The absurdity of atheism

[zyzz]

Correlation does not prove causation.

Generally speaking that is correct. On the other hand 100% correlation DOES imply causation. Or do you deny that the “correlation” between the motion of my leg muscles and my walking is without “causative” relationship? Is it simply a lucky coincidence that every time I undertake a “walk”, my leg muscles also “happen” to move in a specific way? And every time I move my leg muscles in a certain fashion I actually DO walk?

Mess with the mind - have a thought, make a decision, intend an act and the electrochemistry, the neural circuitry, the body … the whole shebang changes in response. What is your point?

The point is that the brain and the mind cannot be separated. There is no mind without a brain. Just like without legs there can be no “walking”.

That the mind and brain are profoundly connected? Okay. We can all agree to that. But let’s not go all post hoc ergo propter hoc in the interim.

Of course you are welcome to show even a weak correlation between a “soul” and the “mind”. Take a brainless “person” and provide evidence for his “active, working mind - contingent upon his soul”. And then bring up some evidence that this “soul” is immortal. Why don’t you attempt it?

 

[987mk]

Still waiting for an atheist in this forum to pile up a mountain of positives for atheism.

I’ve lived life as a devout Catholic and for somewhere close to 8 years, as an Atheist.

My life is much better, calmer and peaceful as an Atheist.

The most positive thing that I can think of, is my kids are being raised without belief in any supernatural Gods.

On another note, nothing I say will convince you that a life without any Gods is far superior than a life with a fictional God.

My life is certainly better, but only I would know that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My life is much better, calmer and peaceful as an Atheist.

The most positive thing that I can think of, is my kids are being raised without belief in any supernatural Gods.

A sheer animalism philosophy. Be careful it doesn’t bite you-know-where!

Happy New Year!

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve lived life as a devout Catholic and for somewhere close to 8 years, as an Atheist.

My life is much better, calmer and peaceful as an Atheist.

The most positive thing that I can think of, is my kids are being raised without belief in any supernatural Gods.

On another note, nothing I say will convince you that a life without any Gods is far superior than a life with a fictional God.

My life is certainly better, but only I would know that.

You are happier as an atheist. Accepted.

However, if one’s life is not steeped in truth, this happiness, based on a lie, makes him a fool.

It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes story.

He was quite happy.

But he was a fool. Walking around buck nekkid.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve lived life as a devout Catholic

Perhaps you were devout.

But you were not well catechized–of that, I am certain. I doubt you could articulate a well-formed apologia for any list of basic Catholic beliefs.

In fact, I doubt you could tell us, without seeking succor with Father Google, what the Immaculate Conception is, and why we observe it.

 

[987mk]

Perhaps you were devout.

But you were not well catechized–of that, I am certain. I doubt you could articulate a well-formed apologia for any list of basic Catholic beliefs.

In fact, I doubt you could tell us, without seeking succor with Father Google, what the Immaculate Conception is, and why we observe it.

The immaculate conception is Mary getting pregnant by the will of God while still a virgin.

I’m no Catholic expert, but I read a tonne about my faith when practising.

The more I learned, the more sceptical I became.

 

[PRmerger]

The immaculate conception is Mary getting pregnant by the will of God.

QED.

Poorly catechized.

You left what you didn’t even know.

The Immaculate Conception is Mary being conceived (in her mom, St. Anne’s womb) WITHOUT original sin.

 

[PRmerger]

The immaculate conception is Mary getting pregnant by the will of God while still a virgin.

You are not alone, BTW, in not knowing this, mk.

But, again, you should have known your faith better before deciding to leave.

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491.htm

 

[Peter_Plato]

Generally speaking that is correct. On the other hand 100% correlation DOES imply causation. Or do you deny that the “correlation” between the motion of my leg muscles and my walking is without “causative” relationship? Is it simply a lucky coincidence that every time I undertake a “walk”, my leg muscles also “happen” to move in a specific way? And every time I move my leg muscles in a certain fashion I actually DO walk?

The point is that the brain and the mind cannot be separated. There is no mind without a brain. Just like without legs there can be no “walking”.

Of course you are welcome to show even a weak correlation between a “soul” and the “mind”. Take a brainless “person” and provide evidence for his “active, working mind - contingent upon his soul”. And then bring up some evidence that this “soul” is immortal. Why don’t you attempt it?

You are begging the question by assuming that mind is essentially biochemical. The point being that your body moves by intentions and even if those intentions correlate 100% to biochemical or neurochemical events, that fact does not necessitate the implication that intentions are merely the effects of biochemical causes. You merely assume they are and thus beg the question concerning which has priority over the other. Even if they occurred simultaneously, you have no case for assuming the material causes or controls the mental or that the material has some kind of precedence or superintendence over the mental.

It may, in fact, be that the material merely constrains or limits the mental by tethering the mental to specific “nodes” of sensory reality, i.e., that what we mean by “material” is merely a set of constraints or limitations placed upon what is otherwise potentially capable of far more than those constraints permit.

To use a crude example, if a horse is tethered or harnessed to a cart, every move of the horse has a one-to-one correspondence to some move or vibration of the cart. That does not imply the horse could not be detached from the cart and run without the cart. Merely because the cart stays motionless after the cart is detached from the horse does not prove the horse has died, does it? This is particularly true since in the case of the body tethered to the soul, we have only the body (i.e., the cart) that we can observe, so we can’t determine the state of the horse (soul) from the loss of mobility by the cart (body.) You wouldn’t claim that we know the horse must have died because the cart no longer moves, would you? Yet that is basically your claim with reference to the human body and the soul.

Even assuming mind-body duality – which I don’t think is necessarily true – you haven’t shown what you suppose you have.

You certainly haven’t shown with any kind of logical rigor that the mental reduces to the purely physical (horseless carriage?) or that the material is the basic ground of all existence, which is what you would need to do to prove your case, since introspection is, for most human beings a reality. In fact, that – the mind reduces to the purely physical – is precisely what you do need to do to prove with anything like epistemic certainty that the soul or mind could not live on past bodily death or be immortal.

You certainly cannot just assume you have made your case by the mere fact that mental events have a one-to-one correlation to neurochemical events. Your “100% correlation DOES imply causation” claim is a bogus one. It might have some superficial rhetorical effect for those wont to persuasion by superficial treatment of the topic, but for someone, like you, who purportedly strives to accept nothing less than “epistemic certainty,” this comes no where even close.

There are all kinds of reasons for thinking the soul could live on past bodily death. It is an open question and trying to solve that vexing question using a bit of rhetorical flourish is just a tad disingenuous to the entire issue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The immaculate conception is Mary getting pregnant by the will of God while still a virgin.

I’m no Catholic expert, but I read a tonne about my faith when practising.

The more I learned, the more sceptical I became.

This is quite the opposite from my experience, actually. I find that the more skeptical I become (of ALL the pat answers,) the more I learn.

There is so much to learn – infinite and endless, really – which leads me to believe in Infinite Eternal Reality all the more, since what I think always turns out to be misconceived.

Try applying a bit of your skepticism to your skepticism. :jrbirdman:

 

[987mk]

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

QED.

Poorly catechized.

You left what you didn’t even know.

The Immaculate Conception is Mary being conceived (in her mom, St. Anne’s womb) WITHOUT original sin.

A Google search now shows me that my error is quite common.

At least I didn’t cheat and answered honestly. Right…right?

 

[tonyrey]

An activity of what? The brain? If so your materialism needs justification; otherwise it is a worthless dogma.

All that proves is that the mind and brain are interdependent. Hypnosis and self-control are evidence that the mind is the dominant factor.

If they are merely concepts they can be ignored with impunity - as any criminal will tell you…

Nope, because we ACT on those concepts and ideas. And the criminals will be put into jails, hopefully.

You can be put in jail for an intention to commit a crime.

“the physical reality” is another example of unjustified dogmatism.

I suggest you get out and look around… just for the fun of it. All you senses will report the existence of the “physical reality”.

“the” implies physical reality is the sole reality.

Ever heard of introspection? Or is that merely another concept?

So now it is “introspection”… with Charlie it was “intuition”. Very good and useful activities, but insufficient in and of themselves.

If they are useful they imply the existence of an intangible mind.

There are physical objects and concepts. If you assert that there are supernatural objects, please present evidence for them. “Intuition” and “introspection” are not evidence.

You have just implied the existence of an intangible mind! Self-control also implies supernatural power, commonly described as will-power.

 

[zyzz]

You are begging the question by assuming that mind is essentially biochemical.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The original, unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption was the “soul” which has nothing to do with the brain. Aristotle assumed that the brain was only an organ to cool the blood. Only after many tests, experiments were performed it became obvious that the “soul hypothesis” is unneeded and untenable. No neurobiologist keeps it as a working hypothesis.

Your crude example in not just crude, but also incorrect. There is no way to “untether” thinking from the brain. On the contrary, all the experiments prove beyond any doubt that “messing with the brain results in screwing up the mind”, and vice versa; every new thought is also “recorded” in a biochemical fashion in the neurons of the brain. Try to excite the pleasure/pain center with some mild electrical current, and observe the difference. Try to introduce a few molecules of chemical compounds into the bloodstream and observe the result.

You certainly haven’t shown with any kind of logical rigor that the mental reduces to the purely physical…

The proof is much better than that. It is physically established, it can be repeated. We deal with the physical reality here, and the evidence is not just overwhelming, but “irrefutable”… as some posters are wont to say. There is no need for absolute, Cartesian certainty. It is sufficient to consider the zillions of experiments and their results.

You certainly cannot just assume you have made your case by the mere fact that mental events have a one-to-one correlation to neurochemical events.

That is not an assumption, just like that the correspondence of the leg muscles and walking are not just a lucky coincidence. That is the proper analogy, not your horse + cart. The horse has nothing to do with the cart, and the cart has nothing to do with the horse. Use my “walking” analogy next time.

Your “100% correlation DOES imply causation” claim is a bogus one.

How do you plan to refute this “bogus”, but mathematical / statistical claim?

There are all kinds of reasons for thinking the soul could live on past bodily death. It is an open question and trying to solve that vexing question using a bit of rhetorical flourish is just a tad disingenuous to the entire issue.

“All kinds, eh?” For example? Come on, don’t just talk the talk, try to walk the walk. Get out your evidence. How will you attempt to substantiate it?

 

[zyzz]

All that proves is that the mind and brain are interdependent.

Interconnected and interdependent. Yes, I agree. And that is the point I wanted to make.

Hypnosis and self-control are evidence that the mind is the dominant factor.

Why do you think about it as a “horse-race”? Both are equally important. Moreover, let’s try to introduce a few “insignificant” molecules of “mind-altering drug” into your brain, and let’s see who will “win”? Your self-control will be overwhelmed.

“the” implies physical reality is the sole reality.

No, it does not. There is nothing problematic about “conceptual reality”, which is no “physical”.

If they are useful they imply the existence of an intangible mind.

You have just implied the existence of an intangible mind! Self-control also implies supernatural power, commonly described as will-power.

Intangible does not imply “supernatural”. Attributes, relationships, actions are all intangibles. None of them are physical objects. As for your “will-power”, let’s see if it can overcome the effects of mind-altering drugs.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The original, unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption was the “soul” which has nothing to do with the brain. Aristotle assumed that the brain was only an organ to cool the blood. Only after many tests, experiments were performed it became obvious that the “soul hypothesis” is unneeded and untenable. No neurobiologist keeps it as a working hypothesis.

Your crude example in not just crude, but also incorrect. There is no way to “untether” thinking from the brain. On the contrary, all the experiments prove beyond any doubt that “messing with the brain results in screwing up the mind”, and vice versa; every new thought is also “recorded” in a biochemical fashion in the neurons of the brain. Try to excite the pleasure/pain center with some mild electrical current, and observe the difference. Try to introduce a few molecules of chemical compounds into the bloodstream and observe the result.

No, actually. What “all the experiments” show is that there is no “publicly accessible” way to prove that “messing with the brain results in screwing up the mind.”

So what?

Whoever claimed that all the contents of anyone’s mind are publicly accessible? Is your mind completely accessible by public observation?

Certainly, we have chemical and physical means of detaching the influence that the mind has on the body or tinkering with how neural-chemical events might effect the mind, but we have no way of knowing whether there are “mental only” or “primarily mental” events as distinct from mind-body events because all we can access are the sets of bodily effects or mind-body events. If those alone are to be relied upon then we have no means of “observing” real mind-only events without the mind registering those through bodily conduits. If your “observables” are only bodily or physical, you cannot make, with any kind of assurance, conclusions about mental-only effects or events, since those are not publicly accessible.

This, by the way, does not rule out the possibility of mind-mind events (telepathic) with no publicly observable elements, but if there were any means whatsoever of establishing that possibility, I would suppose that would be a formidible problem for your “brain-based” thesis.

 

[tonyrey]

All that proves is that the mind and brain are interdependent.

Good. That means there are two aspects of reality one of which materialists do not recognise.

Hypnosis and self-control are evidence that the mind is the dominant factor.

Why do you think about it as a “horse-race”?

I think Plato’s idea of the chariot and the charioteer is a better analogy. I would prefer to have a bodiless mind rather than a mindless body!

Both are equally important. Moreover, let’s try to introduce a few “insignificant” molecules of “mind-altering drug” into your brain, and let’s see who will “win”? Your self-control will be overwhelmed.

Drugs cannot alter or destroy the mind because it is intangible but they can and do sometimes alter or destroy the relationship between the mind and the body, temporally or permanently. A guitarist survives damage to, or the destruction of, his guitar.

“the” implies physical reality is the sole reality.

No, it does not. There is nothing problematic about “conceptual reality”, which is no “physical”.

I’m glad we agree on that.

If they are useful they imply the existence of an intangible mind.

You have just implied the existence of an intangible mind! Self-control also implies supernatural power, commonly described as will-power.

Intangible does not always imply “supernatural”. Attributes, relationships, actions are all intangibles. None of them are physical objects.

I agree but intangible attributes refer to intangible entities like minds and persons. Intangible does not imply “supernatural” but I believe in the case of self-control it does because the self has unity and continuity which the body lacks over a period of time. We are the same persons as we were years ago even though our bodies may have changed beyond recognition and we are still responsible for what we did throughout our lives. A sobering thought on New Year’s Eve!

It’s time here in the UK to wish you good night and a very happy New Year!

 

[PRmerger]

At least I didn’t cheat and answered honestly. Right…right?

Yes. You showed integrity there.

And are we on the same page here now?

Do you acknowledge that you really are not conversant enough in the faith you left to make an educated decision about its truth or lack of truth?

 

[zyzz]

Good. That means there are two aspects of reality one of which materialists do not recognise.

There are many aspects of reality, (some objective and some subjetive) and I think that materialists have no problem of recognizing and understanding them. It is not a good idea to make sweeping generalizations of such a multifaceted group as atheists, or theists, for that matter.

I think Plato’s idea of the chariot and the charioteer is a better analogy.

I don’t think so, because it proposes a dichotomy where there is none. Moreover, the “mind” consist of two parts, the “conscious” and the subconscious". Of these two the subconscious is far more important. If your conscious mind would be responsible for your second-to-second existence, you would die in no time, since the conscious mind cannot process more than a few bytes per second - even though that processing is very important. The regulation of the body requires a lot more processing power than that. Also there are excellent experiments that prove (beyond ANY doubt) that decision making happens in the subconscious, and only when the decision was made, will the conscious part become aware of that.

Drugs cannot alter or destroy the mind because it is intangible but they can and do sometimes alter or destroy the relationship between the mind and the body, temporally or permanently. A guitarist survives damage to, or the destruction of, his guitar.

Another incorrect analogy. The destruction of the “legs” will make “walking” impossible. But adding some artificial legs will allow the person to walk again. However, until that happens, there can be no “intangible” walking.

I agree but intangible attributes refer to intangible entities like minds and persons. Intangible does not imply “supernatural” but I believe in the case of self-control it does because the self has unity and continuity which the body lacks over a period of time. We are the same persons as we were years ago even though our bodies may have changed beyond recognition and we are still responsible for what we did throughout our lives. A sobering thought on New Year’s Eve!

Intangible attributes refer to much more than that. Our “self” is not really the “same” as we have been as newborns. The difference is huge. Of course what is the “same” is more of a question of definition rather than an objective difference.

It’s time here in the UK to wish you good night and a very happy New Year!

And likewise to you.

 

[zyzz]

This, by the way, does not rule out the possibility of mind-mind events (telepathic) with no publicly observable elements, but if there were any means whatsoever of establishing that possibility, I would suppose that would be a formidible problem for your “brain-based” thesis.

Several problems with that. First, there are no experiments which would show “telepathy”. Second, even if there were, they could be generated by the weak electro-magnetic forces generated by the brain - which actually exist. But there are no experiments to establish any kind of telepathy. And the number of experiments are quite overwhelming.

As usual, you try to evade the question about “all kinds of reasons for the existence of immortal souls”. Bring them on, along with your assumed “evidence” for them. Put your money where your mouth is!

 

[987mk]

Yes. You showed integrity there.

And are we on the same page here now?

Do you acknowledge that you really are not conversant enough in the faith you left to make an educated decision about its truth or lack of truth?

I know that the God of Abraham is a work of fiction.

Of that I have no doubt.