have been tainted by your religious background. What separates the living from the non-living is differences in arrangements of matter.

One needs to be careful not to be taken in by elaborate con games.

 

[atanu]

I believe it was St. Augustine who famously said "believe so that you may understand".

A-ManESL apparently thinks this saying holds merit ... unless of course one were to believe in atheism.

Good. A famous and revered hindu scripture called Yoga Vasista says: Whatever is true in consciousness is true, since consciousness is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like someone walking up to you who tells you "Hi, I'm George"... and you know George is a rock-climber, and you look at this person, and sure enough, there's the rope, and the calloused hands, matches the description, so must be right? The Spirit matches the description, and let's you know who they are.

I see three problems with this:

- in George's case, you can tell us ahead of time what the characteristics of a rock climber are: ropes, calloused hands, etc. What list of characteristics for "the Spirit" are you using? Where did it come from?

- you're not describing something that can lead to a certain conclusion. Unless you actually witness George rock climbing, there's going to be uncertainty.

- you're describing something that's going on entirely in your own head without external physical evidence. How do you tell George the rock climber apart from a dream or hallucination of George the rock climber?

 

[Willamena]

- you're describing something that's going on entirely in your own head without external physical evidence. How do you tell George the rock climber apart from a dream or hallucination of George the rock climber?

So, analysis is deserving of skepticism, too?

 

[A Troubled Man]

instead of comparing a rock (non-living) and a cat (living) we could also compare a live cat, and a dead cat... what is the difference between a living and a dead cat, if not the loss of something akin to a spirit, in your opinion?

The difference is the biochemical reactions taking place within the live cat's body through the use of it's vital organs.

Spirits have never been shown to exist, cats, humans or otherwise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, analysis is deserving of skepticism, too?

What do you mean by "analysis"?

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean by "analysis"?

A process that falls under the general category of "something going on entirely in your head without external physical evidence." The evidences and conclusions of analysis are a priori.

Edit: I'm just pointing out that your third bullet doesn't help the overall argument. Any.