Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 29. (Read 38470 times)

I totally agree. People everywhere are just as smart as people anywhere. As you point out, they just have a different way of putting it into perspective and passing it on. The idea of provable facts and logical inquiry is a relatively new phenomena. To ancient people and those who still live in an ancient way, facts are not as important as "truths". In the Noah example, the ark and the flood are just a vehicle for getting at the idea of punishing the wicked even if wickedness has become the norm.  
The Bhagavad Gita, the book of the dead, etc. they have similar messages and concepts.

Of course, it should be obvious that you're not going to find any science in a text that predates the scientific revolution by 1000+ years.  But, that doesn't mean people were dumb back then.  I'm sure people then had ways of learning that we would consider unorthodox today, but that doesn't make them invalid.

I think it's worth noting that there exist civilizations today whose cultures are still pre-scientific.  But, what's interesting is that these cultures are the go-to for many western scientists and researchers looking for new information.  Somewhere around 80-90% of all knowledge pertaining to the effects of pharmaceutical ingredients is based upon indigenous tribal knowledge.  And, if you speak with the tribal leaders (aka 'shamans') they will tell you that they acquired most of their botanical knowledge through communication with 'spirits', often after the consumption of hallucinogenic substances such as ayuhuasca and tobacco.

For a closer look at the unorthodox learning practices of these tribal cultures, I recommend "The Cosmic Serpant: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Stanford anthropologist, Jeremy Narby.

Actually, it's all just statistical probability in a world of chaos. If we pick up a ball and drop it, there is a close to 100% chance that it will fall towards the gravitational center of the nearest body with the most mass. We know this not so much through interpreting observational evidence, as through figuring out the actual mechanics of the process. Likewise with evolution, the reason that theory allows us to predict what happens to species with such great accuracy is not so much because we have observed it in the past, and believe it will happen again just because it has happened before, but because through observation we have figured out the actual mechanics of the system, the parts that make it work, and why. We understand that if this shifts to that, and this becomes that, the end result will most likely be so-and-so. It's the difference between stating that a lever works in a specific way because you have seen it work in a specific way, and knowing that it works in a specific way because you know and understand the laws of physics that the lever, and everything else in this universe, has to follow. Due to this, I can't see how we can formulate an actual conclusion for the mechanism of evolution of consciousness. At least not beyond the "brain evolving as a computational machine."



As in reply to #1, experience does not mean knowing. Plenty of people experienced solar eclipses, and claimed to know what causes them, but it wasn't until we actually discovered and studied the mechanism of our solar system that we actually knew. And those who don't know how our solar system works, still won't be able to figure out solar eclipses just by experiencing them.


I think atheists simply reject the idea of a "mental" reality; at least in a sense of there being anything spiritual, or beyond our physical world.



Not sure what you are trying to say here, because it sounds like you are claiming that before language (actual language, involving words and such), nothing could exist. Yet we know things existed for millions of years, reality and all, before humans came along and invented language. There was a ton of other communications methods before then, and some of them unconscious even (meteor hit moon, mood change orbit, signal received). Maybe you can restate this a bit differently?


Chance and probability are not unknown, nor supernatural. It just means that either of two or more options can happen, and we can't predict which, but we do know what has happened after it has. E.g. you can drop metal filings all around a magnet, expecting then to fall into perfect spheres around the edges of magnetic lines, but many of the filings will fall a bit off, or in a weirdly turned way. We can't predict that, but we can easily explain that it was due to air resistance, some of them bumping into each other, and outside magnetic interference. Totally random chance probability, but nothing supernatural or unknown.



Do you believe the universe can exist without us being there to observe it? If yes, then I'm not sure how you can hold the view that reality is the output of our internally processed information. (If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)


That's actually the thing that has been confusing people for millenia, making them think that they are somehow apart from their bodied, just existing in their heads and using their ears and eyes to look out into the world. I don't know about other atheists, but as one myself, I claim that, yes, I am different from a tree, in a sense that the tree is an organism with it's own system, but I am not very different from my body, in a sense that my body and my consciousness are all part of the same organism, linked directly together through the nervous system. The tree and my body both exist in the same system, planet earth, but that doesn't make the computational part of my organism that gives me consciousness a part of the tree.

I think you have some interesting criticisms. personally I like to be challenged in my assumptions.  But mythology from the bronze age is no answer to the perceived failings of science. The Bible is a collection of ancient mythic tales. Some are copies from earlier religions, most are clearly not "true", in the sense that they depict actual events.
For example, Noah and the ark. This story comes from Sumerian religion where it was called "The Epic of Gilgamesh".  Of course, there never was a global flood or a ship that carried the 8.7million species of living things. Like the thousands of other stories from antiquity, they seek to enlighten us with metaphor and symbolism.  

I like this part. Most of them tell you that is faith where I tell them so you claim god to be asking you not to reason or discuss his existence?


I just want to kiss you for this part. Very nice.


Please do. Thank you that was a good read .

Where typical atheists get off track:

1). They mistake evidence for fact and mistake models based upon evidence for fact.  The theory of evolution is a perfect example. We have a large set of evidence and people interpret this evidence to support evolution.  However, utilizing the exact same set of evidence we can formulate an equally valid, opposing theory, namely one in which evolved states of consciousness lead to evolves physical states rather than vice versa.

2).  They underestimate the soundness of logic.  Perception itself is inherently entwined with binary logic, for if it weren't, you'd never even be able to distinguish anything as different from everything else.  In fact, you could never even assert that you perceive anything at all.  

3).  They neglect experience as a means to knowing.  This is often ironic in that many atheists also claim things like 'truth is relative' or 'logic is abstract' and then utilize abstract interpretations of evidence to deny the existence of god.  

4).  They adhere to Cartesian dualism by which it is asserted that there is an unbridgable chasm between mental and physical reality.  This leads them to trying to argue against the existence of god as an entity that is somehow totally independent from reality, but at the same time has the capacity to intervene in reality.  I think the main reason for this is that they've heard god defined in this way by idiot Christians and other religious people who have poor reasoning ability.

5).  They emphasize the importance of math, but they fail to realize that the most basic algebraic structure is language.  In fact, every identifiable object or concept is, by definition, its own language.  "In the beginning was the word" is true as fuck.  Language (I.e. syntax + content + grammar) lays the foundation for all of reality, and it is far more important to have a solid grasp of syntactic operations than to know how to calculate specific math problems or formulate models.  You can't understand the universe without understanding language because the universe IS a language.  

6).  They use words like "supernatural" to refer to religious claims, but then they forget that 'chance' and 'probability' are just alternative words for unknown specific causation.  Furthermore, they experience cognitive dissonance in light of paradoxes which, contrary to popular belief, are self-resolving rather than impossible.

7).  They mistakenly study reality as if it is the input of our experience when it is actually the output of internally processed information.

8.)  They don't understand the relationship between subjects and objects in the universe, or at least they cease their understanding when objects are in close proximity to the subject.  For example, they will instantly assert they are different from a tree (an object) but not different than, say, their body (also an object).  This is a problem when they then assert that the death of the body equates to death of the subject.

I might post more later...

Dear god I would NEVER suggest such a thing! 

Or do you think Hatsune Miku-chain is without emotions  . Heresy!

And yet, we can measure the electricity, the magnetic field in the surrounding air around the metal, and can almost track individual electrons. Better yet, we understand it well enough to be able to calculate extremely precisely how that electron would move, and where exactly those magnetic fields will be generated and with what strengths, using detailed physics calculations derived from decades of testing and observation. I get the sense that you want to believe that consciousness is something unknowable, something greater than us, something that us mere mortals will never understand, while I believe that everything can be understood, measured, and eventually predicted with formulas and concepts after enough study.

Question: Once computer AI is able to compete with human intelligence, both on an intellectual and on an emotional level (i.e. it can solve complex problems, make complex decisions, AND feel good or bad about them), will you still think that consciousness is something more than a whole lot of computer code running on silicon (or carbon once we get that working)? Or would your definition of consciousness change from "this unknowable etheral thing of everything observing everything, where the whole universe is conscious" to something simpler and more mundane?

Here is a link to a site. I'm not familiar with this website, but it seems to have a variety of examples. There are thought to be about 200 texts that were left out during the meeting in Ephesus.  I have sat in the ruins of the room where it all took place. It is not much to look at now, but played a major role in shaping the world we live in now.

http://notinthebible.com/

Link please  . BTW we are getting away of the main subject here. guys focus on Atheism and not theism. or let us open another thread regarding theism.

For the curious about non-religous-like atheism. What I mean by that is not atheism in the sense of a fat guy promoting we ditch the idea of deities for a better life vehemently. Check this guy out

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hamza+tzortzis+atheism&oq=hamza+tzortzis+atheism&gs_l=youtube.3..0l2.1329.3228.0.3451.8.5.0.3.3.1.389.871.1j0j2j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.k068QMS1FQ4

Jackpot! This sums all the shit the happened and claimed to be caused by religions. Also there is the other part where people focus on the ritualistic nature of religions  and totally ditch their meanings and spiritual manifestation of them upon the way they interact with other creatures humans or others.