-->
@3RU7AL
I think the difference between humans and other animals is PROBABLY that humans have the capacity to contemplate whether or not we have free will. I doubt a lizard or even a dog can or will do that.
how many atheists don't think humans are just robots?
Posts
Total:
252
-->
@3RU7AL
You've convinced me a non-physical-soul "exists".Now what? How does this information help me decide which ancient rule-book I should model my life around?
Where exactly did I convince you?
If you're convinced there's a non-physical-soul, then what would you think the next should be?
For instance, do you think this realizing a non-physical-soul exists necessitates following one of the ancient rule-books?
-->
@RoderickSpode
An atheist once told me he thought that when he dies he will evolve into a higher life form. Does such a notion qualify as a magical realm?
Depends on if he moves into a 'different' realm than this one, the only one we can demonstrate. if so, then yes, it's a magical realm. If not, then I have no reason to believe he'll 'evolve' into anything like a 'higher life form.' THat phrase is pretty meaningless in general, higher than what? How is that defined? Suffice it to say that being an atheist doesn't make you right about anything by default, certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with him. Believing you will 'evolve' into a higher form of life sounds indeed like magic.
Do you think it's inevitable then since I think for the most part that's what we're trying to do? At least I'm not aware of any restraints on human similarity.
I do believe sentient AI will be a reality, maybe not while I'm alive, but down the road. It doesn't seem far fetched.
. The questions you're posing sound right out of a Bible skeptics book. It's almost as if you're equating it'sinterpretationwithBible refutation arguments. I don't think Mary Shelly had the Bible skepticmind framethat I'm aware of.
Asking those questions do not in any way have to refer to the bible at all. I don't care what mind frame she had, it's immaterial. THe questions are raised by the text. Does something that creates a sentient life form, in any form or fashion, owe that life form anything else? Does the life form owe anything to its benefactor? Why? I can certainly see how the answers would have the potential to make someone uncomfortable, but that's why they're interesting to talk about. Whatever Frankenstein's intent was in creating the monster, what rights did he have over it once it was created?
Jesus figured out what we were looking for, then decided to make foxes look like dogs, meaning that our efforts to do all that genetic engineering weren't ACTUALLY working, they just looked like they were working, but were actually responding to divine intervention. Feasible?Not particularly. No.Why not?Maybe you could clarify a bit more?Your statement looks something along the lines of God fooling us into theorizing Darwinian evolution.
Why is god working in a way that looks like genetic engineering not a feasible conclusion to the experiment?
-->
@janesix
I think the difference between humans and other animals is PROBABLY that humans have the capacity to contemplate whether or not we have free will. I doubt a lizard or even a dog can or will do that.
So, basically the prefrontal cortex.
-->
@3RU7AL
could be.
-->
@keithprosser
Not necessarily IMO.A very untypical atheist I would say!
I think the more vocal atheist, what we would might call in general terms atheist activists would generally lean toward the idea of non-existence after death. But I think atheist activists in genreal are a minority. Most atheists we probably wouldn't know them to be atheists unless we pry it out of them.
This particular atheist is the type who adapts to Hollywood's version of atheism (He's a Trekkie). Many of our sci-fi themed media outlets contribute a lot to the thoughts and philosophies of many of it's viewers. The idea of evolving into a higher life form is seen as a non-religious alternative to non-existence. And at the same time doesn't seem to violate any laws of naturalistic evolution.
-->
@RoderickSpode
That seems to be where most people tend to go with this sort of argument.For instance, do you think this realizing a non-physical-soul exists necessitates following one of the ancient rule-books?
What are you proposing specifically? I'm just not sure how adding a "non-physical-soul" (hidden variable) into the mix actually CHANGES anything.
-->
@3RU7AL
A soul obviously means there is more to it than just our physical bodies. It changes everything.
-->
@ludofl3x
Whatever Frankenstein's intent was in creating the monster, what rights did he have over it once it was created?
Right, in other words, does a hypothetical god owe us happiness or do we owe a hypothetical god our eternal devotion?
-->
@janesix
A soul obviously means there is more to it than just our physical bodies. It changes everything.
Please explain.
Humans are currently unable to build a termite.
We don't know exactly how a termite knows how to build a nest. We don't know where its instincts reside.
Do you think it would be fair to conclude that, simply because we don't know these things, that it-must-be because they possess a (hidden variable) termite soul?
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to understand them?
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to kill them?
You say "it changes everything" but I'm just not seeing it. What do you think it changes?
-->
@RoderickSpode
This particular atheist is the type who adapts to Hollywood's version of atheism (He's a Trekkie). Many of our sci-fi themed media outlets contribute a lot to the thoughts and philosophies of many of it's viewers. The idea of evolving into a higher life form is seen as a non-religious alternative to non-existence. And at the same time doesn't seem to violate any laws of naturalistic evolution.
This has literally nothing to do with atheism. "Sci fi themed media outlets?" Do you mean like an MSNBC / FoxNews / CNN but it is done on sets that look like the Death Star? Because if that's NOT what you mean, I have a patent to go file.
Being a trekkie has literally nothing to do with being an atheist, and I think you seriously need to re-examine your understanding of the 'laws of naturalistic evolution.' Evolution is based on species changing via reproduction over long periods of time, in response only to environmental pressures (artifical evolution would be either acceleration or aiming for specific traits via human intervention in the reproductive process). You could not be more incorrect if you're saying one specimen dying somehow comports with any understanding of naturalistic evolution. When I die, my evolution is officially over. I actually DE-volve into the elements from which I am comprised. Adding anything else requires demonstration abset which it is rightly called fantasy / magic / hokem.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain.Humans are currently unable to build a termite.We don't know exactly how it knows how to build a nest. We don't know where its instincts reside.Do you think it would be fair to conclude that, simply because we don't know these things, that it-must-be because they possess a hidden variable termite soul?
No, but if I have a soul, then i have to assume a termite has a soul as well.
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to understand them?
Of course not
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to kill them?
I don't know. It was arranged, and I don't know why, that life feeds on life . We are naturally territorial, as is every other animal,and probably plants as well. I don't have to like it,but i have to participate because nature or God had deemed it so, if I want to survive, and I do. So I have to kill animals and plants for food,and protect myself and my territory form other living creatures. I have thought about this a lot. I don't know why life has to feed on life, or if there is another way to live. Plants,and a few animals can survive on photosynthesis. Maybe it COULD be arranged in another way. I don't know.
I suppose as humans we could at least figure out how to create the least destruction of other living beings, like the jains, just eating fallen fruit and trying not to move around too much in hopes of not squishing bugs. We could stop bathing and washing our hands and using sanitizers to clean our homes in order to not kill and bugs or bacteria. But for me personally, I must not be very spiritually advanced, as I want to take a shower, and I like meat and will not give it up any time soon. I have tried a few times to at least be a vegetarian, but it never lasts long. And plants, do they feel pain, are they conscious being too? They could be. What is left to eat ? Gotta eat something.
You say "it changes everything" but I'm just not seeing it. What do you think it changes?
It means that if there is a soul, then there is the spirit world we need to learn about,and understand.
-->
@janesix
Do you think it would be fair to conclude that, simply because we don't know these things, that it-must-be because they possess a hidden variable termite soul?No, but if I have a soul, then i have to assume a termite has a soul as well.
What about a rock a river or a robot? Do they have souls too?
And if we are convinced that termites have souls, does this mean we should stop trying to kill them?I don't know. It was arranged, and I don't know why, that life feeds on life .
Good idea, maybe we should eat termites.
We are naturally territorial, as is every other animal,and probably plants as well. I don't have to like it,but i have to participate because nature or God had deemed it so, if I want to survive, and I do. So I have to kill animals and plants for food,and protect myself and my territory form other living creatures. I have thought about this a lot. I don't know why life has to feed on life, or if there is another way to live. Plants,and a few animals can survive on photosynthesis. Maybe it COULD be arranged in another way. I don't know.
C'est la vie? Your paragraph here sounds like an argument for "natural law" or "law of the jungle" or "kill or be killed" or "status quo".
I suppose as humans we could at least figure out how to create the least destruction of other living beings, like the jains, just eating fallen fruit and trying not to move around too much in hopes of not squishing bugs. We could stop bathing and washing our hands and using sanitizers to clean our homes in order to not kill and bugs or bacteria. But for me personally, I must not be very spiritually advanced, as I want to take a shower, and I like meat and will not give it up any time soon. I have tried a few times to at least be a vegetarian, but it never lasts long. And plants, do they feel pain, are they conscious being too? They could be. What is left to eat ? Gotta eat something.
I understand that feeling some level of empathy for all living things is a symptom of a nascent super-ego and I also understand "you gotta do what you gotta do" (id).
I'm just not sure what any of this has to do with a non-physical soul (hidden variable).
You say "it changes everything" but I'm just not seeing it. What do you think it changes?It means that if there is a soul, then there is the spirit world we need to learn about,and understand.
I thought the whole point of "the non-physical soul" (hidden variable) was that we can't observe it scientifically.
How do you propose we learn about and understand it?
-->
@3RU7AL
What about a rock a river or a robot? Do they have souls too?
I doubt it.
Good idea, maybe we should eat termites.
Some people do. I would if I were hungry enough lol.
I understand that feeling some level of empathy for all living things is a symptom of a nascent super-ego and I also understand "you gotta do what you gotta do". I'm just not sure what any of this has to do with a non-physical soul (hidden variable).
Maybe I went off on a tangent? I don't know. I guess I just have a feeling that living beings, empathy, has to do with our spiritual growth.
I thought the whole point of "the non-physical soul" (hidden variable) was that we can't observe it scientifically.How do you propose we learn about and understand it?
We could start with energy. I know that there are energies involved, and we may at some time in the future be able to detect them. I have felt and seen it, so I know it exists. We may also come to an understanding of morphic fields, which I also believe exist. I believe they are somehow linked to souls.
-->
@janesix
How do you propose we learn about and understand it?We could start with energy. I know that there are energies involved, and we may at some time in the future be able to detect them. I have felt and seen it, so I know it exists. We may also come to an understanding of morphic fields, which I also believe exist. I believe they are somehow linked to souls.
All of that is interesting, but it doesn't seem to have any tangible effect on "you gotta do what you gotta do".
People with low empathy will continue to act as they act.
People with high empathy will continue to act as they act.
Whether or not they have souls seems, well, immaterial?
-->
@3RU7AL
ll of that is interesting, but it doesn't seem to have any tangible effect on "you gotta do what you gotta do".People with low empathy will continue to act as they act.People with high empathy will continue to act as they act.Whether or not they have souls seems, well, immaterial?
I don't know about that. Spiritual growth is involved. And that has to do intimately with the soul.
-->
@janesix
I don't know about that. Spiritual growth is involved. And that has to do intimately with the soul.
(IFF) "high empathy" = "spiritual growth" (THEN) science can solve this. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) "high empathy" = "spiritual growth" (THEN) science can solve this. [LINK]
Self-improvement isn't science. It's consciensious hard work.
-->
@janesix
Self-improvement isn't science. It's consciensious hard work.
Is this another way of saying "figure it out for yourself"?
Or do you follow some pre-existing framework?
-->
@RoderickSpode
doesn't seem to violate any laws of naturalistic evolution.
Nah it just violates the laws of LIFE.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure there is a framework. Almost nothing is black and white. There do seem to be different levels, that involve different categories of moral improvement. The chakra system seems to be set up this way. For instance, base instincts are involved with the lower chakras, and need to be addressed before something more complicated like moral courage which is involved with the third chakra. Maybe the chakra system is the framework, I don't know.
-->
@janesix
Maybe the chakra system is the framework, I don't know.
That seems like as good a place as any to start a spiritual journey. [LINK]
-->
@ludofl3x
if you showed people thinking they were abducted by aliens, or seeing random images, then you could call it a random hallucination. atheists have to at least admit the hallucinations if that's what they are, are not too random. they are very consistent stories.
'the brain is trying to come up with a way of explaining things' i think is what you are arguing, is just a posited reason WHY there is a death story embedded in our brain. the fact remains they are consistent death stories.
the consistency of NDEs proves that they are either experiences of higher realms, or they are death stories embedded in our brain. anything other explanation is just the stupid and illogical musings of atheists.
like the sky is generally blue, or that there are three primary colors that humans see, these are facts. just like there's consistent death stories when people die and come back. that's a fact. to say it's not is illogical. why is there that story? either the brain is telling us a story before we die, or people are experiencing another realm. it's far fetched to say it's the brain telling us a story considering how lucid they are, and how detailed, like sometimes seeing a beautiful city with the deceased. why are there only less than five percent of people met on other side alive? if it was just a hallucination shouldn't that number be higher? plus the book 'evidence of the afterlife' and the AWARE study and all the credible out of body verification stories.... the evidence is plain, and overwhelming. it's clear atheists just have a stupid, deep seated need to not believe.
-->
@3RU7AL
Idk, vagueness on my part maybe.You know I'm a free will skeptic right.You seemed like you might be "on the fence" a bit.
If asked "How do you know __________?" I'm always going to point out that I don't "know" with certainty. I'm only human. I don't know we have no soul, or that free will does not exist -- but I think there are good reasons to doubt it. Or rather, I think there are better reasons to doubt it than to believe it.
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm amazing, so you make a strong argument. I'll have to think about this. (What do you mean "maybe" Lenny Kravitz.)Well, I think if you can sing a song by an African American pop star (with the exception of maybe Lenny Kravitz), you must have a soul.It might depend on how well you did though.
-->
@keithprosser
A practical way of thinking about it. But it pushes the term toward being merely synonymous with "autonomy" or something.I think the term 'free will' refers to something that isn't actually 'free' or 'will'.Free will is what a leaf blowing in the wind doesn't have that I, walking into that wind to get to the shops, do have.
-->
@3RU7AL
*runs away crying*I have no idea why some other atheists enjoy pointing out we're soulless machines so much. "Ha ha! You got no free will, sucka! Your brain is just a machine, God boy! We're all powerless fatherless accidents in a meaningless universe and we're all gonna die and that's it, lights out! Ha ha... ha... heh... eh... oh. Wait."In my experience, atheists seem quite shy about talking about how gods and souls are purely imaginary, kinda like when you overhear a kid talking excitedly about Santa Claus, you generally keep your mouth shut because you don't really want them to burst into tears right in front of you.
-->
@Castin
If asked "How do you know __________?" I'm always going to point out that I don't "know" with certainty. I'm only human. I don't know we have no soul, or that free will does not exist -- but I think there are good reasons to doubt it. Or rather, I think there are better reasons to doubt it than to believe it.
I'm just trying to highlight that there are some things that are provably false (logically incoherent) and these things we can be absolutely certain of.
Freewill is logically incoherent.
The "existence" or non-existence of a (substance dualism) human soul is tautologically moot (not to mention that anything "undetectable" violates the very definition of "exists").
So even an extremely generous argument that allows for the hypothetical "existence" of an undetectable (substance dualism) human soul, DOES NOT itself do anything whatsoever to support any PARTICULAR religious teachings. [LINK]
There are a few things you can be absolutely 100% confident about.
-->
@3RU7AL
There are a few things you can be absolutely 100% confident about.
The saying is death and taxes, but it's really just death :).