When you break it down: is atheism unappealing?

[skepticalbip]

That is poetic but does it really mean anything?

It does to me. I've no reason to care about anyone else's opinions on the subject. It's entirely Faith. But it works for me.

Does it apply to tape worms, slugs and crab grass?

I presume so. They're alive. I don't really care though.
Except for my dogs. I care about them.

Fair enough. You are talking about what makes you feel comfortable rather than about trying to understand reality.

Can the metaphor also apply to automobiles.

Are automobiles alive?
Perhaps you can answer that question without my insight.
Surely.
Tom

It depends. As an analogy, a life form is a system of various parts working together as is an automobile. When the various parts of either a life form or an automobile fail to be able to work together, it is no longer functional and begins to decay.

 

[bilby]

The chief attraction of religion, at least its main stream Abrahamic varieties, is the prospect of life after death. Atheism precludes that possibility.

Not necessarily. One can still believe in some form of an afterlife that is not related to any gods.

This is quite true. Frankly I am smitten by the fact that every bit of me is eternal, you might as well say immortal. I may go to pieces but I'll never go away.

This is what I prefer to believe, AKA faith based beliefs.

Living things are animated by a little spark of the Divine. That's the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Including the difference between a living human being and their corpse. While we're alive we're a combination of the material(our bodies) and the spiritual(our spirit or soul). When we die they separate. Our meat continues through the unimaginably vast cycle of transformation that is the material universe. Our souls merge with the Original Source, like a raindrop falling back into the ocean.

That raindrop will never exist again, but it doesn't disappear either. It becomes the ocean. So, in my world, death isn't ceasing to exist. It's losing my human limitations, including my identity, and becoming God.
Tom

Reality doesn't give two shits what you believe.

What you describe is demonstrably not reality, so it's basically just a little fiction you like; Which is great as entertainment, but bloody dangerous as a basis for personal policy.

'alive'/'not alive' is one of those myriad false dichotomies that humans are so prone to. It's not a description of anything real though; If you try to come up with a solid definition of 'alive', you invariably exclude things that are clearly living, or include things that are clearly not, or more often, both.

Dualism - the idea that there's a separate 'life spark', or essence of life, our 'soul' that things either posess or do not, is even more wrong.

That you like the idea is fun, as far as it goes; But being insufficiently embarrassed at believing something that is utter codswallop as to post it in public like that makes me cringe. It's like hearing a grown up person seriously and earnestly declare that they think Santa is real. That's cute from a five year old, but in an adult, its a sign of serious cognitive failure.

Dualism is false, and 'alive' is an arbitrary category that has no counterpart in the real world. This may not be intuitive, poetic, or inspiring, but it's very clearly true.

 

[TomC]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The chief attraction of religion, at least its main stream Abrahamic varieties, is the prospect of life after death. Atheism precludes that possibility.

Not necessarily. One can still believe in some form of an afterlife that is not related to any gods.

This is quite true. Frankly I am smitten by the fact that every bit of me is eternal, you might as well say immortal. I may go to pieces but I'll never go away.

This is what I prefer to believe, AKA faith based beliefs.

Living things are animated by a little spark of the Divine. That's the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Including the difference between a living human being and their corpse. While we're alive we're a combination of the material(our bodies) and the spiritual(our spirit or soul).

So, how does that work? This would imply that our awakened self is the spirit, but when the meat (brain) gets seriously injured, a person can change greatly (completely). So this would imply the meat defines who we are and the spirit is just a fancy thing with absolutely no meaning or purpose.

 

[bilby]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

 

[abaddon]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

No one should have to trust anybody declaring "I'm right because science says so". Even if you're right, it's still a dogmatic authoritarian pronouncement in the present context. Why not make a science-based logical argument against TomC's dualism, instead of proclaiming "science says!" at people on an internet message board?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

No one should have to trust anybody declaring "I'm right because science says so". Even if you're right, it's still a dogmatic authoritarian pronouncement in the present context. Why not make a science-based logical argument against TomC's dualism, instead of proclaiming "science says!" at people on an internet message board?

That will require TomC explaining what in the heck a "spark of life" is. What is the "spirit"? It will undoubtedly be unconvincing as far as it being a viable answer. So we'll be stuck where we are. An inadequately defined deistic proclamation made by a person who doesn't care or feel the need to defend it, but cares enough to proclaim it.

 

[Elixir]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

No Tom.
You’re free to believe whatever floats your boat about gods, afterlives, spirits etc.
That what you have put forth depends on a false dead/alive dichotomy is for you to realize if you want to, not for someone else to drag you kicking and screaming into understanding.

Billy says it’s dangerous but I don’t think so. Unless it involves groupthink, it’s of little consequence. If it gives you peace or comfort maybe it’s just as well that you continue to harbor those superstitions.

But sufficient study on your part would show Billy correct: there is no clear boundary between life and death.

 

[TomC]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

No one should have to trust anybody declaring "I'm right because science says so". Even if you're right, it's still a dogmatic authoritarian pronouncement in the present context. Why not make a science-based logical argument against TomC's dualism, instead of proclaiming "science says!" at people on an internet message board?

I think you're wasting your time.

I grew up in a conservative Catholic world. I learned early on that some people just aren't interested in views that don't match their own. They're more interested in explaining why they are the authority. If you don't agree with them, they find the obvious explanation in your stupidity and poor education.

I learned to smile and nod a long time ago. Ignore them and put their assertions in a certain file.

Tom

 

[abaddon]

I learned to smile and nod a long time ago. Ignore them and put their assertions in a certain file.

That looks like a good way to avoid learning.

Make no mistake, I agree with the people who think you're wrong. But "science says", without showing that science really does say it, isn't reasonable.

------

Tom,

The discussion was the lack of appeal in atheism compared to religion. Can you explain a bit about why you prefer your deism to either atheism or materialism or naturalism? Is there something more to your deism than "it comforts me"? What is it about atheism that seems so discomforting?

 

[TomC]

I learned to smile and nod a long time ago. Ignore them and put their assertions in a certain file.

That looks like a good way to avoid learning.

Make no mistake, I agree with the people who think you're wrong. But "science says", without showing that science really does say it, isn't reasonable.

It was a great way to avoid learning!
They all wanted me to learn that Jesus is God. He Rose from the Dead. He died for my sins.

Yeah, I avoided learning things presented. I thought for myself. I didn't really care if the person telling me I was wrong for disagreeing with them because I hadn't studied enough.
------

Tom,

The discussion was the lack of appeal in atheism compared to religion. Can you explain a bit about why you prefer your deism to either atheism or materialism or naturalism?

Sure.

As long as we all understand that you're wrong about my attitude towards naturalism. And atheism and materialism.

Also, that I don't care about what anyone else thinks about Creation or afterlife or anything like that. I do not care about anybody's beliefs concerning the undemonstrable truth of reality. I don't care about the opinions of Bilby, the Pope, or Elixir.

I made no truth claims I couldn't back up.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

No one should have to trust anybody declaring "I'm right because science says so". Even if you're right, it's still a dogmatic authoritarian pronouncement in the present context. Why not make a science-based logical argument against TomC's dualism, instead of proclaiming "science says!" at people on an internet message board?

That will require TomC explaining what in the heck a "spark of life" is. What is the "spirit"? It will undoubtedly be unconvincing as far as it being a viable answer. So we'll be stuck where we are. An inadequately defined deistic proclamation made by a person who doesn't care or feel the need to defend it, but cares enough to proclaim it.

I learned to smile and nod a long time ago. Ignore them and put their assertions in a certain file.

That looks like a good way to avoid learning.

Make no mistake, I agree with the people who think you're wrong. But "science says", without showing that science really does say it, isn't reasonable.

It was a great way to avoid learning!
They all wanted me to learn that Jesus is God. He Rose from the Dead. He died for my sins.

Yeah, I avoided learning things presented. I thought for myself. I didn't really care if the person telling me I was wrong for disagreeing with them because I hadn't studied enough.
------

Tom,

The discussion was the lack of appeal in atheism compared to religion. Can you explain a bit about why you prefer your deism to either atheism or materialism or naturalism?

Sure.

As long as we all understand that you're wrong about my attitude towards naturalism. And atheism and materialism.

Also, that I don't care about what anyone else thinks about Creation or afterlife or anything like that. I do not care about anybody's beliefs concerning the undemonstrable truth of reality. I don't care about the opinions of Bilby, the Pope, or Elixir.

I made no truth claims I couldn't back up.
Tom

Yup... been at this too long.

 

[bilby]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

No one should have to trust anybody declaring "I'm right because science says so". Even if you're right, it's still a dogmatic authoritarian pronouncement in the present context. Why not make a science-based logical argument against TomC's dualism, instead of proclaiming "science says!" at people on an internet message board?

Because I am tired. Because I don't have much time to spend here. And because I am right.

 

[bilby]

What you describe is demonstrably not reality,

Demonstrate.
Tom

What, you want me to post five years of high school biology, four of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology, and a few years of post graduate stuff on a discussion board?

Just because something is known to be true doesn't mean it's simple or easy. If you want to know stuff, you have to learn stuff. Your only other option is to take the word of people who did the work you eschewed - but that's a dangerous business, because by definition you're unqualified to know how far to trust them.

No one should have to trust anybody declaring "I'm right because science says so". Even if you're right, it's still a dogmatic authoritarian pronouncement in the present context. Why not make a science-based logical argument against TomC's dualism, instead of proclaiming "science says!" at people on an internet message board?

I think you're wasting your time.

I grew up in a conservative Catholic world. I learned early on that some people just aren't interested in views that don't match their own. They're more interested in explaining why they are the authority. If you don't agree with them, they find the obvious explanation in your stupidity and poor education.

I learned to smile and nod a long time ago. Ignore them and put their assertions in a certain file.

Tom

From what I see, you still live in a conservative Catholic world, but have persuaded yourself otherwise.

 

[TomC]

From what I see, you still live in a conservative Catholic world, but have persuaded yourself otherwise.

From what I can see,

When it comes to smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists.
Tom

 

[1Heidegger1!]

I'm reminded of the Star Trek voyager episode about the deathless, godlike Q continuum philosopher Quinn who wanted permission to commit suicide because he had done everything and been everything countless times and so was stuck in a perpetual state of tortuous boredom. Maybe finitude and secularism are the only conditions under which life can be happy, if you really tease out the consequences of what eternal life would actually be like. Heaven better have a Helluva Band, lol.

 

[Elixir]

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

 

[skepticalbip]

...

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

But simply accepting the dogma and tenants of a religion as truth is easy and comforting. It is the draw of religions. Questioning and reasoning can lead to disquieting and uncomfortable conclusions. "knowing" that 'there is a plan' and that one will be taken care of and consciousness will never die is more attractive than reasoning that "shit happens".

 

[Elixir]

...

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

But simply accepting the dogma and tenants of a religion as truth is easy and comforting. It is the draw of religions. Questioning and reasoning can lead to disquieting and uncomfortable conclusions. "knowing" that 'there is a plan' and that one will be taken care of and consciousness will never die is more attractive than reasoning that "shit happens".

Hey, I'm all about easy. If it was easy to believe in all that crap I'd be all in. But I find it impossible.
Don't get me wrong - I am gratefully aware of the fact that what we observe and experience is "miraculous" whether only from our human perspective or from some more universal one beyond our grasp. (I suspect it's both because everything seems very fractal)
But that doesn't mean that things beyond our ken may be usefully reduced to points of religious dogma. This is a recent development, as religions have served a function in the success of the HSS species, and probably in that of its forbears.
IMHO, we have overpopulated the planet thanks to science, to a point where only science can get us out of this mess. And religions place themselves and their subscribers right in the way.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

smugly self righteous judgement the Catholics aren't much different from you atheists

Yet you choose to cling to remnants of their BS.
Doesn't say much for your independence of thought...

But simply accepting the dogma and tenants of a religion as truth is easy and comforting. It is the draw of religions. Questioning and reasoning can lead to disquieting and uncomfortable conclusions. "knowing" that 'there is a plan' and that one will be taken care of and consciousness will never die is more attractive than reasoning that "shit happens".

Hey, I'm all about easy. If it was easy to believe in all that crap I'd be all in. But I find it impossible.

That is because you rely on critical reasoning in trying to understand reality. You have to recognize that some people prefer comforting ideas even if any critical examination would reveal it as BS.

Don't get me wrong - I am gratefully aware of the fact that what we observe and experience is "miraculous" whether only from our human perspective or from some more universal one beyond our grasp. (I suspect it's both because everything seems very fractal)
But that doesn't mean that things beyond our ken may be usefully reduced to points of religious dogma. This is a recent development, as religions have served a function in the success of the HSS species, and probably in that of its forbears.
IMHO, we have overpopulated the planet thanks to science, to a point where only science can get us out of this mess. And religions place themselves and their subscribers right in the way.

Exactly right but people think and reason differently depending on their priorities. Those attracted to religion aren't comfortable with unknowns so accept 'answers' without any deep questioning of that 'answer' even if the 'answer' is "god works in mysterious ways" or "it is a miracle". Other people will see an unknown as a challenge and try to work out or reason exactly what it is. If they fail to understand, they will reluctantly accept that they just don't know.