What is it?

The Pixie

Well-known member
You already believe you are material, dirt and mostly water.

Your thoughts are electrical stimuli.

What other 'mystery' there be is no mystery for you, it's just material arranged in a certain configuration, with temporary stimuli animation.

Pretty simple really.

If you truly believe something substantially different, state so.

Otherwise live with the above, it's all you got by your own definition of life, the universe, and everything.
I think it is the Bible that says we are dirt. We are material, and we are mostly water. These are things that can be shown to be true. Unlike the dirt claim. And similarly with regards to thoughts; science has shown that thoughts are electrical stimuli.

However, it is extremely complex, so there is still mystery. It is not "just" material arranged in a certain configuration, it is material arranged in a certain and extremely configuration. Not simple at all.

I am happy to live with that, because that is what the evidence points to. If you want to believe you have a soul based on nothing more than you really want it to be true, that is your choice.
 

Algor

Active member
When an atheist says "I'm gonna do some soul searching", no one blinks an eye.

When a Christian tells an atheist they should do some soul searching, they are met with fourteen reasons the soul doesn't exist, studies showing when people die their weight doesn't change, and any number of inane comments.
I think that strongly depends on the atheist.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It might not, but it might. Tip over a milk jug, then pick it up and move away. You may see things like an outline of the milk jug. Depending on the volume of milk spilled and the substrate that it spilled on , you might then have a very good idea ofthe height and shape of the milk jug. If you know the substrate and the volume of milk, you can also estimate the height from which a plain old splash is dropped. This sort of stuff is best worked out with blood splash, but the principles work with any fluid.

Nah. A puddle of milk tells you nothing much more than, "Hey, there's a puddle of milk. I wonder how that happened."
 

Algor

Active member
I think it is the Bible that says we are dirt. We are material, and we are mostly water. These are things that can be shown to be true. Unlike the dirt claim. And similarly with regards to thoughts; science has shown that thoughts are electrical stimuli.

However, it is extremely complex, so there is still mystery. It is not "just" material arranged in a certain configuration, it is material arranged in a certain and extremely configuration. Not simple at all.

I am happy to live with that, because that is what the evidence points to. If you want to believe you have a soul based on nothing more than you really want it to be true, that is your choice.
Errr.....I do not think science has shown that thoughts ARE a given physical process. I think the best you can say is that thoughts are dependant on physical processes. A thought is your experience of said processes, not the process itself.Sorry to jump in, but the distinction is important.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
I don't know, you don't know it, no one knows it.

So when you proffer it, I already know you don't know it.

It's not as if this or that can or cannot be true. With lack of knowledge should come lot of "I don't knows"



You keep asking me "why can't."

When in fact you need to answer why.



You really cannot posit much I don't already know on the subject. And here is the kicker, I don't need to answer it.

If you were a believer and told me Isaiah and Elijah were a tag team in ancient wrestling, I would likely be compelled to respond in some way.

If you, an atheist, demand I answer how life has arrived, then I am not compelled in the least to answer you in your own understanding.

We exist in different belief paradigms.

If you want me to remove my Christian hat and put on my scientific hat, then I can skepticize with the best of em, and drag everything you say into the mud. That is what I see many atheists do here with Christians.
You've lost track of who has the burden of proof. This all started with you saying

Personal meaning about purpose and meaning to life is irrelevant because it cannot rise above your material universe.

My point about emergent properties, at minimum, merely functions as a defeater to your claim. I showed one hypothetical explanation for how consciousness, and the resulting meaning and purpose , arses in a material universe. That explanation has not been proven, but that's not where the burden of proof is. It's your burden of proof, given your claim right above, to show how consciousness as an emergent property in a materialistic universe is necessarily impossible.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I think it is the Bible that says we are dirt. We are material, and we are mostly water. These are things that can be shown to be true. Unlike the dirt claim. And similarly with regards to thoughts; science has shown that thoughts are electrical stimuli.

However, it is extremely complex, so there is still mystery. It is not "just" material arranged in a certain configuration, it is material arranged in a certain and extremely configuration. Not simple at all.

I am happy to live with that, because that is what the evidence points to. If you want to believe you have a soul based on nothing more than you really want it to be true, that is your choice.
Oh boy, its complex eh?

What is an "extremely configuration"? Perhaps you mean extremely complex configuration. And your extra extra verbiage adds what?

So then, you agree you are just water and <insert your wording here> (since dirt seems to upset you)

Atoms in motion, nothing more.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
I do not think this is quite right, and Furoin's objection has some validity. There is a real chemical change when oxygen and hydrogen react together to form water; there is nothing emergent about the process.

Emergence is what happens on a large scale as you say, but it is going from a single molecule of water. One molecule is not wet, or even liquid. These are concepts that just do not apply at the molecular level. However, when you have 10^22 of them, then these new properties do emerge.
That's fine, my point doesn't rely on the specifics of your critique.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Oh boy, its complex eh?

What is an "extremely configuration"? Perhaps you mean extremely complex configuration. And your extra extra verbiage adds what?
You made a point that it was simple, that there is no mystery.

"What other 'mystery' there be is no mystery for you, it's just material arranged in a certain configuration, with temporary stimuli animation.
Pretty simple really."

I countered that claim. It is not simple; there is mystery. My verbiage was there is counter yours.

So what does your extra verbiage add? Why did you choose to say that it is simple, that there is no mystery?
 

Algor

Active member
You should go back and review so you can see the concept.
I've seen atheists respond that way. I've also seen atheistsrespond with (basically) "OK, whatever." I mean, most people understand "soul searching" to mean careful, thoughtful, deep introspection. My guess is that >90% of the time the atheist responding that way is more reacting to what they see as a personal, hostile critique of them as an atheist from a believer, so they respond with a hostile response to that person directed towards their belief. Not saying anybody is right or wrong here, and there are certainly some atheists who seem to take every interaction with a believer as a chance to slay some dragon that lives in their own head, but I know a fair number of atheists who just don't care that much.

I'll also say that a fair number of atheists have had a long and miserable experience with religion, that for one reason or another they experience as legitimately oppressive or abusive, and freeing themselves from their background is really a major personal accomplishment. (added: this BTW is NOT my experience). That sort of thing will naturally color one's interactions with religionists. I'm not saying you should pity such, or feel sorry, or cut them some slack: just ask yourself how you might feel in their shoes and interpret conversational positions and styles accordingly.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
You've lost track of who has the burden of proof. This all started with you saying



My point about emergent properties, at minimum, merely functions as a defeater to your claim. I showed one hypothetical explanation for how consciousness, and the resulting meaning and purpose , arses in a material universe. That explanation has not been proven, but that's not where the burden of proof is. It's your burden of proof, given your claim right above, to show how consciousness as an emergent property in a materialistic universe is necessarily impossible.

No, this all started by me asking you to explain yourself in the context of the OP. No burden on me whatsoever. It evolved into me making this statement:

Personal meaning about purpose and meaning to life is irrelevant because it cannot rise above your material universe. (I think, I didn't look to see whether I actually said it, but I believe you)

In other words, this is not personal. Your individual beliefs are not relevant. What is relevant is atoms in a big glorious banging motion leading to you telling me I have a burden.

Like origin theory, I don't need to accept evolution as being separate from origins. You cannot show origins, I have no reason to believe your explaining what happened in between....as an argument. I absolutely demand a unified theory, otherwise, I can just consider it nice thoughts, but I am not forced to believe any of it.

Burdens of proof, around this place, is just a game. Throw it out if you want to converse with me about how atoms in motion lead to consciousness. It is literally an impossible task I place upon you, this I know.

It is merely for you to acknowledge some things to me, and some have.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I've seen atheists respond that way. I've also seen atheistsrespond with (basically) "OK, whatever." I mean, most people understand "soul searching" to mean careful, thoughtful, deep introspection. My guess is that >90% of the time the atheist responding that way is more reacting to what they see as a personal, hostile critique of them as an atheist from a believer, so they respond with a hostile response to that person directed towards their belief. Not saying anybody is right or wrong here, and there are certainly some atheists who seem to take every interaction with a believer as a chance to slay some dragon that lives in their own head, but I know a fair number of atheists who just don't care that much.

Part of the problem is the atheists I know....are right here on this forum. Granted I know others, but we do not converse about these things.

I'll also say that a fair number of atheists have had a long and miserable experience with religion, that for one reason or another they experience as legitimately oppressive or abusive, and freeing themselves from their background is really a major personal accomplishment. (added: this BTW is NOT my experience). That sort of thing will naturally color one's interactions with religionists. I'm not saying you should pity such, or feel sorry, or cut them some slack: just ask yourself how you might feel in their shoes and interpret conversational positions and styles accordingly.

If I could find one purpose for me here, it could be to tell people my experiences with religion are horrible, useless to me, and the important part.....irrelevant.

Atheists don't quite grasp that is exactly what Christ came to do, release you of your burden to religion. He even said take His burden, it is light. Indeed, I can testify to that.

But I know men, they hold grudges with other men, and will often transpose them onto God.

A simple example would be the man who says "God told me to kill them" No, Christ told no one that, and it affects my beliefs none whatsoever that the man claims God told him that.

But truly, this place is not for that. Primarily because much of it is a mean girl game, with no one actually searching for Christ, just assuming everyone is just a religionist, like the ones they don't like.
 
Last edited:

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
I posted this in response to someone.



I am giving opportunity for other atheists to give their view beyond the above.

I believe one here claims to be buddhist. I'm sure their view would differ.

But for the hardened atheist, give me your reasoning why life for the atheist is different from the above.

Personal meaning about purpose and meaning to life is irrelevant because it cannot rise above your material universe.
Purpose and meaning are subjective. We each have to find our own purpose and meaning in life. There is no cosmic purpose for humans that I am aware of.

It is nonsensical to ask for meaning in a universal, objective sense. We do not ask, 'what is that mountain's purpose?' There is no reason to ask 'what is the purpose of human life' either.

For me purpose is found in the teachings of Secular Humanism. I find purpose in life in spending time with those I love, with helping others, and leaning new things. Its not much more complex than that. I do not think there is some cosmic meaning for a single species of primate on one planet in a universe of a trillion trillion worlds.

Thinking the universe has meaning just for humans is the epitome of hubris and ego.

Dr. Tyson said it well:
  • "For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

So did the Dahli Lama:
  • "My religion is simply this: kindness." -- His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

As did Jesus:
  • "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you." - Luke 6:31
  • “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." -- Matthew 7:12
  • "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." -- John 13:34
Kindness. That's the whole thing. The rest is noise.

:)
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
No, this all started by me asking you to explain yourself in the context of the OP.
That's incorrect chronologically. You made the claim first, then I brought up emergent properties:
Personal meaning about purpose and meaning to life is irrelevant because it cannot rise above your material universe.
  • Yesterday at 7:47 AM, Me:
What you're missing is the concept of emergent properties.

No burden on me whatsoever. It evolved into me making this statement:

Personal meaning about purpose and meaning to life is irrelevant because it cannot rise above your material universe. (I think, I didn't look to see whether I actually said it, but I believe you)
Nothing evolved between you and me before you made the above statement about meaning and purpose not arising above the material universe. It's all there in black and white for anyone to confirm exactly what the chronology was, and what "evolved" from what.
In other words, this is not personal.
Who said anything about personal? Where did that come from?

Your individual beliefs are not relevant.
I never said they were or were not.
What is relevant is atoms in a big glorious banging motion leading to you telling me I have a burden.
What leads me to tell you anything has nothing to do with who has the burden of proof. remember, it's not about the individual or their beliefs, it's just about the ideas we're talking about. Please address the substance of what I'm saying.
Like origin theory, I don't need to accept evolution as being separate from origins. You cannot show origins, I have no reason to believe your explaining what happened in between....as an argument. I absolutely demand a unified theory, otherwise, I can just consider it nice thoughts, but I am not forced to believe any of it.
This has nothing to do with you supporting your claim about meaning and purpose in light of the concept of emergent properties. Let's not forget what we are talking about.

Burdens of proof, around this place, is just a game.
The burden of proof is an important logical principle. If you think it isn't, you need to learn about how logic works.

Throw it out if you want to converse with me about how atoms in motion lead to consciousness.
No thank you. You are free, of course, to stop conversing with me, and I will respect your right and decision to do so, if you wish to. I've stop conversations with others at times myself.
It is merely for you to acknowledge some things to me, and some have.
It sounds to me like you're implying that it is not for you to acknowledge anything to me, which is as one-sided a conversation as can be imagined. It jettisons fairness, equality, and other values; you might want to reconsider that stance, if that's what you meant.
 

Furion

Well-known member
You made a point that it was simple, that there is no mystery.

"What other 'mystery' there be is no mystery for you, it's just material arranged in a certain configuration, with temporary stimuli animation.
Pretty simple really."

I countered that claim. It is not simple; there is mystery. My verbiage was there is counter yours.

So what does your extra verbiage add? Why did you choose to say that it is simple, that there is no mystery?
No I get it, I see why you focused on the word simple. It is a simple concept, it is an impossibly complex mechanism.
 
Top