I'm not an atheist, and for reasons I never hear argued

[David M]

If you accept the premiss that consciousness in an effect of matter, then of course the arguments for atheism are going to loom large.  I don't accept that premiss.  For me there is nothing more real than my consciousness, my thoughts, my awareness, my being.  We take the reality of matter for granted of course, but what is matter?  No one knows really what matter is!!  Scientists can yammer on all day about protons and electrons and quarks and what all of that stuff appears to be doing and all of the "rules" that are seemingly being followed, but at the end of the day all scientists will ever come away with are measurements and more measurements.  So why should we put matter in the drivers seat, and our own "being" in the trailer?

 

When you hold a memory in your mind of something simple, like having been shown a card with a square printed on it, what is the grey matter in your head doing to give you that memory?  Are little swimmers in there swimming into a square formation??  Are other swimmers beholding that and giving a thumbs up signal?  Maybe it's morse code, or a binary code or neurons are dancing around like beads on an abacus or transistors on a chip or trillions of tiny little dominoes are sent cascading into formations and there is a picture there to behold. But of course whatever the system or code or arrangement of grey matter there is in there won't change the fact that there is no one else in there to behold it but ourselves.  Why reduce our "knowing" of things to an illusion given to us by matter?  If anything is illusionary it's the matter, and not our consciousness.

 

What leads us to the absurd conclusion that for something to be real it has to be composed of matter?  Well again, scientists like to measure stuff.  How do you measure your own "being"?  Scientists are very proud of what they do I think, and are likely to contemptuously spurn whatever they can't measure.

 

I believe that our body is like an antenna.  It's a machine, unfamiliar to us, that draws us in for a few short years.  It's there to give us participation in this world of matter.  Matter is subject to cause and effect and beginnings and ends and begs every question about origins and organization and it even begs the question "what is it?".  But my "being" is not matter, and in fact is the only thing that begs no question at all from me.  I "know".  Your "being" is hidden from me, but from what I can interpret, you are like me in that you are also a "being".  There are apparently billions of us and we are all truly hidden from each other despite all the animating we give for a time to our bodies.  So it would be with any sort of being that is a being whether we would be inclined to deify them or not.  I don't know if one special being is running the show, or a small group, or billions, but I'm not going to attribute all of this around us to the random chance of matter bumping into matter!  Especially when there are billions of examples of "beings" running around all over the place, coming and going, and we are each intimately aware of what it is to be a "being"!!  And while of course there is random genetic mutation going on in the world, to seize on that stupid puke of a theory and attribute all that is and all that we are to it, has got to be the crowning thoughtless idea among all the ideas ever "thought" of in the universe.  How can I say that the universe is dead when I am alive?  I can't see you and you can't see me and yet it's still considered a cop-out to believe in the unseen.  No, the cop-out is believing only in the seen.

[Pepin]

Welcome to the forum Dave.

 

Do you think that this argument is convincing to an atheist? What I mean is, how do you expect an atheist to perceive this argument, and what kind of responses and rebuttals do you anticipate? 

[Wuzzums]

What are you standards of proof?

[David M]

Thanks Pepin,

I'm actually curious myself as to what response these comment may get. To be frank, most of what I hear from atheists is reactionary. Running from the black robes of the Preisthood usually means running right into the white lab coats of the scientsts. So all that ever gets discussed is ancient slime or fairy tales.

 

Wuzzums, I'm only guessing that you are a conscious being. I don't have any proof.

[TheRobin]

Have you gone thourgh Stef's "Introduction to Philosophy"-series yet? I think it would be the easiest way to figure out at least some of the basic premises about reality and such (and more importantly, the reasoning behind them) most people here hold.

[_LiveFree_]

Have you gone thourgh Stef's "Introduction to Philosophy"-series yet? I think it would be the easiest way to figure out at least some of the basic premises about reality and such (and more importantly, the reasoning behind them) most people here hold.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1647D7F937DDE7A

[David M]

Thanks guys.  Wow, 18 parts,.. but I'm interested, I'll check them out.

[David M]

I do understand the need for rigorous objective "measurements" and adherence to procedures and methods etc when practicing philosophy.  I get how vulnerable we all are to erroneous suppositions.  I'm completely sold on the "scientific method".  I love science and I've got a B.S. in Engineering.  Where I part company with Stefan already in part 1 (and I do intend to continue listening) is when he throws in these little digs and says things like "there is nothing mystical about consciousness or there is certainly nothing proved about the soul or anything like that".  Proved??  Well if you are one, it's proved.  Look, science needs proof because because that is the nature of science.  It's external to us.  We learn about science bit by bit and we really haven't even scratched the surface of science yet, so of course we've got to be careful and rigorous in our exploration of it.  Our soul or our being or our consciousness  is not a part of science.  It's us!  I don't become more familiar with myself by looking outside of myself.  A map of my DNA, a brain scan, a biochemical analysis, is not going to inform any of the ideas I've laid out here in this topic.  Fundamentally, I'm just calling attention to something we all have.  You have to ignore it to be an atheist.  There is more in this universe than matter.  There are thinking beings in it.  You don't need proof of this because presumably you are one!  And if there is one or more gods or deities or creators or designers then it will be a conscious being just as we are, or maybe it will differ from us the way we differ from say, a dog.  I don't know, but I'm not going to petulantly demand proof to see such a being in this life anymore than I am going to demand to see you!  Should I expect to be able to "mind-meld" with you??

[Bulbasaur]

I believe we all agree that we have consciousness, but this is not inconsistent with atheism. Atheism says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of human consciousness.

 

 

 

"there is nothing mystical about consciousness or there is certainly nothing proved about the soul or anything like that".  Proved??  Well if you are one, it's proved.

 

If I were a soul, I wouldn't necessarily know it. For example, if I were colorblind I wouldn't know it, until it was proved by taking one of those number tests. 

[Xtort]

It seems to me that if consciousnessand memory  weren't a process developed by your physical brain then head trauma wouldn't lead to memory loss, comas, etc.  Sometimes when people suffer brain trauma and survive, their personalities are completely changed.  I remember reading about a man who had a rail spike go through his head and survive.  Doctors were able to put their fingers through one side of his head and out the other, it went  clean through.  He lived out a full life but after the injury, he was literally a different person.  Not disabled, just different.

[Cosmin]

David, are you aware that computers are the result of scientists "yammering" about electrons and protons? 

 

If you don't believe that electrons follow rules, how come you use a computer? I mean the result of pressing the keys on your keyboard should be totally unpredictable, right? 

[FriendlyHacker]

If you don't know something, be honest about it and stop calling it God.

 

Read about the God of the Gaps.

[Carl Green]

So because we don't understand how someone can have a memory of a square on a card, there's reason to believe something other than matter (and energy) must be what's allowing you to retain that memory?

[endostate]

[FriendlyHacker]

There's this common misconception that scientists only believe in what can be seen, what can be seen is not important at all, if it only exists in someone's memory it can't be independently checked and therefore is worthless. The important thing is not what can be seen, but what can be accurately measured, repeatedly.

 

If you saw a lump of meat, you can only guess its weight by looking at it, while a scientist would go about measuring it with a precision scale.

[Josh F]

I don't become more familiar with myself by looking outside of myself.

I think it is more accurate to say you learn everything about yourself by looking outside.  Without external influence we wouldn't speak a language, let a lone be able to enjoy debating the finer parts of theology. 

[jupson]

I deal with a constant internal struggle between what I perceive to be “unseen” and “seen” by society. As I have attempted to self-diagnose my mental distortions of reality, I am arriving at the conclusion that my psychological trauma stems from internalizing everything around me.

 

I was raised in a very religious community; no room to think outside of the collective for fear of being ostracized. I was taught that all of my problems were either my fault or under the influence of invisible demons. Furthermore, I was instructed to “die daily” for my sins against god and his creation.

 

I have carried on with this ritual for so long that I am still doing it to this day, despite leaving the church two years ago. It has become automatic and there are very few nights when I don’t fall asleep thinking about how I’m a parasite and wasted life. (I know this is not true, but these thoughts are extremely persistent.)

 

Understand that I have no problem believing that there very well may be aspects of our universe that we have yet to measure. However, I also believe that it is potentially harmful to lead people into modes of thinking that cannot be accounted for empirically. There is too much left for interpretation and people end up becoming reliant upon the pronouncements of one person who has a more attuned “sixth sense.” People should be able to experience and prove such things for themselves.

 

Despite my traumatic experiences with the “unseen,” I hope my psychological hang-ups do not deter anyone from kindling the spirit of exploration and discovery. Surely, there are countless amazing discoveries yet to be made in our universe. However, I still believe there needs to be a strict adherence to Truth and Knowledge when delving into these realms. Otherwise, some heartless souls will take advantage of that which cannot be proven and people will get hurt.

[Barry_diller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNc52LmHgUsHere is a documentary on Consciousness

properly you would just discard it. But there is alot to think about it  

[bootoo]

all scientists will ever come away with are measurements and more measurements >>

 

and technology, and medicine, and better understanding of nutrition and education and social systems....

 

 

contemptuously spurn whatever they can't measure. >>

 

They do not, they say 'I dont know'...also is hard to receive funding for things you cant measure/communicate 

 

to seize on that stupid puke of a theory and attribute all that is and all that we are to it

 

As far as i can tell science still exists, and is still going, and still learning. I havent seen any scientist say 'job done' and hang up their white coats....who has ever said 'thats all there is' except for religious people? There are scientists working on all the problems you have raised - it appears you have not looked anywhere except in your own memory to form this theory, i suggest testing your thoughts against reality more

 

There is good reason to believe in the scientific explanation of existence, where science doesnt have a explanation you have an opportunity to go learn some new shit, you wont find the answer in any holy book

[FriendlyHacker]

There is good reason to believe in the scientific explanation of existence, where science doesnt have a explanation you have an opportunity to go learn some new shit, you wont find the answer in any holy book

 

Yes you will: God did it

[GRosado]

If you don't know something, be honest about it and stop calling it God.Read about the God of the Gaps.

He didn't even say anything that would cause you to write that response. I don't even think he is talking about God, I'm pretty sure he's talking about Consciousness & empirical evidence for it

[RestoringGuy]

 How can I say that the universe is dead when I am alive?  I can't see you and you can't see me and yet it's still considered a cop-out to believe in the unseen.  No, the cop-out is believing only in the seen.

I sympathize with this view, because I am sort of the opposite --an atheist for reasons rarely argued.  This cop-out idea has bothered me for a long time, and I found a solution.   Yes I have argued against "believing only in the seen", which is flawed idea.  I am a Platonist for this reason, so I accept there are real and existing things that are unseen and simply not present in the physical world.  But the metric for reality is whether those things can be manufactured and exposed to us indirectly.

 

For example, the element called oxygen is a collection of particles.  There was once a time oxygen was not present in the universe.  But even then, it was a viable construct.  That is to say, the fact of whether or not the oxygen atom configuration could survive existed independently of it having been materially tried.  It's a viable structure, based on its abstract design, and that makes it real.

 

By similar reasoning, other "new" structures may exist, proven as viable (let's say by computer simulation you discover a new stable element).  If our theories about physics are right, those things were viable long before humans thought to try it.

 

Now I know some will say "2+2=4" sprang into existence only at the moment somebody tried it, or they will say numbers do not exist.  But this is just a matter of vocabulary.  Once the abstract rules are cast into physical motion, it seems obvious that some eternal truth is exposed.  It's a reproducable truth anybody could have discovered, not just the inventor of a machine.  It seems true that "believing only what is seen" is an error.  But still, if not actual presence, truth must at least require potential presence.  For me, God as most define it, is simply not one of those truths because there is no potential for God to become visible even indirectly.

[LanceD]

David I don't really see what your post has to do with Atheism. You don't seem to hold a belief in a sky god like described in the major religions so it appears to me you are indeed an Atheist.

 

As to the actual content of the post, you rambled a lot and didn't in my opinion do a very good job if putting your thoughts out there. Though I think the ideas are very interesting.

 

I think you'd be very interested in Dr. Amit Goswami. He is a physicist that has gone a bit off the beaten path and has some really cool theories involving remote consciousness. It's an interesting blend of science and spirituality and I'm sure it would be right up your alley.

[JCalvin]

David M. 

 

Your observations appear to be spot on and appear to be a fairly direct refutation of Dawkins' whole premise - whether you are aware of it or not!   You can read a more formal refutation from Keith Ward here: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Why-There-Almost-Certainly-God-ebook/dp/B004UA4CG4/ref=la_B001H6Q88E_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388453628&sr=1-3 

 

It is a more formal rebuttal to Dawkins' book. Basically, he calls out Dawkins for taking a very narrow materialist approach to the issue - an approach, as it turns out, that is taken by a minority of philosophers, since it fails to account for phenomenon like consciousness and individual volition.   His assertion is that God is not only possible, but indeed probable. 

[dsayers]

So why should we put matter in the drivers seat, and our own "being" in the trailer?

 

Consistency.

 

What leads us to the absurd conclusion that for something to be real it has to be composed of matter? 

 

The dictionary.

 

Matter is subject to cause and effect and beginnings and ends

 

The sum of all matter and energy is constant. There is no beginning and end, which brings us to the consistency I mentioned.

 

Wuzzums, I'm only guessing that you are a conscious being. I don't have any proof.

 

The proof of your senses. You know that those words could not appear without consciousness. You also know that you do not speak to that which you do not attribute consciousness.

 

Fundamentally, I'm just calling attention to something we all have.  You have to ignore it to be an atheist.

 

Atheism doesn't describe that which is within us. Also, it is not ignoring anything. That there's nothing to ignore is the point.

 

There is more in this universe than matter.  There are thinking beings in it.

 

You mentioned begging the question before, so I wanted to point out that this is begging the question. Consciousness is an emergent property of matter. You are asserting that consciousness can exist without matter when there's no evidence to support this.

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

A couple questions for you guys. Can higher dimension exist all in the same universe as with Carl Sagan's example?

 

IE if we exist in & are aware of 3 dimensions, can we possibly measure anything in the fourth, & does mainstream science recognize these higher dimensions? I know the occult does.

 

After listening to "against the Gods?" I wanted to put forward a better & updated theory of "God," http://thepodcastexperiment.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-gods-rebuttal.html & basically went into the ideas of higher dimensions & of our collective conscious.

[dsayers]

Interesting video. I especially benefited from the point of data loss in the event of projecting 3D onto 2D.

 

To answer your question, we first need to be precise with our language. Dimensions do not exist. Dimension is a concept. We use the term to describe things that exist in the real world.

 

My next question would be how do you define a dimension? Could life be classified as the 4th dimension? If we're built in three dimensions and with the capability of detecting and measuring three dimensions, how would we know what the 4th dimension is? Could time be the 4th dimension? If so, it would be a description of something that exists and therefore could be traveled. I'm skeptical simply because if time was traverse-able, we'd have visitors just as people died from carbon monoxide even before we could identify and measure it. Point being that if we cannot even visualize it, how would we know what it is even if we interacted with it? The video makes this point.

 

I don't think it's accurate to ascribe the occult as recognizing additional dimensions. By definition, the occult deals with the supernatural and dimension as a concept describes things that exist in the natural world. Additionally, recognize is a description of something that is understood or accepted. If we do not know what the 4th dimension is, how could anybody recognize it?

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

As something legitimate to look into. Neil Degrasse Tyson has talked about it too back when I went through all of his star talk podcast, so I'm assuming that the scientific community does think about it and that it's not merely theory, because he's very rigorous with the scientific method & anti superstition. Just wondering what field it's in.

 

I also listened to all episodes of "what on earth is happening" & from that I know that some occults really get into the study of higher dimensions, psychology, & the natural world. Their conclusions might be a bit supernatural, but they are formed to occult (hide) scientific knowledge from the rest of the population. The host of that show is an x-member, but in wanting to help humanity & not hurt humanity anymore, there is a lot of cross over between his show & free domain radio, even though there are many disagreements also.

 

If we compare the flat surface of two dimensions to our experience of three dimensions, & imagine that extruded to four dimensions, it should all have to do with different types of "space" & how that "space" can be occupied. I hope I'm on the right track with this. We being 3d can not occupy space on a surface (think the new Zelda game). Our image can when we print out a picture, but if we tried to occupy a plane, all our organs would be crushed & we'd be dead. So perhaps things exist in the fourth dimension that can not occupy the third. Perhaps an image of something in the 4th can exist in the 3rd (bible reference) but not the actual thing.

[TheRobin]

The main problem of all the occult stuff is the absence of a consistent methodology. I listened to some Mark Passio podcasts too before I ever heard of Stef and FDR and he always just lays out these things as if they were proven somehow, but never shows or talks about any actual experiment or methodology that was behind estabslishing the claim in the first place. And that's also true for the sources he uses to base the occult claims on. Just people that have written down stuff as truth without reference to any methodology.That doesn't mean there can't be some intuitive insights that occur in these ideas (especially when it comes to the human psyche), but even if something turn out to be true, it's accidental and not a result of rigorous adherence to reasonable pricniples and a consistent methodology.To tie this to your dimension though-experiment. Assuming what you say was actually true, how could you know? What experiment would confirm your hypothesis and what experiment would prove it false? If there aren't any, then it's not an idea that can be used as a model of (how ) reality (works), as, even if it WAS true, we could by definition never KNOW it (and as such would be completely useless as a guiding principle or idea for our actions)

[dsayers]

I felt I sort of lost my cohesion half way through my answer to it. Thanks, rockin' Robin for so eloquently saying what I was trying to 

[Slavik]

Lets start from the end of your topic.  Believe only in the sene? Not at all, scinetists explore all sorts of things, the very first thing that pops into my mind, is black holes, they are not seen at all.  Ar there things that we have yet to discover? I would think every self respecting scientist, would answer in resounding yes.  So, Im not sure where your position on sciense being so close minded, comes from.  Now to the point of God.  One would only have to take a look at history and see how many previously unknown things were considered to be proof of God, well rigth up until the point when those things were explained scientifically.  So my question to you would be this.  To which "n'th" degree are you willing to hide god in the yet to be known or discovered parts of nature?  Not to mention what does a very defined being has to do with any of it?  God as defined, is a being that is all knowing and all capable (a contradicition already mind you).  Why does something unknown to you = god instead of a great topic to study?  Conciousness, I agree an absiolutely fascinating subject to study and to ponder, yet to you for some reason it = a being that must have created us all.   I mean my question is, to be more precise is.  Why does conciousness = god to you and not say loghtning?  I mean after all , centuries ago lightning was proof of god for people then.

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

@slavik I don't know who your question is aimed at, but what about near death experiences & out of body experiences that happen when someone is clinically dead & without brain activity before being resuscitated? Widely documented, is that not evidence that our consciousness is not an effect of the brain, & is that not support for the brain as antenna argument?

[TheRobin]

The NDE often get cited as a proof, but whenever I googled to claims and/or experiments, there was a lot of error in the methodology and/or reasoning behind it. Given you have the internet: How much time have you spent searching sites that give counterarguments to the NDE/OBE stuff? 

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

Just wondering what your opinions are here, & I'm not claiming it as definitive proof one way or another. I've heard a bit about it in podcasts, but like you've said, since it doesn't have any influence on how I should act I have not spent much time looking into it.

[TheRobin]

Well, the basic idea here (when it comes to reality and truth) is to not be bothered with opinions, but adhere to reason and evidence. Which is why I asked how much time you spent looking for counterarguments. And if not, why not? Apparently it's important enough for you to ask, so it certainly has some influence over your life imo.And it would be the single biggest thing if it was actually true. I mean, that would totally turn around how we would perceive everything and how we would live our lives, so I don't see how you can say it wouldn't influence how we'd act.