Consciousness = Soul

[OptoGypsy]

I have an apologetic argument that I believe disproofs the atheistic position. I hope that the atheists and the theists find something they can do with it, rather it is to use it in argument or to find the contradictions:

In neurology, if we are to take the reductionist approach there is no such thing as truth, rational or irrational only the interesting and boring in the sense of the syntactic (the survival of a species)the semantic can't exist along with cause and effect, therefore we would have to take it as illusory as all that exists in the syntax. Which is an absurd idea in that we have a longing for it (look at the thought pattern of the four horsemen). It is the equivalent of taking the approach that I took as a teenager, that of absurdity. Everything is absurd and meaningless and there is no self, thought process was algorithmic-ally done in a homologous paradigm. Yet I couldn't escape the sense that ones own thoughts are not absurd otherwise the entire argument would collapse.

 

[93JC]

The quantity of bullshit buzzwords you have crammed into this is impressive, I'll give you that.

 

[OptoGypsy]

The surest sign of the intelligentsia is using bullshit buzzwords, yet every word I used has a purpose to the whole

 

[Null]

Aren't you the guy who lost his virginity in 6th grade?

 

[OptoGypsy]

Aren't you the guy who lost his virginity in 6th grade?

Why does that matter?

 

[Null]

Why does that matter?

It doesn't, just amuses me still.

 

[OptoGypsy]

It doesn't, just amuses me still.

Wished I didn't, the most difficult aspect I've found with being is not acting on impulse lol

 

[Poki]

Both are naive positions. We can neither prove nor disprove either way. Its thoughts/feelings/details/concept vs itself. Utilizing correlations with causation and wants with desires. Yet none of it can be proven in the manner we can prove dirt exists. While we may argue words, what dirt means, we can physically pick it up and say this exists and the only way to disprove is through questioning existence which is a cop out answer. We can't point to God himself.

 

[OptoGypsy]

Both are naive positions. We can neither prove nor disprove either way. Its thoughts/feelings/details/concept vs itself. Utilizing correlations with causation and wants with desires. Yet none of it can be proven in the manner we can prove dirt exists. While we may argue words, what dirt means, we can physically pick it up and say this exists and the only way to disprove is through questioning existence which is a cop out answer. We can't point to God himself.

That's interesting, one can see dirt and therefore claim that it exist by the law of physics (cause and effect). Yet one can't help but wonder why the branch of epistemology exists. As was proven with the death of logical positivism several arguments such as those concerning themselves with ethics being objective exists or that of matter itself. One would deconstruct the very idea itself to the empirical and have nothing left standing and would therefore need to go with an intuitive leap. The question rests why people continue expanding outside of the sensory in studies of the properties of time and space or that of higher branches of quantum mechanics and how they relate to what can be if there is no point to it in our existence. Why care for the mechanics of the big bang? Where do such questions come from if our brains are designed for surviving...
.

 

[geedoenfj]

I'm not an atheist but I don't think you're making yourself clear, I think you need to get more to the point, why atheism is a naive position..

 

[Poki]

That's interesting, one can see dirt and therefore claim that it exist by the law of physics (cause and effect). Yet one can't help but wonder why the branch of epistemology exists. As was proven with the death of logical positivism several arguments such as those concerning themselves with ethics being objective exists or that of matter itself. One would deconstruct the very idea itself to the empirical and have nothing left standing and would therefore need to go with an intuitive leap. The question rests why people continue expanding outside of the sensory in studies of the properties of time and space or that of higher branches of quantum mechanics and how they relate to what can be if there is no point to it in our existence. Why care for the mechanics of the big bang? Where do such questions come from if our brains are designed for surviving...
.

It's a combination of knowledge, fun, curiosity, etc. I refer to the pure mental aspect as mental masturbation. Faster, faster, explode with a brilliant break through. Uness you can physically prove it, it is a theory. Theories are meant to be tested against reality, it's a let's find possibilities and check against reality vs the opposite of let's take reality and dissect it. We are all good at different things as well as enjoy the different aspects.

One without the other is incomplete. Both form the full picture.

Our brains weren't designed for survival, it is why we survive. What if due to our own fear of the survival tactics caused us to go down these paths which leads to more fear. Bigger bad ass weapons, more knowledge, more advanced, kill off the weak. On the other spectrum we can survive better against the world in groups, let's ban together so we can survive this world. What do you fear? In what ways do you try to survive? Or have you given up? What if religion is Nothig more then a tool used by our brains to give us hope for survival so we don't fall into an abyss of failure. What if beliefs is a survival mechanism so we have something to run for, away from?

Mental masturbation...what good is it all if we dont live our life? We avoid the onend thing we are trying to survive in.

 

[OptoGypsy]

I'm not an atheist but I don't think you're making yourself clear, I think you need to get more to the point, why atheism is a naive position..

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.

 

[OptoGypsy]

It's a combination of knowledge, fun, curiosity, etc. I refer to the pure mental aspect as mental masturbation. Faster, faster, explode with a brilliant break through. Uness you can physically prove it, it is a theory. Theories are meant to be tested against reality, it's a let's find possibilities and check against reality vs the opposite of let's take reality and dissect it. We are all good at different things as well as enjoy the different aspects.

One without the other is incomplete. Both form the full picture.

Our brains weren't designed for survival, it is why we survive. What if due to our own fear of the survival tactics caused us to go down these paths which leads to more fear. Bigger bad ass weapons, more knowledge, more advanced, kill off the weak. On the other spectrum we can survive better against the world in groups, let's ban together so we can survive this world. What do you fear? In what ways do you try to survive? Or have you given up? What if religion is Nothig more then a tool used by our brains to give us hope for survival so we don't fall into an abyss of failure. What if beliefs is a survival mechanism so we have something to run for, away from?

Mental masturbation...what good is it all if we dont live our life? We avoid the onend thing we are trying to survive in.

I completely agree with you. I took this idea from an atheistic philosopher named Daniel Dennett. The point is that only syntax would exist as cause and effect would go against the theorem of semantics. There are several intellectual atheists who hold the idea that there is something metaphysical about it. If we are to go by science alone a statement such as "If Charles Darwin saw what Dostoevsky saw instead of calling it the perseverance of species he would've called it the destruction of the species. This statement would not only be nonsensical but it all probability wouldn't be made. Our brains would think in terms "How do I change oil in the car" and thoughts such as "Can a being exist outside of time and space", will be intrinsically meaningless, no one would be able to claim that a proposition is true on untrue. Such statements may not even be able to exist (I'm a layman on the subject, one would have to seek the advising of a linguist and a logician.)

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I have an apologetic argument that I believe disproofs the atheistic position. I hope that the atheists and the theists find something they can do with it, rather it is to use it in argument or to find the contradictions:

In neurology, if we are to take the reductionist approach there is no such thing as truth, rational or irrational only the interesting and boring in the sense of the syntactic (the survival of a species)the semantic can't exist along with cause and effect, therefore we would have to take it as illusory as all that exists in the syntax. Which is an absurd idea in that we have a longing for it (look at the thought pattern of the four horsemen). It is the equivalent of taking the approach that I took as a teenager, that of absurdity. Everything is absurd and meaningless and there is no self, thought process was algorithmic-ally done in a homologous paradigm. Yet I couldn't escape the sense that ones own thoughts are not absurd otherwise the entire argument would collapse.

Making a word salad doesn't automatically create a good argument. Why is atheism naïve? I suppose its compared to theism? What then makes theism a less naïve position?

 

[OptoGypsy]

Making a word salad doesn't automatically create a good argument. Why is atheism naïve? I suppose its compared to theism? What then makes theism a less naïve position?

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.

 

[Poki]

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.

We put up our own walls, create our own barriers, build our own truths. We create a castle where everything is interconnected to the point where if one piece crumbles it all comes crashing down. We then live our lives protecting the truth we have created, but if we created it, is it really truth or just a manipulation of mind and ourselves. While it is all true, it is based on self constructed data that was put there to create the think we were seeking the most. At that point our life is nothing more then an illusion we created and and our life we lived wasn't even truth at all which is what we were seeking in the first place.

Gotta love the way the mind works

 

[OptoGypsy]

As people are making a big deal concerning my lingo I will break it down:
1. our brains are products of cause and effect and there is no soul
2. It would have to be a product of biology, therefore something that is used to survive in the dance of matter
3. It would have to be syntatic and not semantic, as this kind of brain would use the synapses, the 5 sense
4. People from all aspects of life seek out for truth in music, literature, science, philosophy
5. There is a gap that can't be explained by cause and effect
6. Consciousness has contradicted the scientific rule of cause and effect

There needs to be something that allows us to think out propositions, this is what the romantic/ religious man calls the soul, and if there is a high probability for the soul, it follows that a God also exists.
I named it as I did to attract people into discussion.

 

[Olm the Water King]

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.

 

[OptoGypsy]

We put up our own walls, create our own barriers, build our own truths. We create a castle where everything is interconnected to the point where if one piece crumbles it all comes crashing down. We then live our lives protecting the truth we have created, but if we created it, is it really truth or just a manipulation of mind and ourselves. While it is all true, it is based on self constructed data that was put there to create the think we were seeking the most. At that point our life is nothing more then an illusion we created and and our life we lived wasn't even truth at all which is what we were seeking in the first place.

Gotta love the way the mind works

Our brain truly is a fascinating idea.

 

[Poki]

Making a word salad doesn't automatically create a good argument. Why is atheism naïve? I suppose its compared to theism? What then makes theism a less naïve position?

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.