Debates, Discussions, & Presentations
News 4 commentsA collection of the debates, discussions, and presentations of well renowned outspoken Atheists.
A collection of the debates, discussions, and presentations of well renowned outspoken Atheists.
Share quotes that you find interesting, effective, hilarious, and so on. Feel free to edit the article and add your own, leave one in the comment section...
Adjective hijackers, professional victims, and a sexist's idea of an 'equality' movement. As the saying goes in the Imperium, "Heresy grows from idleness...
A short version of what has happened with the group in the last week.
Almost a year of nothing, so here is one for you: I can't decide on abortion topic. I mean, killing babies sounds fun, but giving women choice... meh...
How's it going fellow blasphemers?
It's alright
Right now I feel like I have to **** off femenists and Christians alike:
Whats the difference between a woman and Jesus? The facial expression while nailing!
A vile heretic has expunged the righteous! For even I, the Dear Leader & Founder of Atheism, have been expunged from the group. A great deceiver is among thee!
Espouser of a noble creed, let thy loins rest up on the blessed iron throne once again.
Blessed Sigmar, might we see vile heretics torn from the foundations of our noble establishment. This domain of the rationally righteous shall not be overcome by the minions of Alex Jones, not this day.
The group is quite inactive,but I still wanted to ask this question anyway. What do you guys think about when George Carlin said that americans are only given the illusion of free choice by the exercise of meaningless choices? Do you agree with that? Many have called him a conspiracy theorist at some point. Can America be classified as a Corporatocracy?
- Youtube.com
- Youtube.com
Well, I do believe world is a Corporatocracy. Because it is in the nature of Capitalism. It has to capitalize the capital to survive. Other way corporation fails like lots of corporation failed. If you dont other corporations will and every corporation works in this mentality. So there are some names you probably know who runs directly or indirectly the huge corparations of the world. So yes we can say that America and imo all world live in a Corporatocracy right now.
Well...it's been a while hasn't it? For those of you who don't remember, I used to be CrazyOldTeenager, a debater from the Christians of ModDB group. I like to think that amongst the debaters on both sides, I was one of the more reasonable ones, though I'm sure we've all had our moments of conflict. The reason I am here now is because I'm interested in your input on a philosophical question.
To make things simple, I am in the rather paradoxical position of being an atheist who believes in God. Over the years, I have become increasingly disillusioned with the logical and ethical discrepancies found in the world's religions, most notably Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity. For years I tried to hide my questions quiet from others, and especially from myself. Long story short, I eventually went full atheist, and more or less disavowed myself from any spiritual belief and what I deemed superstition.
But as time went on, I found many new questions arising, questions that neither a secular humanist or nihilist world view can answer sufficiently. The simple child's question of "What does it feel like to be a galaxy?" was enough to send even the most logical of minds back into a spiral of dogmatic assumptions on what is and isn't possible. The origins of consciousness, the existence of the self, the question of destiny, the power of belief...while religion blindly applies their interpretation to all such ideas, atheism shuts down any discussion with the stale accusation that any experiences related to the aforesaid ideas are merely the result of deception or self-delusion, all the while never once realizing the trap of homocentrism such arguments fall into.
To make a long story short...I am an 'atheist' in the sense that I am highly skeptical of just about every religion I've ever taken a look at, and I'm more than confident in my lack of belief. However, I cannot dismiss the assumptions that true atheism requires, and my various personal experiences have convinced that a higher power does indeed exist; I simply lack the tenacity to assume what it wants or how it works.
So tell me, is there anyone here with similar questions? Or are you all more or less certain in regards to your ideas about the universe?
Judging from what you've said in all the posts around here,you are either more "spiritual" than religious,or simply unsure of your faith/set of beliefs. To be honest,I think even the most die-hard atheist will eventualy ponder on the meaning of life and consciousness after death. Personally,I am more on the nihilistic side. Make the most of your life,or just waste it if you wish so. We all will end up in the ground eventually.
I will say this,however - Religions fail/or simply do not understand human nature and how to work with it. And to think,some idiots branded psychology as "satanic". Funny,right?
Atheism is the lack of believe in any deity. Nothing more. So it does not shut down those questions, it opens the mind for reality and philosophy.
As for the things you mentioned: I could give you brief scientific explonation, at least for the former two. The latter two are more philosophical IMO.
As for your question, if you belong to neither religion, but believe in a deity while not being sure of it, that position is called agnostic deism, isnt it?
I can't even say I'm agnostic, as I'm equally sure of my belief in the existence of a higher power as I am in my disdain of religion. So I'm not exactly agnostic.
I am quite aware of the various theories on the matter, as well as the various arguments pertaining to whether or not consciousness even exists, but thank you for the offer.
The problem with the most of the theories put forward is that in the long run, they eventually run into the problem of homocentrism, the ultimate dilemma of subjectivity. The question of whether or not consciousness originates from the brain is in truth a very pointless one, because when push comes to shove, the only practical method we have ever been able to devise for 'measuring' consciousness, if such a thing is truly possible, is by analyzing relatable behavior. Yet still, it is a faulty method at best. The slave trade was considered morally acceptable in the American Bible Belt, an otherwise deeply conservative and excessively moralistic region was precisely because they believed African people were not truly human. The combination of suspicion and mistrust of African culture coupled with the convenience that such a moral compromise offered outweighed their ability to spot that relatable human connection, and as a result the slave trade flourished.
So the question is, if our ability to assess consciousness and relatability in other humans is already iffy, how could we possibly make a reliable guess on how 'conscious' a dog is? The current consensus is that because a dog has a functioning brain, it is conscious. Okay then, what about jellyfish? Or plants, who can form memories https://www.newscientist.com/article/2085770-plants-may-form-memories-using-mad-cow-disease-proteins/ and cope with pain https://www.newscientist.com/article/2085770-plants-may-form-memories-using-mad-cow-disease-proteins/? It is easy to fall back on the assumption that since plants no not have neural structures, they cannot possibly be conscious, but one must remember that the only practical way we have ever been able to come up with is to analyze relatable behavior. If the behavior requirements all show relatable areas, what conclusion are we supposed to reach?
Heh. In theory, yes. In theory, Islam is also a religion of peace, meant to unite humanity once and for all. In theory, Christianity is the belief that God loves you, and that redemption is always possible. In theory, Buddhism is about transcending one's physical needs and embracing a life of simplicity. In theory, Hinduism is about aligning oneself with the will of the cosmos and finding true fulfillment.
But that's just the problem, isn't it? It's all just theory, reality rarely plays out that way. In truth, Islam has been more easily manipulated for the purpose of bloodshed than any other social or political creed on the planet, considering that its founding father was a soldier. In truth, Christianity is about accepting that one man with an extraordinary claim of divinity is qualitatively superior to every human being that ever has and ever will exist. In truth, Buddhism allows one not to not give a flying **** that your fellow man's family is starving to death, because he's probably just making up for mistakes in his past life. In truth, Hinduism reinforces the idea that it's okay for the strong to trample over the weak, because our place is not to change the laws of the universe but rather to learn from them. In truth, the atheist principle of lack of belief in any deity becomes uncomfortably ambiguous when one takes time to question what a deity would actually be.
And with the intent of continuing this fascinating dialogue, I ask you, how do you define (or perhaps not define) a deity?
Determined by the level of self-awareness? Place a mirror infront of said dog, jellyfish or plant and observe the reaction to it. I think thats how you can measure the conciosness in a scientific way.
No, not in theory. It is the definition. There is no theory behind it. It is the lack of belief in any deity. period. THere is nothing you can expand on it, no doctrine, no dogma ect. You can base those things on the premise of atheism, but they wont change the meaning of that word.
No. Islam is based on bloodshed. Islam was never a religion of peace and never meant to be. As it is with most religions: You either believe it or die - or be treated as lesser human that will burn in hell for all eternity at the very least.
Christianity is not far from it, but Christians around the world are mostly not stuck in the dark age like many, many moslems.
Can't say much about Buddhism and Hinduism. I heard they are not much less barbaric in their origin or their branches, aren't they? I dont know.
Not at all. A deity is a being based on supernatural claims that contradict reality and that there is no clear evidence or experience pointing to its existence.
Here's the problem though. That definition of self-awareness is still very much contingent on the ability to use human-like senses, and interpret reality in a human-like context. A parrot only has the ability to recognize its own reflection in the first place is because it has eyes to see, and a brain fast enough to process what the eyes see. The method still relies far too heavily on identifying human-like behavior for it to be truly objective.
Is consciousness merely the sum of our collective physical functions and capabilities? In that case, is a blind human any less conscious or worthy of life than a human with healthy eyes? A rock could be just as aware of it's own rock-like existence as we are of ours, yet be more or less incapable of perceiving the world around it in any meaningful way.
Now this is where it gets interesting.
Firstly, much of this depends entirely on your definition of a deity. If you are using the Greco-Roman definition of a deity existing as a separate objective object that governs the fates of all life, (this is a cat, this is a tree, this is a deity) then yes, atheism rejects all notions of a deity. The problem is, the majority of the world's religions do not fall under this category. The Mayans did not believe they prayed to a separate entity who controlled the sun, they believed their offerings and prayers were directed to the sun itself. Using that definition of a deity, from the perspective of the numerous varieties of sparrows that have adapted to life in the Paris Train Station, humans could be classified as deities.
As for the supernatural...the whole greater implication of a deity's existence is that nothing is impossible, because the natural laws of the universe can be changed at any given moment by said deity. The definition of the supernatural is that which cannot be explained by the laws of nature. And so, if a deity did indeed exist, there would be no such thing as the supernatural, because the laws of the universe would be whatever changes said deity is capable of making. Thus, your argument is paradoxical in nature. :P
Conciousness is a human-made concept to begin with and we can only measure that by our own standards. It involves self-awareness and thought processes of higher level that can be found in intelligent animals like us and most other apes, octopus and a bunch more species.
Yes, it is. Rock and living beings that are lacking of those qualities do not count as concious beings in my understanding. Especially rocks and other unanimated objects.
You could also ask: would that include rejecting Stalin as a deity when he was believed to be one by the people? The answer would still be yes. Same goes for the Mayans belief that the sun would be a deity among many others they had.
Than it would be observable and even reproduceable. So far none of the supernatural claims anyone made, especially by religion, were ever true. This universe operated on the same laws for 13.4 billion years, so there is no reason to assume that there is a way to change the laws of the universe with just speaking a few words. If there is a way, it involves a technology that is far beyond our conprehension - a species that managed to do this would still be no deity though.