The complete idiot's guide to atheism

[Rum]

[hiyymer]

I have no doubt that, in the parlance of my brain, God creates me. That is because I would define God as the immaterial conscious experience of the material mechanism beyond the immaterial self. But I would say that the idea that God created the universe is an error, albeit a rather innocent and innocuous one. I am not sure what "atheism" means, since the claims of God's material being, to me, are a confusion caused by the failure to distinguish the immaterial world that is our only being, our only meaning, and our only morality, from the amoral, mechanistic material world that inductive reasoning tells us is its source. Rationalism is an even greater confusion, the insistence that the irrational immaterial world of our own agency can be THE rational cause of our body's actions. I think the critics of the "new atheists" have a good point when they say that you can't have it both ways. Either agency is or it isn't, and without agency there is no meaning. Everything points to the realization that agency is an invention of consciousness, and it and meaning and morality do not materially exist. Even if science someday reveals the mechanism, we will still be stuck with it. I think there is nothing more emblematic of the rationalist confusion than Carl Sagan looking up at the night sky and saying ain't it grand, as if his experience of meaning materially exists any more than someone else's experience of God.

[Tero]

This is hard. Where did the chicken come from, that laid the egg?

[hiyymer]

This is hard. Where did the chicken come from, that laid the egg?

Didn't they both evolve from the first life form that randomly mutated into that general form of replication.

I kind of side with the "I have no idea" answer. I read Laurence Krauss (A Universe from Nothing) and found it entirely speculative and self-serving. A few months later I read an article in Scientific American discussing new powerful mathematical methods for calculating quantum outcomes, and it mentioned that they could work without the need for the "virtual particles" flashing in and out of existence of older methods. Virtual particles was what Krauss seemed to base his argument on. The problem is that scientists tend to be rationalists because they work all day doing inductive reasoning and forget that they are living organisms. They love their obfuscations and rationalizations that make life inside the mechanism rational and godless, when science itself clearly demonstrates that it's not.

[Mysturji]

The complete idiot's guide to atheism:

This is atheism:

I have no doubt that, in the parlance of my brain, God creates me. That is because I would define God as the immaterial conscious experience of the material mechanism beyond the immaterial self. But I would say that the idea that God created the universe is an error, albeit a rather innocent and innocuous one. I am not sure what "atheism" means, since the claims of God's material being, to me, are a confusion caused by the failure to distinguish the immaterial world that is our only being, our only meaning, and our only morality, from the amoral, mechanistic material world that inductive reasoning tells us is its source. Rationalism is an even greater confusion, the insistence that the irrational immaterial world of our own agency can be THE rational cause of our body's actions. I think the critics of the "new atheists" have a good point when they say that you can't have it both ways. Either agency is or it isn't, and without agency there is no meaning. Everything points to the realization that agency is an invention of consciousness, and it and meaning and morality do not materially exist. Even if science someday reveals the mechanism, we will still be stuck with it. I think there is nothing more emblematic of the rationalist confusion than Carl Sagan looking up at the night sky and saying ain't it grand, as if his experience of meaning materially exists any more than someone else's experience of God.

^This is bullshit. It is also nonsense. There is no evidence to support the apologetitc rationalisations in that rambling collection of word salad, even if you could be bothered to read it, and, having read it, understood it. It's bullshit, propped up by brainwashing, wishful thinking, circular reasoning, fear of death, and more bullshit.
Does (a) god exist? I don't know, but I very much doubt it. No, I can't prove that your god(s) do(es)n't exist... I don't need to. I can't prove that anyone elses gods, unicorns, fairies, pixies, goblins, vampires, werewolves, flying saucers or intelligent Republlicans don't exist either. But I ask you: Which seems more likely?

[Mysturji]

This is hard. Where did the chicken come from, that laid the egg?

Didn't they both evolve from the first life form that randomly mutated into that general form of replication.

I kind of side with the "I have no idea" answer. I read Laurence Krauss (A Universe from Nothing) and found it entirely speculative and self-serving. A few months later I read an article in Scientific American discussing new powerful mathematical methods for calculating quantum outcomes, and it mentioned that they could work without the need for the "virtual particles" flashing in and out of existence of older methods. Virtual particles was what Krauss seemed to base his argument on. The problem is that scientists tend to be rationalists because they work all day doing inductive reasoning and forget that they are living organisms. They love their obfuscations and rationalizations that make life inside the mechanism rational and godless, when science itself clearly demonstrates that it's not.

And this is why.

[amused]

atheism = shit happens

What's so hard about that?

[Rum]

atheism = shit happens

What's so hard about that?

Well the god of the OT makes shit happen, big time.

So atheism is maybe shit happening without anyone to blame it on!?

[hiyymer]

^This is bullshit. It is also nonsense. There is no evidence to support the apologetitc rationalisations in that rambling collection of word salad, even if you could be bothered to read it, and, having read it, understood it. It's bullshit, propped up by brainwashing, wishful thinking, circular reasoning, fear of death, and more bullshit.
Does (a) god exist? I don't know, but I very much doubt it. No, I can't prove that your god(s) do(es)n't exist... I don't need to. I can't prove that anyone elses gods, unicorns, fairies, pixies, goblins, vampires, werewolves, flying saucers or intelligent Republlicans don't exist either. But I ask you: Which seems more likely?

I apologize for my typical inability to clearly communicate. As to the "existence" of God, it has the same relevance as the existence of "I". My body exists, but "I" do not materially exist. The self in my conscious experience has no material corollary. The brain creates the experience of the "I", but the brain has no control center; no homunculus. Science has pretty much demonstrated that the actions of my body are determined by the embodied brain following the known laws of science through some impenetrably complex material causal mechanism. But the "brain" is not an agent decider. It itself is just a complex collection of causal loops. So what is "I"? Should I just write off "I" and agree that it is an illusion. Well I can't. The conundrum is complete. The "I" in my mind works. It's part of a mechanism that just is what it is because a purposeless process called evolution created it. I live the experience, even though all the evidence points to the fact that "I" am just along for the ride, and all the meaning and morality and passion that "I" feel is just part of the mechanism. "I" is a "theory". A theory we call agency. But it is not a scientific theory, or a simple idea in the mind. It is an EXPERIENCE; a theory created by evolution which we have no choice to use or not. You can clearly say that God does not materially exist and agree with you. But God is clearly an agent experience (not a choice) for the vast preponderance of people. So why is it in the mechanism? Why does the material existence of God matter so deeply for you? Why pick on God? Nothing in our experience materially exists as exactly the thing we experience. Does it matter that the self doesn't "exist"?

[Rum]

Quite so. It seems we are all virtual.

[laklak]

Speak for yourself. I'm right here. Honestly.

[devogue]

Cal Sagan was one weird looking fucker.

[hiyymer]

Speak for yourself. I'm right here. Honestly.

So if someone says, "Speak for yourself. God is right here, Honestly." Why argue?

[cowiz]

Huh?

[Mysturji]

^This is bullshit. It is also nonsense. There is no evidence to support the apologetitc rationalisations in that rambling collection of word salad, even if you could be bothered to read it, and, having read it, understood it. It's bullshit, propped up by brainwashing, wishful thinking, circular reasoning, fear of death, and more bullshit.
Does (a) god exist? I don't know, but I very much doubt it. No, I can't prove that your god(s) do(es)n't exist... I don't need to. I can't prove that anyone elses gods, unicorns, fairies, pixies, goblins, vampires, werewolves, flying saucers or intelligent Republlicans don't exist either. But I ask you: Which seems more likely?

I apologize for my typical inability to clearly communicate. As to the "existence" of God, it has the same relevance as the existence of "I".

No it doesn't. If you can't see why, I doubt anyone could explain it to you.

My body exists, but "I" do not materially exist.

That's an opinion. You're entitled to it, and I won't argue the point, but it's nothing more than an opinion.

The self in my conscious experience has no material corollary.

Except the brain and the electrochemical reactions happening in and around it...

The brain creates the experience of the "I", but the brain has no control center; no homunculus.

You claim to know an awful lot about neuroscience. Heard from the Nobel Committee yet?

Science has pretty much demonstrated that the actions of my body are determined by the embodied brain following the known laws of science through some impenetrably complex material causal mechanism.

OK

But the "brain" is not an agent decider. It itself is just a complex collection of causal loops.

???

So what is "I"? Should I just write off "I" and agree that it is an illusion. Well I can't.

OK

The conundrum is complete. The "I" in my mind works. It's part of a mechanism that just is what it is because a purposeless process called evolution created it.

OK

I live the experience, even though all the evidence points to the fact that "I" am just along for the ride, and all the meaning and morality and passion that "I" feel is just part of the mechanism.

What evidence? You've made a non-sequitur leap from the realm of science into the realm of philosophy. This is conjecture, not evidence.

"I" is a "theory". A theory we call agency. But it is not a scientific theory, or a simple idea in the mind.

"Theory of Mind". It's an idea in psychology. Admittedly a "soft" science, but getting firmer all the time. That's the thing about science: it's a learning process, based on evidence and experimentation, and real-world results.

It is an EXPERIENCE; a theory created by evolution which we have no choice to use or not.

As far as I am aware, evolution has not created any theories. Perhaps Cali could elucidate that point more clearly and effectively than I.

You can clearly say that God does not materially exist and agree with you. But God is clearly an agent experience

(not a choice)

You could choose to question it, honestly and critically, and see where that leads you, or you could choose to accept your brainwashing and keep drinking the kool-aid.

... for the vast preponderance of people. So why is it in the mechanism?

Infants are biologically programmed to believe what their parents and other adults tell them. It's a much more effective way of learning than trial-and-error, especially when you're dealing with lessons like "Beware of the leopard", "Don't touch that fire", "Don't swim in that river, it's full of crocodiles", or "Don't play in the middle of the street". Religious leaders take advantage of this programming to insert their mental meme-viruses into the minds of the impressionable. "Give me the boy for the first seven years, and I will give you the man." - Cardinal Richelieu

Why does the material existence of God matter so deeply for you?

It doesn't. But people who believe that shit cause all kinds of trouble. I wish it would stop.

Why pick on God?

Sorry. Superman was unavailable.

Nothing in our experience materially exists as exactly the thing we experience. Does it matter that the self doesn't "exist"?

Cogito ergo sum. That is the only certainty. Question everything else.