I am an atheist thread 4

[1234]

I trust it’s obvious that I claimed that my point was unanswered before I saw 1234’s response. I wasn’t deliberately ignoring it.

I don’t understand. How do people make that decision? If the brain is a physical and chemical structure, as you claim, then people don’t make decisions. The brain progresses from one state to another, via ordinary physical laws.

The brain is an incredibly complex structure which provides the basis of thought in biochemical and electrochemical processes which we are only beginning to understand. There is a genetic and biochemical basis of intelligence, consciousness and thought. Thought deteriorates or vanishes according to which parts of the brain are destroyed. Genetic make up can determine psychology and patterns of thought. Controlling or altering the brain’s chemistry with the new psychiatric drugs can treat mental illness effectively and is now the primary therapeutic approach. Seizure disorders with an altered EEG which shows the electrochemical disorganization of the brain, often manifest themselves in not just seizures, but abnormal behavior and foul language, indicating the (disordered) electrochemical basis of behavior and thought.

Just watch a person’s personality and thought processes disappear after a stroke or all thought processes disappear, one by one, with dementia.

People will counter,"Are we just animals, then?" We are finding out a lot more about animals, too. Not so long ago, we humans assumed that animals didn’t think, couldn’t feel pain, had no language, weren’t educable, (sort of like women!) but every day brings new discoveries about what animals are capable of. They are much closer to us than we thought.

Humans are animals. We’re just, in some ways, very smart animals.

You don’t have to invoke the supernatural or the existence of a spiritual world or a soul to explain consciousness or thought. It’s all in the human brain.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The brain is an incredibly complex structure which provides the basis of thought in biochemical and electrochemical processes which we are only beginning to understand. There is a genetic and biochemical basis of intelligence, consciousness and thought. Thought deteriorates or vanishes according to which parts of the brain are destroyed. Genetic make up can determine psychology and patterns of thought. Controlling or altering the brain’s chemistry with the new psychiatric drugs can treat mental illness effectively and is now the primary therapeutic approach. Seizure disorders with an altered EEG which shows the electrochemical disorganization of the brain, often manifest themselves in not just seizures, but abnormal behavior and foul language, indicating the (disordered) electrochemical basis of behavior and thought.

Just watch a person’s personality and thought processes disappear after a stroke or all thought processes disappear, one by one, with dementia.

People will counter,"Are we just animals, then?" We are finding out a lot more about animals, too. Not so long ago, we humans assumed that animals didn’t think, couldn’t feel pain, had no language, weren’t educable, (sort of like women!) but every day brings new discoveries about what animals are capable of. They are much closer to us than we thought.

I agree with pretty much everything you said above. I don’t understand how you get from there to free will.

Humans are animals. We’re just, in some ways, very smart animals.

You don’t have to invoke the supernatural or the existence of a spiritual world or a soul to explain consciousness or thought. It’s all in the human brain.

Let’s leave consciousness and thought aside for now, and stick with free will. If it’s just a function of the brain, it ain’t free.

Look at it this way. Billiard balls have no free will, right? Because they’re just following physical laws. Cue ball hits eight ball, eight ball moves off at velocity v. No choice involved.

Similarly, if your brain is just following physical laws, then none of the components (or the overall system) can have no free will. Electron jumps across synapse, you “decide” to eat bacon for breakfast. No choice involved, just the playing out of natural laws.

I don’t know why this is not getting through. Can I ask you what you think the mechanism of choice is?

 

[Jonathan82]

Pardon me for being so flippant but the folks from the Jesus Seminar are flakes at best. Do you really believe that Jesus of Nazareth as proclaimed by Christians and secular history did not exist?

This kind of idiotic so called “scholarly history” is simply absurd. The people that makes such preposterous claims are on the same level as the folks that claim such things as:

–the United States never landed men on the moon, and that it was all faked.

–that the holocaust never happened.

–that Castro’s Cuba is a marvelous communist success story.

–and that the United States blew up the Twin Towers.

There is actually good evidence against what was broad casted in the media about 911, that easily disproves how they told it. If your interested and everyone should be, check out these 2 documentaries: 911 in plane sight and Painful Deceptions. There are others I have seen but you only need to see those 2 to get the picture. So call me crazy but I lean towards the possibility of the US blowing up its own towers. I lean towards it because it totally disproves what you’ve heard on the main media.

 

[1234]

I have never understood how the concept of ‘free will’ implies a deity.

However, laying that aside, I don’t think that the concept of ‘free will’ exists in other than an idea, and not a very clear one at that.

…I think it’s Plato or someone who had this idea that there exists a perfect form or concept of something out there, that sort of floats in metaphorical space. Like there is a ture form of ‘freee will’ out there against which all things are measured.

But in my daily life I don’t see a lot of ‘free will’. I see people behaving in certain fixed patterns which are largely preordained by their genes, their body chemistry and their many life experiences. By the time they are adults, it’s very hard for them to change their thinking about most things. People who are fat stay fat, despite all the lectures. People who drink, shoot up and steal continue to do so until they die or go to jail. Occasionally someone is able to change their behavior by overcoming past patterns of living. Some are able to decide that they aren’t going to drink anymore, etc., and do it. Usually with psychological and often with pharmacological help as well, to re-wire the brain chemistry which controls behavior.

I don’t find people sitting around deciding to commit mortal sins. Most ‘bad’ behavior–what RCCs and others think is bad differs, of course— is compulsive in nature.

This has nothing to do with a deity.

 

[Jonathan82]

I have never understood how the concept of ‘free will’ implies a deity.

However, laying that aside, I don’t think that the concept of ‘free will’ exists in other than an idea, and not a very clear one at that.

…I think it’s Plato or someone who had this idea that there exists a perfect form or concept of something out there, that sort of floats in metaphorical space. Like there is a ture form of ‘freee will’ out there against which all things are measured.

But in my daily life I don’t see a lot of ‘free will’. I see people behaving in certain fixed patterns which are largely preordained by their genes, their body chemistry and their many life experiences. By the time they are adults, it’s very hard for them to change their thinking about most things. People who are fat stay fat, despite all the lectures. People who drink, shoot up and steal continue to do so until they die or go to jail. Occasionally someone is able to change their behavior by overcoming past patterns of living. Some are able to decide that they aren’t going to drink anymore, etc., and do it. Usually with psychological and often with pharmacological help as well, to re-wire the brain chemistry which controls behavior.

I don’t find people sitting around deciding to commit mortal sins. Most ‘bad’ behavior–what RCCs and others think is bad differs, of course— is compulsive in nature.

This has nothing to do with a deity.

You have to consider the Catholic point of view of what makes you do acts of what we would call evil, Demons. Lets just say I’m Agnostic but leaning towards God. The reason I mention that is so you see that when I talk about those things I am only showing you what Christians believe and you have to consider all the variables before passing judgment. They don’t believe that everything is caused by Demons but that you are influenced by them to commit certain acts and by loosing each battle to them you eventually give yourself to their full control. From a psychological point of view we can say every time you do something that causes a certain rush or pleasure it causes a chemical reaction in your brain and you become addicted to that chemical reaction:Check out “What the Bleep do We know” great video for a better explanation of the psychological/scientific explanation.

You know how you mention Genes having a part in this I don’t disagree with that possibility I think the Gene could play the role of the demon in the scientific view and vice versa for the religious view. But they would only both encourage behavior not cause it; because then you have to consider other things like Sociology.

 

[_A]

That is an interesting question, for which I have no answer at all. But it’s a side note, so I’ll leave it aside for now if that’s OK.

Sure, I was just meandering with the question.

Obviously free will is constrained by physical reality. That’s neither here nor there. So I’ll stick with “I make choices based on my personal preferences.” That’s cool, strikes me as a fantastic working definition. And it lines up pretty well with 1234’s definition: “What people do with it is their own decision.” I think we’re all talking about the same thing here.

I am not so sure we are. I already said that I am not too sure I believe in this ‘I’ term we all use…

Let’s try an analogy: the Energizer Bunny. It’s a fairly simple mechanism. Batteries supply power, wheels turn, bunny marches. Little environmental influences (irregularities in the floor, say) may cause it to turn slightly left or slightly right, but ultimately, I think we agree that the Bunny has no free will, right? Even if the left/right turn is unpredictable before the fact?

Furthermore, even if we slap a little randomizer into the Bunny, so that the left/right direction is less dependent on the environment, it still doesn’t have free will, right? We’ve just created a more convincing illusion of freedom, but ultimately the direction of the bunny is still just a product of physical (name removed by moderator)uts. No choice, just machinery.

Why isn’t it free will? I guess we have different ideas. If the bunny’s choices are only known to the bunny until they are expressed, how is it so different from your decision to skip shaving because it is Saturday?

It seems to me that if we are nothing more than very complex physical systems, we cannot have any more free will than the Bunny.

Well, the bunny is quite a simple system (even with your added randomizer), and we have minor sub-systems which are several orders of magnatude more complex.
Maybe that gives us a little more free will.

Yes, your actions will be influenced by genetic factors, and environmental factors, and your memories, and a million other factors. But if we’re just machines, then how are we making decisions? What is the exercise of the will on the system?

I am not sure I understand that last question. As to the ‘if we’re just machines’ comment, we are. We are just machines. We are machines which are understood better every day by the bio-mechanics in our midst.

Maybe this will clarify. By saying that you make choices, you’re saying that “you” (whatever that means) are acting on the system as an independent agent. You’re steering your brain, in a sense. But that makes no sense if “you” is just a part of your brain.

Have you read GEB by Hofsteadter? I am reading it now, and it reminds me of what you are saying there.

If “you” are just a construct of your brain, which is merely a physical system, then “you” is equivalent to the bunny’s randomizer – just a more convincing illusion of freedom.

Again, while I have not had time to become a neuroscientist, I think I can say with confidence that the brain I am wearing (or is it wearing me??) is much more complex than the bunny.

Man, I almost lost this whole post by foolishly pushing “backspace” instead of “delete”…

Glad you kept it, though I am not sure where this is going…

Let’s leave consciousness and thought aside for now, and stick with free will. If it’s just a function of the brain, it ain’t free.

I think it might be a bit early to cast these aside. I think consciousness and thought are integral to free-will. Can you think of something which has free will but no thought or consciousness?

I don’t know why this is not getting through. Can I ask you what you think the mechanism of choice is?

Another question I don’t understand. Sure glad it wasn’t pointed at me.

The reason I mention that is so you see that when I talk about those things I am only showing you what Christians believe and you have to consider all the variables before passing judgment.

Do you have to understand and appreciate the Scientology view and the Muslim view before passing judgement, too?

 

[Pax]

It is the all encompassing and unqualified statements that you make that bother me. Your statements are frequently strawman in nature. We know that Jesus could be seen …

We don’t even know that he really existed. I think you just believe this.You know by faith. There is no evidence that there even is a god, and no evidence that this particular Jesus lived at all (the records start some decades after his death).
…
…

No need to post it, I guess the thing is that so many here consider belief and faith the same thing.
I avoid belief because it interferes with learning.
Do you mean a guy named Jesus, or the christian god born of a virgin who made miracles like Kreskin?
Those are two different questions. I would not find it hard to accept that a man named Jesus existed, but when you try to tell me he REALLY walked on liquid water and he REALLY rose from the dead you lose me. …
…
…

Please notice how the argument has shifted. You made a ridiculous statement that there is no proof that Jesus existed. When you were challenged on this you then attempted to change the argument to include his divinity. Try conceding the first point before launching into a new one in some sort of an attempt to salvage the original error.

 

[_A]

Please notice how the argument has shifted. You made a ridiculous statement that there is no proof that Jesus existed. When you were challenged on this you then attempted to change the argument to include his divinity. Try conceding the first point before launching into a new one in some sort of an attempt to salvage the original error.

When you suggest that ‘Jesus existed’, are you saying a regular guy who may have been a teacher, or a god?
I think there may have been a teacher named Jesus, but the stories about him making with the miracles were (at the very least) quite exaggerated decades later when writings started to appear.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Where did I use the word ‘nonexistence’?

Here are your words (Post #328):

Your god is invisible because things that don’t exist do not register on the visible spectrum of light.

Things that “don’t exist” are nonexistent.

Are you not putting words in my mouth because you have a hard time answering the ones that are really coming from there?

No.

I said that your god is an invisible man in the sky. You took issue with me calling her ‘man’, until I pointed out that the bible does, now you are taking issue with his being invisible.

You are getting me mixed up with someone else, A. I never said anything one way or another on this thread about your calling God a man in the sky.

Go ahead, prove that your god is visible, or accept that you worship an invisible man in the sky.

I did prove it and you didn’t accept it. You only have two choices here when you are speaking directly about the Catholic Faith: reject that the Eucharistic host I am worshiping is God or accept it. If you reject it, then you can say that I worship a visible wafer, but you can’t say that what I worship is not visible.

If we asked a hundred parishoners to describe (in secret) the god they saw in the eucharist, would they all describe the same thing? Would one say ‘black pants’ while another said ‘blue pants’?

I think most would say they saw a host. It doesn’t matter and it doesn’t change the truth.

Would his presence be less if he were invisible?

No.

I did not say that your god doesn’t exist (though I believe that he doesn’t). I said that he was not visible. If you can’t show him to anyone with eyes, (or a camera), then you might as well just admit that he is invisible.

I did show you. You didn’t accept. It doesn’t change anything about the Catholic belief.

If you accept certain characteristics applied to your god, perhaps that takes something away from him, I don’t know…If it was agreed that he lived in a red box in the Louvre, and all red boxes were removed from the Louvre, then your god could not exist as described. I think this is why the current description does not lend itself to skeptical inquiry.

I’m sorry, A, but you lost me here. There is nothing restricting how God chooses to manifest Himself. He may appear as a burning bush, or a man in a robe, or a dove, or a consecrated host. He is not limited by our expectations or our understanding.

 

[_A]

You are getting me mixed up with someone else, A. I never said anything one way or another on this thread about your calling God a man in the sky.

I might have, but you are mixed up, too. I didn’t call your god a man in the sky, I called it an invisible man in the sky.

I did prove it and you didn’t accept it. You only have two choices here when you are speaking directly about the Catholic Faith: reject that the Eucharistic host I am worshiping is God or accept it. If you reject it, then you can say that I worship a visible wafer, but you can’t say that what I worship is not visible.

You did not prove anything. You didn’t even post a picture of the wafer you claim to worship, just an ornate gold wafer-holder.
If you worship the wafer, OK, but I thought you were really worshipping the invisible part, not just the part that you eat.

I think most would say they saw a host. It doesn’t matter and it doesn’t change the truth.

Would they describe the god they see as a small, round wafer? I thought there was a little more to your god than a light snack.

I did show you. You didn’t accept. It doesn’t change anything about the Catholic belief.

You showed me a fancy, expensive-looking bit of church-kit made to hold something which you eat because you think it is god. Not the thing you think of as god. Is your god less photogenic than the monstrosity you chose to post instead?

I’m sorry, A, but you lost me here. There is nothing restricting how God chooses to manifest Himself. He may appear as a burning bush, or a man in a robe, or a dove, or a consecrated host. He is not limited by our expectations or our understanding.

Then why not admit that he is invisible. In fact, we can go further and say that everything definitive about your god is effectively hidden from skeptical inquiry.

 

[Jonathan82]

Do you have to understand and appreciate the Scientology view and the Muslim view before passing judgement, too?

Absolutely, but I don’t understand so much the Scientology one because they kinda keep to themselves unless you have lots of money.

 

[Jonathan82]

I saw this and had to post because I have the same point of view as Steven Hawking.

Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He’s certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”(pp. 140- 1).

So Hawking is uncertain about his belief in a god of his own creation. I cannot resist the conclusion that Stephen Hawking’s god is too small.

check out this link
leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

 

[_A]

I saw this and had to post because I have the same point of view as Steven Hawking.

Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He’s certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”(pp. 140- 1).

So Hawking is uncertain about his belief in a god of his own creation. I cannot resist the conclusion that Stephen Hawking’s god is too small.

check out this link
leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

That link is to a ‘ministry’ site. Let’s see what this minister says about his personal beliefs before we consider what he says about Mr. Hawking…

“The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.
Do you think someone who assumes that there is a god without evidence is being objective?
I just watched an interview with Steven Hawking where he said that he most certainly did NOT believe in the supernatural. Maybe he changed his mind after the pope told him he should not think about ‘before’ the universe started because that is gods territory. Sorry I don’t have the quote, but I will keep looking.

 

[Jonathan82]

I just watched an interview with Steven Hawking where he said that he most certainly did NOT believe in the supernatural. Maybe he changed his mind after the pope told him he should not think about ‘before’ the universe started because that is gods territory. Sorry I don’t have the quote, but I will keep looking.

Look it doesn’t matter if the man who wrote the paper is religious in some way, Hawking if you’ve read his books is no Atheist but rather an agnostic.

Now I read the article in full and come to agree with him in some points and disagree in others as well as the people who are also mentioned in it.

I posted this up because I always believed that the smart way to look at things was through an agnostics eyes at first. Because you cannot truly say something isn’t real or something is when you don’t have all the facts. When you have truly proved there is a God you can say there is when you have truly proven there is no God then it would be safe to call yourself an Atheist, other than that I see no point in making a belief in disbelief.

 

[Jonathan82]

And I don’t believe in the supernatural either that only means I don’t think there isn’t something out there that isn’t natural just doesn’t make sense. Supernatural is something that cannot be explained yet thats all but once you do its all of a sudden natural.

Just like UFOS Unidentified Flying Objects, once they are Identified then they are no longer UFOS so in a way it wouldn’t be smart to say you don’t believe in UFOS but it would be okay to say that you don’t believe in them in the context which they are being referred to, for example Aliens.

 

[_A]

Look it doesn’t matter if the man who wrote the paper is religious in some way, Hawking if you’ve read his books is no Atheist but rather an agnostic.

Now I read the article in full and come to agree with him in some points and disagree in others as well as the people who are also mentioned in it.

I posted this up because I always believed that the smart way to look at things was through an agnostics eyes at first. Because you cannot truly say something isn’t real or something is when you don’t have all the facts. When you have truly proved there is a God you can say there is when you have truly proven there is no God then it would be safe to call yourself an Atheist, other than that I see no point in making a belief in disbelief.

Are you an agnostic with respect to unicorns? Leprechauns? Hobbits? Giants?
There is a strong enough lack of evidence to flatly disbelieve in a god or gods until someone does produce some reasonable evidence.
Are you agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Agnostic, if it means you don’t know yet, is OK, but you had better keep learning. If by ‘agnostic’ you mean that nothing can be known about god, then you are either a believer, or making a joke.

And I don’t believe in the supernatural either that only means I don’t think there isn’t something out there that isn’t natural just doesn’t make sense. Supernatural is something that cannot be explained yet thats all but once you do its all of a sudden natural.

Just like UFOS Unidentified Flying Objects, once they are Identified then they are no longer UFOS so in a way it wouldn’t be smart to say you don’t believe in UFOS but it would be okay to say that you don’t believe in them in the context which they are being referred to, for example Aliens.

So tell me, Jonathan, do you believe in transubstantiation? If so, what evidence has caused you to believe?

 

[Soetje]

How about the scientific way to look at things? I don’t mean the evolution or the big bang or anything of the sort, more the philosophical science.

I will not believe in something that cannot be proven wrong.

That, minus the “believe” there, is the essence of science. No theory can be take seriously if it isn’t possible to somehow prove it wrong through experimentation.

So. One cannot experimentally prove that God does not exist. One cannot eperimentally prove natural selection wrong. And so one and so forth with many things.

Great way to look at things no!?

hehe, perhaps a bit unimaginative. But much better than being labelled as: religious, atheist, agnostic. Sheeesh! Its faith your talking about, can you seriously just make three boxes and fit the entire human population in them?

 

[_A]

One cannot eperimentally prove natural selection wrong.

I think natural selection could easily be proven wrong. Why would you think it could not be?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I have never understood how the concept of ‘free will’ implies a deity.

However, laying that aside, I don’t think that the concept of ‘free will’ exists in other than an idea, and not a very clear one at that.

That’s fine. If you don’t want to believe in free will, that’s your choice. And it pretty much ends that avenue of conversation, since the premise was “IF you accept the existence of free will”.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Why isn’t it free will? I guess we have different ideas. If the bunny’s choices are only known to the bunny until they are expressed, how is it so different from your decision to skip shaving because it is Saturday?

Well, the bunny is quite a simple system (even with your added randomizer), and we have minor sub-systems which are several orders of magnatude more complex.
Maybe that gives us a little more free will.

I am not sure I understand that last question. As to the ‘if we’re just machines’ comment, we are. We are just machines. We are machines which are understood better every day by the bio-mechanics in our midst.

Sounds like you’re basically taking the “no free will” position also, just not nailing it down as firmly as 1234.

Have you read GEB by Hofsteadter? I am reading it now, and it reminds me of what you are saying there.

I started it during college, but found it too dense for my bedtime reading at that time. I’m afraid it’s probably boxed up right now, but maybe I can dig it up.