Win Prizes Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

[Gethelred]

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack.

As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them.

If you've still got a live question posted to a christian, feel free to continue conversing for the time being.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Someone who believes there is only one physical plane of existence. Everything is made of matter, including consciousness, and every action is likely a function of the 4 known forces of the universe.

There appears to be a physical universe. We can use tools like science to construct models that give us useful predictions of that externality. But it's always limited by our human perspective. Our 'reality' is what we can perceive and what we choose to focus on. Currently, our models of reality put us somewhere between minute quantum particles that we might never understand and the enormity of space that is equally hard to get our heads round.

It's a mistake to say consciousness is made of matter. Matter as described by 21st century physicists is one way of usefully modeling reality about particles, planets and stars. Consciousness exists on another level to those models of modern scientific reality.

 

[Seeds]

I think hes taken the lighthearted view that physicalist "worships" physical objects - hence the reference to big trucks.

as to an earlier post you made, how will one find consciousness as a state of matter? Will it be in the pattern of neuronal activity in the brain?

Its a belief. The idea that consciousness, like everything else, is an emergent property of matter and forces just like a liquid or gas is.



it may seem weird. But all the other alternative explanations for consciousness seem far weirder.

 

[Seeds]

There appears to be a physical universe. We can use tools like science to construct models that give us useful predictions of that externality. But it's always limited by our human perspective. Our 'reality' is what we can perceive and what we choose to focus on. Currently, our models of reality put us somewhere between minute quantum particles that we might never understand and the enormity of space that is equally hard to get our heads round.

It's a mistake to say consciousness is made of matter. Matter as described by 21st century physicists is one way of usefully modeling reality about particles, planets and stars. Consciousness exists on another level to those models of modern scientific reality.

So you believe in spiritual planes of existence where consciousness lies? Like descartes?

the idea of life creating new life, the existence of different species, and the idea of planets moving a sun all seemed pretty spirtual at one point. Until we eventually explained it with matter and forces.

to believe consciousness is the exception to the rule of everything else in existence that we can perceive seems pretty fantastical. If you can believe that then i struggle to understand how you wouldnt believe in all sorts of fantastical stuff like ghosts, souls and afterlifes etc.

 

[sataris]

I worship the sun.

1. I can see it
2. I can see the impact it has on things
3. My prayers get answered at roughly the same rate as before.

Does this make my a physicalist?

PS: For those who are unaware, the sun is hot.

 

[mcnulty]

I worship the sun.

1. I can see it
2. I can see the impact it has on things
3. My prayers get answered at roughly the same rate as before.

Does this make my a physicalist?

PS: For those who are unaware, the sun is hot.

That George Carlin bit is gold

 

[Frank Bunn]

So you believe in spiritual planes of existence where consciousness lies? Like descartes?

Not really. When we model reality with our limited human understanding it applies at different levels. There's electrons going round the world between my computer and your computer. But if you put an electron detector in place it wouldn't tell you anything of value about this conversation. Or even at a higher level such as the bits, bytes, internet protocols etc.

We model the types of matter that we can conceive - to make useful predictions and tools. Consciousness (probably) has to be a product of a physical universe. But it's at a different level of understanding than electrons, bits and bytes. It doesn't imply belief in fantastical stuff like ghosts, souls and afterlifes etc.

 

[Total Power]

Consciousness (probably) has to be a product of a physical universe.

The reverse is likely to be true. There's one consciousness, nothing like my consciousness or yours.We are just having a human experience. We are all connected. I can't prove it in a lab and this will be subject to ridicule here mostly for this reason, however the only way to prove it is by using your body, the most sophisticated thing we know. Many many ancient cultures have written about it but as we strive for materialism, this art is slowly lost (although still exists).

Which brings us to Roger Penrose and his theories linking consciousness and quantum mechanics. He does not overtly identify himself as a panpsychist, but his argument that self-awareness and free will begin with quantum events in the brain inevitably links our minds with the cosmos. Penrose sums up this connection beautifully in his opus “The Road to Reality:”

“The laws of physics produce complex systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then produces mathematics, which can then encode in a succinct and inspiring way the very underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it.”

Consciousness in the Universe is Scale Invariant and Implies an Event Horizon of the Human Brain

research.rug.nl

“Our brain is not a “stand alone” information processing organ: it acts as a central part of our integral nervous system with recurrent information exchange with the entire organism and the cosmos. In this study, the brain is conceived to be embedded in a holographic structured field that interacts with resonant sensitive structures in the various cell types in our body.”


It's extremely difficult to do any research on this, as you can't get behind consciousness as it has no properties.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The reverse is likely to be true. There's one consciousness, nothing like my consciousness or yours.We are just having a human experience. We are all connected. I can't prove it in a lab and this will be subject to ridicule here mostly for this reason, however the only way to prove it is by using your body, the most sophisticated thing we know. Many many ancient cultures have written about it but as we strive for materialism, this art is slowly lost (although still exists).

Which brings us to Roger Penrose and his theories linking consciousness and quantum mechanics. He does not overtly identify himself as a panpsychist, but his argument that self-awareness and free will begin with quantum events in the brain inevitably links our minds with the cosmos. Penrose sums up this connection beautifully in his opus “The Road to Reality:”

“The laws of physics produce complex systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then produces mathematics, which can then encode in a succinct and inspiring way the very underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it.”

Consciousness in the Universe is Scale Invariant and Implies an Event Horizon of the Human Brain

research.rug.nl

“Our brain is not a “stand alone” information processing organ: it acts as a central part of our integral nervous system with recurrent information exchange with the entire organism and the cosmos. In this study, the brain is conceived to be embedded in a holographic structured field that interacts with resonant sensitive structures in the various cell types in our body.”


It's extremely difficult to do any research on this, as you can't get behind consciousness as it has no properties.

Is this idea you mentioned, of one consciousness that connects us all and inevitably links our minds to the cosmos - a form of pantheism? I suppose we could ponder whether or not pantheism is a form of theism.

You could argue the laws of physics lead to evolution which leads to consciousness. Physicist Frank Tipler goes further and says the universe will ultimately evolve to a state of infinite complexity and consciousness - equivalent to the concept of God. This is known as the final anthropic principle.

There are other anthropic principles all based on that if some of the constants of nature were only slightly different then the universe would be so different from what we observe there would be no chance of life. The universe seems to be fine tuned in a number of ways to allow life to exist in it.

Supporters of Intelligent Design argue this fine tuning is evidence for the existence of a God. I don't buy it. you are still left with the problem of explaining an entity just as complex as the original thing were trying to describe.

The weak anthropic principle says that there are lots of universes with all possible values of these constants of nature and different laws of physics. We just happen to live in the one where the values have allowed matter to form and life to begin. A multiverse explanation still puts the problem one step further back. Are there a finite or infinite number of universes? Do they interact with each other?

Then there's the participatory anthropic principle. Intelligent life, or consciousness, is the means by which the universe is changed or even created. The observer effect in quantum mechanics refers to the idea that the act of observing a quantum system can affect the system being observed. It's argued that if it's true of tiny particles it must be true of cats, planets and galaxies too. There are many interpretations of this, including that - human consciousness changes the nature of the world, but God, as the ultimate observer or consciousness created the universe. Again it has the problem that it just pushes the question back to where the original consciousness came from.

I didn't understand the paper you linked to <sad face>. But what I was thinking is that even if consciousness arises in the brain and nervous system it's not necessarily contained there. Whenever you interact with other conscious entities your consciousness extends to wherever that interaction takes place.

 

[Total Power]

Is this idea you mentioned, of one consciousness that connects us all and inevitably links our minds to the cosmos - a form of pantheism? I suppose we could ponder whether or not pantheism is a form of theism.

You could argue the laws of physics lead to evolution which leads to consciousness. Physicist Frank Tipler goes further and says the universe will ultimately evolve to a state of infinite complexity and consciousness - equivalent to the concept of God. This is known as the final anthropic principle.

There are other anthropic principles all based on that if some of the constants of nature were only slightly different then the universe would be so different from what we observe there would be no chance of life. The universe seems to be fine tuned in a number of ways to allow life to exist in it.

Supporters of Intelligent Design argue this fine tuning is evidence for the existence of a God. I don't buy it. you are still left with the problem of explaining an entity just as complex as the original thing were trying to describe.

The weak anthropic principle says that there are lots of universes with all possible values of these constants of nature and different laws of physics. We just happen to live in the one where the values have allowed matter to form and life to begin. A multiverse explanation still puts the problem one step further back. Are there a finite or infinite number of universes? Do they interact with each other?

Then there's the participatory anthropic principle. Intelligent life, or consciousness, is the means by which the universe is changed or even created. The observer effect in quantum mechanics refers to the idea that the act of observing a quantum system can affect the system being observed. It's argued that if it's true of tiny particles it must be true of cats, planets and galaxies too. There are many interpretations of this, including that - human consciousness changes the nature of the world, but God, as the ultimate observer or consciousness created the universe. Again it has the problem that it just pushes the question back to where the original consciousness came from.

I didn't understand the paper you linked to <sad face>. But what I was thinking is that even if consciousness arises in the brain and nervous system it's not necessarily contained there. Whenever you interact with other conscious entities your consciousness extends to wherever that interaction takes place.

Good post.

Kinda pantheism but extends further to make the mind/matter connection. You can say this is an upgrade on Panthiem. The traditional argument here in favour of materialism is brain produces consciousness which is local in nature. I said that is false, consciousness is non-local in nature and is a fundamental property of the universe as argued by the likes of Planck, Bohm, Bohrs, Schrodinger, Born etc, which produces reality not vice versa.

Reality: How does consciousness fit in?

This is the central question in quantum mechanics, and has spawned a plethora of proposals, or interpretations. The most popular is the Copenhagen interpretation, which says nothing is real until it is observed, or measured. Observing a wave function causes the superposition to collapse.

However, Copenhagen says nothing about what exactly constitutes an observation. John von Neumann broke this silence and suggested that observation is the action of a conscious mind. It’s an idea also put forward by Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, who said in 1931, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The obvious answer is yes—a tree falling makes a sound whether or not we hear it—but certain experts in quantum mechanics argue that without an observer, all possible realities exist. That means that the tree both falls and doesn't fall, makes a sound and is silent, and all other possibilities therein.

Nothing exists in reality without a conscious observer like you mentioned above.

According to the quantum physicist R.C Henry, the greatest minds in theoretical physics believed that the universe looks more ‘like a giant thought than like a giant machine.’ He went on to say that the mind should not be thought of as “an accidental intruder into the realm of matter” but rather “as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”

To the critics of the quantum physics model Henry had a very succinct and blunt message; “Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”

Some great quantum physicists have explained the nessessity for consciousness at a sub-atomic level. Max Planck and David Bohm have hinted as to the underlying awareness of everything. In order to engage in the human experience, we certainly need the Cerebral-Spinal-Nervous System, but as opposed to the atheistic view of this "creating mind", it is viewed more like a filter or a receiver of consciousness.

But as Bohm said, you can only experience it in finite ways by observing it. From a gnostic perspective, one cannot experience truth via intellectual observation, which is why the intellect needs to be rested through transcendental meditation.That can be scientifically analysed but hasn't been and often frowned upon in the West.. Trouble is, anything that whiffs of esotericism is avoided by scientists who value their career more than undertaking science with an open mind.

 

[peetoo]

Organised religion has worked hard over the centuries to obliterate all that spititualism

In place they just give you ‘obey and you will be happy’. How convenient

 

[kranky al]

Im wondering if i should start an agnostics thread where my answer to every question is meh, not sure, yeah sorry dunno, could be… but it might not be as well, funked if i have the foggiest.

 

[evolved2]

Im wondering if i should start an agnostics thread where my answer to every question is meh, not sure, yeah sorry dunno, could be… but it might not be as well, funked if i have the foggiest.

Dunno mate. Tough question.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Im wondering if i should start an agnostics thread where my answer to every question is meh, not sure, yeah sorry dunno, could be… but it might not be as well, funked if i have the foggiest.

Nah yeah. If you want. Maybe.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Atheists have adopted a moral code which was developed by religion, but declined the immoral parts of religion.

It's more complicated than that. Morality is subjective, and atheists and the religious change with the times. There are some humanist themes in Christianity which most would argue have been for the better in society.

For example, William Wilberforce was deeply committed to his Christian faith and believed that his work in social reform was an expression of his religious convictions. He is best known for his role in the abolition of the slave trade and slavery in the British Empire. He was also involved in many other social reform movements, including the campaign for prison reform and the founding of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

William T. Stead was brought up in a Congregationalist family and remained a committed Christian throughout his life. He saw his work as a social reformer and journalist as a way to put Christian principles into practice and make the world a better place. He was one of the most notable figures in the movement to end child prostitution in Victorian England. As a result, the age of consent was raised from 13 to 16, and laws were passed to crack down on prostitution and human trafficking.

 

[Not Important]

Both genealogies in Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' ancestry back to David through his father Joseph. After all Joseph's paternity was essential to establish Jesus' Davidic descent. Mary's virginity was therefore questionable.

i'm intrigued by peeps who quote from the bible. do you think the bible is a textbook of science, history, or archaeology?

 

[peetoo]

i'm intrigued by peeps who quote from the bible. do you think the bible is a textbook of science, history, or archaeology?

Would be funny if it was organised by the Murdoch of the times

 

[Roylion]

do you think the bible is a textbook of science, history, or archaeology?

None of them.

 

[Not Important]

None of them.

so i'm assuming you don't regard it as authoritative. in which case, why quote from it?

 

[owen87]

so i'm assuming you don't regard it as authoritative. in which case, why quote from it?

Same reason he might quote from Harry Potter or The Hobbit I guess?

 

[Boston tiger]

What I said was....

"there’s probably a few more believable and supportable reasons other than there actually was historically a virgin birth with a divine father.

For example:
1. The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century AD. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin.

Note the word "may". In other words, apart from the Gospels, there were other stories going around at the time about virgins giving birth with divine intervention. The so called "virgin" birth of Jesus isn't unique and Livy's which was written between 27 BC and 9 BC and is therefore at least 90 years older than the story described in Matthew, which according to mainstream scholarship was written after AD 80. At the time the Gospel of Matthew was being assembled / written, Judea was under the rule of Rome and had been for some decades. The story of the mythical founder of Rome via Livy (as I said his works were very popular) and possibly other earlier works would not have been unknown in Judea.

I also made the point that there's plenty of stories of personages that have a divine father attributed to them, similar to what is claimed about Jesus.

Stories of heroes with divine fathers were very common in stories around the time, particularly in Greek mythology, which would have been well known in the Hellenic world of which Judea and Rome were firmly a part of. For example:

• Heracles was supposedly the son of Zeus (king of the gods) and Alcmene, a mortal woman.
• Helen was daughter of Zeus and Leda not of the mortal King Tyndareus and Leda.
• Theseus was son of Poseidon (the sea god) and Aethra and not of the mortal King Aegeus and Aethra.

I've addressed the so-called Isaiah "prophecy". Here it is yet again. Do you actually read anything?

4. The virgin birth story was an honest mistake:

The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for "virgin". When Greek translators were translating the Hebrew writings into the Greek Septuagint and similar translations, they mistranslated the Hebrew word "almah" into he Greek word "parthénos", which can mean "young woman," but usually means "virgin.' "Almah" appears nine other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the Hebrew Scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word "betulah". So, it appears certain that Isaiah referred to a young woman becoming pregnant -- a relatively ordinary event.

This last explanation is most likely in my view. The so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not even about the Messiah either, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

It’s interesting that the writers of the later Gospel of St John did NOT mention the Virgin Birth. Given that most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John came after Matthew and Luke, they almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching.

The earlier Gospel of Mark also did not mention the "virgin" birth. Surely for something so miraculous actually occurring, it would have been well known from the earliest time, these stories started to be written down.

“ They seem to have rejected it as false teaching”

Just so bad Roy . Just stop. I don’t know what axe you have to grind but just stop.

 

[Total Power]

“ They seem to have rejected it as false teaching”

Just so bad Roy . Just stop. I don’t know what axe you have to grind but just stop.

So you are back with your one liners again, you add nothing to the discussion, outside of a few insults. Let the grown ups talk atleast? Why do you think the above statement is ridiculous? care to explain? ah wait..it's you BT.

 

[Boston tiger]

So you are back with your one liners again, you add nothing to the discussion, outside of a few insults. Let the grown ups talk atleast? Why do you think the above statement is ridiculous? care to explain? ah wait..it's you BT.

You should know of all people.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

But Jesus was not raised by wolves?

and Mary was a young woman?

No, he danced with wolves.

 

[Gethelred]

Alright peeps!

To avoid conversation being diverted into a rabbit hole of biblical proportions, another thread has been created for specifically bible discussion:

Religion - The Bible: Literal, figurative, bulldust?

To clearly delineate conversation between threads, this thread is for specifically bible talk; if you're debating biblical historicity or lack of it, if you're talking interpretation, this is the thread for you. Standard board rules apply. Go nuts.

www.bigfooty.com

While conversation in here could involve the bible, I'd like to remind everyone that the thread is Ask an Atheist; if you have a question for an Atheist that involves the bible, it's fair play. If you're simply going to post bible verses or argue about historicity, the other thread's the place for that.

Subsequent off topic posting will be deleted or moved.

Thanks all!

 

[Gethelred]

No, he danced with wolves.

Jesus is Kevin Costner?