Consciousness = Soul

[OptoGypsy]

First of all, are you talking about so-called strong atheism (explicit belief in the non-existence of God) or weak atheism (lack of belief in God). The latter could also be called agnostic atheism, and is actually the most common type of atheism, according to polls.

I don't care for titles, with that being said I was once a militant atheist, this is for either one. I was hoping to get feedback concerning the argument, not the title.

 

[Poki]

Our brain truly is a fascinating idea.

Yes, it can raise us up or destroy us mentally with the same thought and never leave home.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Outside of typical arguments such as objective morality, the probability of our universe existing, there is a high probability that our consciousness is what the religious man calls the soul.

What makes atheism naïve though?

 

[OptoGypsy]

What makes atheism naïve though?

I believe that the evidence goes against it. I'm arguing theism/deism vs atheism, not a particular religion.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I don't care for titles, with that being said I was once a militant atheist, this is for either one. I was hoping to get feedback concerning the argument, not the title.

Doesn't seem like this is accurate. Are you one of those new Christians(or whatever) that believe any position you had before your current faith was "militant atheism" or were you an actual skeptical atheist who was familiar with the logical/empirical problems with god(s) existing? It's hard to offer feedback when you never made a clear argument on why atheism is naïve. You threw up a word salad and its hard to tell whether there's actually an argument in there or not.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I believe that the evidence goes against it. I'm arguing theism/deism vs atheism, not a particular religion.

Ok, what evidence do you have that your particular god ( or any god) exists?

 

[OptoGypsy]

Doesn't seem like this is accurate. Are you one of those new Christians(or whatever) that believe any position you had before your current faith was "militant atheism" or were you an actual skeptical atheist who was familiar with the logical/empirical problems with god(s) existing? It's hard to offer feedback when you never made a clear argument on why atheism is naïve. You threw up a word salad and its hard to tell whether there's actually an argument in there or not.

I broke down the apologetic argument, would you like me to also break down my old understanding. I grew up as a Christian, rebuked the idea as a twelve year old, spent the last 8 years arguing against teachers, and pastors. I'm versed in the fields of evolutionary biology, physics, and philosophy. I've read Bertrand Russell, Hume, Nietzsche, Mencken and the new atheists, so I can claim confidently claim that I'm not going by emotions "with the flow".

 

[OptoGypsy]

Ok, what evidence do you have that your particular god ( or any god) exists?

If you're interested in the arguments I recommend getting into apologetics: CS Lewis, Plantinga and William Lane Craig are some good ones

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I broke down the apologetic argument, would you like me to also break down my old understanding. I grew up as a Christian, rebuked the idea as a twelve year old, spent the last 8 years arguing against teachers, and pastors. I'm versed in the fields of evolutionary biology, physics, and philosophy. I've read Bertrand Russell, Hume, Nietzsche, Mencken and the new atheists, so I can claim confidently claim that I'm not going by emotions "with the flow".

What do you mean by 'rebuked?' What made you think Christianity was not true when you were twelve years old? What in particular did you argue for the following eight years?

If you're interested in the arguments I recommend getting into apologetics: CS Lewis, Plantinga and William Lane Craig are some good ones

Not really, I'm not interested in the gymnastic arguments. I'm more curious about what evidence did you observe that a god exists.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

If your thought is absurd then it makes the absurdity of your thoughts absurd which would negate it and mean it's not which would mean you are right thoughts are absurd...an endless cyclic thought if carried through logically.

Well that clarified everything...

 

[OptoGypsy]

What do you mean by 'rebuked?' What made you think Christianity was not true when you were twelve years old? What in particular did you argue for the following eight years?



Not really, I'm not interested in the gymnastic arguments. I'm more curious about what evidence did you observe that a god exists.

My turn to Christianity has to do with an anecdote, the propositions always existed but I was blind to their validity not because of probability in them being true but because I didn't want them to be true

 

[Olm the Water King]

I don't care for titles, with that being said I was once a militant atheist, this is for either one. I was hoping to get feedback concerning the argument, not the title.

Militancy is a different issue altogether. What I'm asking you if the atheism you talk about is simply lack of belief in God or is it the absolute belief that there is no God?

 

[Bush]

I'll bite.

It seems like you're saying that a reductionist approach is a good one to take because neuroscience indicates that it is..

.. that then, if we assume that approach, we can't arrive at any actual truth because no truth actually exists..

.. and that our brains are all clouded up by experiences -- and when we're young and naive, at least, the only way to make sense of our experience is to assume that there is truth (which is absurd and, again, naive) ..

.. and so believing in a truth that there is no God is naive because there actually is no truth .. ?

 

[EcK]

The fact that the human mind seeks out truth signifies that they are looking for truth goes against the biological mechanism of the brain, this works in the same way that the God gap does. when one hears a piece a piece by Chopin, reads a book by George Bernard Shaw or sees a painting by Van Gogh or experience the sight of Gods creation (nature) in awe as a moment of the romantic enters them. Signifying that there has to be something greater out there as the feeling didn't come from the product but within and the more one experiences this the more they want it. The more someone ponders for the truth the more they want it, rather it is the truth or something they in turn worship: people and probability. If we are to take a reductionist approach to the brain, seeking for the truth will not only be nonsensical it would also not be possible.

No. It doesn't follow.
Lots of disjointed parts that feel like not fully internalized concepts (ie: the equivalent of a quotation as a argument). Cross disciplinary thinking can indeed lead to breakthrough but that requires a deep understanding of the underlying structure. You might want to look into adbudctive reasoning.


This feels too shallow

 

[EcK]

If your thought is absurd then it makes the absurdity of your thoughts absurd which would negate it and mean it's not which would mean you are right thoughts are absurd...an endless cyclic thought if carried through logically.

Spoiler: yea I know this is silly

Aren't you assuming absurdity to be of negative value here. I see why you'd say that but it doesn't seem to be necessary.
Also perhaps absurdity is not additive but rather a "solid state" for lack of a better term (like talking of the blueness of blue doesn't make it a different color or bluer). That would solve the loop.

 

[OptoGypsy]

I'll bite.

It seems like you're saying that a reductionist approach is a good one to take because neuroscience indicates that it is..

.. that then, if we assume that approach, we can't arrive at any actual truth because no truth actually exists..

.. and that our brains are all clouded up by experiences -- and when we're young and naive, at least, the only way to make sense of our experience is to assume that there is truth (which is absurd and, again, naive) ..

.. and so believing in a truth that there is no God is naive because there actually is no truth .. ?

It is your choice to believe that there is no such thing as the semantic/propositional argument. To believe in a truth is to believe in God.

- - - Updated - - -

Militancy is a different issue altogether. What I'm asking you if the atheism you talk about is simply lack of belief in God or is it the absolute belief that there is no God?

You either believe in God or you don't, but there is a big difference between a man like Smerdyakov and a man like Ivan from the Karamazov brothers

 

[OptoGypsy]

No. It doesn't follow.
Lots of disjointed parts that feel like not fully internalized concepts (ie: the equivalent of a quotation as a argument). Cross disciplinary thinking can indeed lead to breakthrough but that requires a deep understanding of the underlying structure. You might want to look into adbudctive reasoning.


This feels too shallow

That is great for science but it is third rate philosophy. What better argument do you have for what we call the consciousness?

 

[EcK]

That is great for science but it is third rate philosophy

Ok. Would you like me to translate your statements for everyone so they can look at the philosophical value of your OP. That is basically akin to a teenagers diary crammed with buzz words..? Ok

 

[OptoGypsy]

Spoiler: yea I know this is silly

Aren't you assuming absurdity to be of negative value here. I see why you'd say that but it doesn't seem to be necessary.
Also perhaps absurdity is not additive but rather a "solid state" for lack of a better term (like talking of the blueness of blue doesn't make it a different color or bluer). That would solve the loop.

It is to be taken in the sense that Camus took it, not the solipsism route it seems that you have taken.

 

[EcK]

It is to be taken in the sense that Camus took it, not the solipsism route it seems that you have taken.

That has literally nothing to do with solipsism. The closest simili would be Socratic Realm of the forms, confusion of nature and quality... and a few conversation with .. sophists.