The evolution of an atheist.

Perhaps GDR will explain what he meant there, unless he expects me to do all of the work.Of course I don't see how "There is no such thing as objective reality," could mean anything but that GDR does not think that an objective reality exists. This seems to mesh with his philosophy of searching for "truth" in religious ideals which "ring true" to him rather than have any objective basis in reality.

I agree that it is up to GDR, to explain what he means. However, it is far from clear as to what people mean when they use the term "objective" (see thread Objective reality).

OK I get your point. I responded I should have said of course that none of our views are objective.It was poorly written, but within the context of what I was responding to you probably could have discerned the meaning.However you do have a point and I apologise.

quote:

---

I don’t know what you are using for a reference

---

I cited the reference - twice. It has a bibliography which you can check, and it was Horus I meant.

quote:

---

You have a lot of "knows" in there that are your beliefs. The only model we have for a resurrected body is Jesus. If you take the gospels as factual as I do, then the resurrected Jesus was something that the disciples didn't expect and something that was different from normal human experience. About the only other thing we can know about new creation is that there is an end to suffering and Jesus is Lord.

---

No, we have established the difference between scientific acceptance of theory and religious belief. I use the word 'know' because it is appropriate - it is backed up by evidence and does not contradict either known theory or observartion/experiment. It is not a belief that the sense of self is generated by the brain - it just is, the evidence is overwhelming. Likewise it is not a belief that the body decays and is distributed after death - we know it to be the case, especially when cremated.Whay YOU have is faith, not a belief. Faith goes further than belief because faith is thinking something to be true in spite of evidence, not just lacking evidence. All the evidence points to the fact that the 'self' cannot survive after death. There is no reliable evidence that it can. The only evidence you have is a disputed account in a disputed book about a disputed event which seems to many of us to be entirely different to your interpretation. That would be laughed out of court. I can quote neuroscience, medical and clinical trials, observational and experimental data and any number of scientific papers to support the things that I say I know...that it not reciprocal...

That may be your definition but the dictionary seems to disagree. I would contend that there is no reliable evidence either way. What happens to the self after physical death is beyond physical knowledge. I agree it is faith but I also believe it to be a resonable faith, knowing that we won't be in agreement on that. But so would the atheistic POV be laughed out of court. There isn't that kind of evidence for either case. They work with what can be measured, tested and observed physically, and they do it well. But so what? All anyone can say is that when someone dies there is nothing left that can be measured, tested or observed. If there is a soul, consciousness, or self that carries on in another dimension then it is beyond our ability to examine.

The dictionary is a rough tool, but :
... Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
....Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared, based on the declarer's authority and truthfulness
Both of which are consistent with my own definition.
Just think for a moment about how you generally use the word.
Son : Dad, I came last again in maths.
Dad: Don't worry son, I have faith in you - you will do better next time.The word doesn't apply where there is evidence.
I have faith that there are floorboards under my feet.....
not quite right is it?Anyway...

quote:

---

I would contend that there is no reliable evidence either way. What happens to the self after physical death is beyond physical knowledge. I agree it is faith but I also believe it to be a resonable faith, knowing that we won't be in agreement on that.

---

No, it isn't reasonable. Another word for reasonable is rational. Belief in the supernatural is antithetical to rationality.

quote:

---

But so would the atheistic POV be laughed out of court. There isn't that kind of evidence for either case.

---

You think so? Let's see
M'Lud, the prosecution contend that my client, after his death, was actually floating around the cosmos as a disembodied spirit, rather than, as we contend, planted firmly 6ft under. As evidence I would like to offer the testimony of the medical doctors who pronounced my client dead, the neurologist who measured no brain activity, the physicist who looked for any trace energy traces leaving the corpse and found only the rapidly diminishing heat trace one would expect.
I would further enter in evidence the following 25 thousand cases of charlatans, crooks, criminals and liars who have profitted from keeping this belief in the supernatural going. I would ask that M'Lud rule the priests and clerics are NOT expert witnesses as they claim - since they have no special expertise in ANYTHING that could be relevant to deciding this issue.
Finally I move that the charges be thrown out of court and a charge laid against the prosectution for wasting everyone's time.
Case dismissed.

quote:

---

They work with what can be measured, tested and observed physically, and they do it well. But so what? All anyone can say is that when someone dies there is nothing left that can be measured, tested or observed. If there is a soul, consciousness, or self that carries on in another dimension then it is beyond our ability to examine.

---

Appeal to ignorance again. We can measure energy at almost any level (certainly WAY more sensitively than would be needed for some 'soul' to leave the body. Appealing to other dimensions is as reasonable as just saying 'God did it innit?' - ie not at all reasonable or rational.
Having the cheek to try and cast an equivalence of ignorance is highly dishonest. There is a huge amount of evidence on the materialist side. Not one reliable piece of anything on the supernaturalist side.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Thanks for the discussion Bikerman. I think the point of the discussion was how we came to our respective beliefs and I think we've done that.I'll tell you what. In the next life we'll revisit this discussion and see who was closer to the truth. Cheers

Fair enough, but, to paraphrase, I have no intention of going to any heaven that would have me as a member...

That makes you just the kinda guy He's looking for.Sorry.... couldn't resist.

Well, I actually agree with Chris Hitchens on this one, I'm really quite relieved that there is no significant evidence for God, because I would then have to change from an atheist to an anti-god member. What I mean is that if God does indeed exist and he is anything like the God of the bible, then I would feel compelled to condemn him, knowing full well what it would cost. Not having to make that choice is a profound relief

---

There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Chris