Underlying Philosophy

quote:

---

The fact that our memory is sometimes unreliable is a result of sin (and btw, I would be interested to hear your explanation for the unreliability of our memory). What I am asking is you is what is your reason for depending on your memory (as you do very much). How do you know that your memory is reliable (or at least sometimes) without first assuming that it is reliable?

---

If unreliable memories are due to sin, than those with the most unreliable memories should be the biggest sinners via your reasoning, but this is not what we observe.Actually memories are recorded in the hippocampus, an organ of the brain. If this organ is damaged, one cannot form new memories. And for a glimpse of what it's like to live without the ability to make any new memories, google "Clive Wearing and Youtube". There have been two documentaries on this poor man (who doesn't appear to have been a big sinner), and he constantly feels like he is waking up from a coma. He cries when he sees his kids because he missed seeing them grow up-- only he didn't. He just can't remember anything that happened more than 7 seconds ago. It's horrific. (And nobody can tell him about it, because he won't remember!)Clive wearing made it very clear to me what an unlikely notion souls are. Why doesn't Clive's soul step in to do what his brain can't? If a person is so damaged and so untethered due to a non-functioning hippocampus, then what could he possibly be without any brain at all? How much of you would be left if you couldn't remember anything new ever again. You couldn't remember what you ate or read a paragraph or anything... you could witness a murder and have no knowledge of having done so.Where did you get the nutty notion that memory problems are due to "sin"?

quote:

---

This is ridiculous and depicts very correctly the basis for the atheist philosophy - a worldview based on obsolete 19 century concepts. The fact that you are certain you understand some of those concepts proves how deluded some of you(most?) are. No Nobel Prize winner would claim to know what ANY of those concepts ttruly represent, but obviously it's not a hindrance for the kindergarten you have setup here.

---

This is a straw man. You probably shouldn't get your definitions of atheism from theists. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods. That's it. It's as much as a "philosophy" as your lack of belief in Scientology.Until there is evidence for invisible, immeasurable beings, then it's rational not to believe in such things. I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe in gremlins. Moreover, I don't believe someone is going to reward or punish me based on what I believe. I find the whole concept very manipulating and ridiculous.Atheism makes no claims to "divine truths" and most atheists don't even believe such "truths" exist; however, theists claim to KNOW that the answer to the unknowable is their god. Who is more arrogant? Most atheist have a humanistic or rationalistic "philosophy", but atheism, itself, is not a philosophy just as bald is not a hair color.I think it's much more delusional to believe in invisible, immeasurable beings that are indistinguishable from mythological or imaginary beings. All theists claim "god(s) exists". That is indistinguishable form the delusional claim that Xenu exists. There is no more evidence for one than there is for the other. The atheist merely says there is not enough evidence to believe in any gods. What is delusional about that? Should some actual evidence come along, I'm sure all atheists will reconsider the topic. We would need to be able to distinguish a real god from a misperception or myth or confirmation bias, of course. Most people don't even agree on what god is or what she does, did, or wants-- or even how many there are...or even what it means to say "how many" when you are talking about an invisible but omnipresent being.I think someone needs to prove that consciousness CAN exist without a material brain before I will believe in any invisible beings. If scientists cannot "know" about such things, then there is no reason to think that anyone else can either.Edited by articulett, : added "else" to last sentence for clarity.

quote:

---

emotions seem to be reflected in almost all "living" things, even plants react to emotional sounds, play rock metal to a flower and its less likely to grow. Emotions and thoughts exists within "living" things. if we do exist inside a greater body, and contribute to a greater existing body in some form or fashion, then thoughts and emotions would exist outside what we call living things, because there is nothing that exists that is dead. either A: it exists or B: it does not exist. and not existing is true death.

---

I think you are confused here. Emotions are brain processes that are interpreted by brains. A flower may react to sound waves, but there are no scientific studies to suggest they feel emotions. Thoughts and emotions are not magical things that exist absent a material brain anymore than music, though immaterial, is magical. Music cannot exist absent material instruments making the music and brains that interpret the music as "music". Music is a pattern of sound waves and thought is a pattern of brainwaves. They both require matter to exist.There are lots of things that exist that are dead, by the way. There are dead skin cells all over you right now. There may be a dead tree just outside your window. There may be a dead chicken in your freezer or a dead fly on your windowsill. There are dead sperm all over the place. Every living thing becomes a dead thing until the molecules that make them break apart and are incorporated elsewhere.Thoughts don't exist outside living things anymore than music does. These things are both dependent on matter to exist. There's a reason for the term: "brain dead"--the stuff required for thought is no longer working. As counter intuitive as this may seem, and as much as you or I might wish this isn't so, that is where the evidence points.Despite eons of belief, there is no evidence that any sort of consciousness can exist outside a material brain. And given the vested interest that all of humanity has in such a notion, I'd have imagined scientists would have found at least an iota of evidence that we could have built upon by now like we have with DNA. Correct information tends to lead to the ability to learn more and refine and hone that information.Really wanting to believe in souls or spirits or karma or Thetans or muses doesn't lend credence to the idea that such things are more than wishful thinking. The same goes for gods and demons. There is no way to distinguish one invisible immeasurable entity from any other. There doesn't appear to be evidence to believe in any of these things as far as I'm concerned. Edited by articulett, : No reason given.

My dog doesn't murder. She doesn't commit atrocities. She's even pretty nice to the cats. Yet she has no soul nor any gods (except maybe me). I think religions fool their believers into believing that people can't be good or moral without faith.It doesn't appear that belief in invisible beings is necessary for morality at all. There certainly is no evidence that the religious are more moral than their non believing peers though I'm sure that each sect imagines that their sect is more moral than the sects with conflicting beliefs. And there's definitely evidence that people have used religion to justify some pretty immoral behavior. Oddly, gods seem to have the same prejudices as the people who believe in them.Theists often seem so confused to me-- they don't seem to be able to tell a fact (the kind of thing that is true for everyone no matter who believes what) from everything else (opinion, belief, conjecture, ideal, motto, parable, motto, etc.) I can't tell if religion has muddled their thinking or if those with muddled thinking are more likely to be drawn to religion.