Atheism - The Final Frontier

reply to post by confreak

Lack of randomness is evidence of conscious creator, we have 0 example of deterministic systems coming to existence without intelligence or consciousness.

In fact, we have 0 evidence of conscious systems coming into existence without unconscious deterministic or partly deterministic (if you include quantum randomness and subscribe to non-deterministic interpretation) prerequisite or cause.

Space was not coscious after big bang, but consciousness appeared from unconscious interactions inside after a time.

A sperm is not conscious. An egg is not conscious. Nutrients are not conscious. The resulting developed child is.

So, what uncoscious system created your conscious creator? And if it requires unconscious system first for the conscious system to exist, then explaining the appearance of unconscious system by postulating the existence of conscious system with no evidence is redundant by the law of parsimony, since it implies infinite loop.

If there is a God then the human race has no common sense because the theory of a God is not common sense nor is it valid, appropriate or possible if onlyn 10% of our understanding of the universe is true!! I know where I would put my money and it aint on b.ll..ks.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by confreak

 

Space was not coscious after big bang, but consciousness appeared from unconscious interactions inside after a time.

Yes, but that is like saying a computer wasn't conscious, until interaction between computers and our consciousness. Now you perceive the computer which is communicating this message to you as conscious.

A sperm is not conscious. An egg is not conscious. Nutrients are not conscious. The resulting developed child is.

I have my own idea of how consciousness is derived, but it is speculative, I wanted to create an experiment to test it but you know it isn't as easy as it looks. I believe consciousness is derived, in the end there is only one consciousness, that consciousness is experiencing this creation through this body.

Think about your computer, and a virtual reality, your consciousness is transfered to the character you posses, obviously the character is not conscious unless use it, control it. The character is perceived as conscious, but that consciousness is derived from us, who control the character.

So, what uncoscious system created your conscious creator? And if it requires unconscious system first for the conscious system to exist, then explaining the appearance of unconscious system by postulating the existence of conscious system with no evidence is redundant by the law of parsimony, since it implies infinite loop.

You are making the assumption that consciousness is derived from unconsciousness, if that was true we would already have conscious computers. At least some scientists are predicting that the internet will be conscious by 2024 (?) I think. If that is true, then my idea of consciousness will collapse, but obviously I'm trying to come up with tests.

Since I'm a computer programmer (been involved in virtual game productions), I'm trying visualize myself in a virtual world with absolute no recollection of where my actual consciousness is derived from, meaning completely forgetting about the real world. This means completely being trapped within the virtual world, and not knowing at all about the real world. How would I test to see if my consciousness is derived or not.

Found the Article:

Global Brain - The Internet could become conscious by mid-2030s

memebox.com...

The World Wide Web is a network of inter-connectivity that goes everywhere and follows its own intelligence. The advent of this newly emerging communication field around our planet has enabled citizens from all lifestyles to communicate globally via words, sounds and pictures – inexpensively, person-to-person; and from the safety of their own homes and offices – for the first time ever.

The Internet represents a major step in our evolution, and is a forerunner of things to come. Artificial intelligence researcher Francis Heylighen sees huge growth as this new world-wide communication system continues to gain power from billions of humans adding to its intelligence every day. “It will get smarter,” Heylighen says, “as it morphs into a global super-organism that could one day provide solutions to most of humanity’s problems.”
Experts compare the Internet to a planet growing a global brain. As users, we represent the neurons. Texting, emails, and IM act as nerve endings, and electromagnetic waves through the sky become neural pathways. Like germinating seeds, this global brain continues to evolve and as some forward-thinkers believe, will not stop until it develops feelings and achieves consciousness.

Feelings represent a lower level of awareness of what goes on in a system’s environment. In that sense, the global brain will be conscious of important events affecting its goals. A higher level of consciousness – self-awareness – would require that the global brain could reflect on its own functioning. The Internet, in the wider sense of the world community is slowly becoming aware of itself. Although today’s algorithms make the web more intelligent, it cannot monitor itself. However, in principle, there are no obstacles towards implementing such a capacity in the future.

The universe IS deterministic.

My writing this is determinism

If the universe was not deterministic then I would not be able to write this. I would not be able to make keystrokes without determinism, nor have language, or form.

The universe has set laws.

There is only so small an object can be (quanta) and there are also set limits on how big an object can become (stars) so that they collapse inwards on themselves because of the set... DETERMINED... Limits to the DESIGN parameters....

If I take a ball and put it in my pocket.. Decide that in an hour I would take it out and throw it in a set direction, then do so, that, and the act of thinking about it and all other actions in between is proof of determinism at the core of everything because if the universe was not deterministic, then I could not do it as it would go against the laws of nature...

Determinism proves the design, and the "mind" of the designer, for without the "mind" there is no designer nor creation, there is nothingness which is what random is....

It's kind of sad how far some people will go to deny science because it intrudes on their comfortable religious fantasies.

One's belief will never be validated by claims about randomness, or claims and arguments about anything else for that matter. You need evidence and/or proof.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Why does everyone say I deny science?

Or is this like a predetermined message that just pops out.

Atheism is a belief system.
Theism is a belief system.
Pantheism is a belief system.
Nihilism is a belief system.

Why cant you get this??
You do not OWN science or biology -.-

A scientist makes science discoveries. Richard Dawkins,Sam Harries, Christopher Hitchens, are NOT scientists, they write books (crappy ones).

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I actually get my feelings of superiority through actually being superior. See, I actually know more about this stuff than you do. This makes you my lesser, at least in this regard.

Wow... just wow. This is what I love on ATS, just utter lack of respect for others and unimaginable rudeness.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_

From Web Of Knowledge I see Dawkins has published at least 100 articles in scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Journal of Neurophysiology and Clinical and Experimental Immunology. Further his books, e.g. the Selfish Gene, have introduced (at least wider scientific community) to new ideas, which have turned out to be correct. So, he's very much a scientist. A very high profile one actually. You might call them crappy books, because they (the ones about religion) totally trash your belief system, but you calling them anything doesn't make it so (I doubt very much you've actually ever even touched a book from Dawkins). For this we'd need proper arguments, which you will fail to deliver. Also, is it a belief system to say that you don't think a transdimensional giraffe created the Universe? Is it a belief system to say you don't think an elephant farted the Earth into existence? Atheism, at heart, is denial of insane ideas for which no proof whatsoever is presented (e.g. christian god). If it's a belief system, you could just as well call it rationalism, in contrast to religions, which we can group into one belief system: irrationalism.

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Why does everyone say I deny science?

Or is this like a predetermined message that just pops out.

It's possible that I oversimplified. However, your post appears to be based upon the threats that scientific discoveries pose to religious claims.

Even if I did oversimplify my other point stands. I'll be glad to believe in a "creator" when independently verifiable proof establishes its existence.

reply to post by confreak

And again some Christian have to bash Atheists just for kicks, while you at same time complain that we respond and correct your bull# propaganda that you spread in non religion threads.

And by the way.. the vast majority of the world is not very smart..

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_

 

From Web Of Knowledge I see Dawkins has published at least 100 articles in scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Journal of Neurophysiology and Clinical and Experimental Immunology. Further his books, e.g. the Selfish Gene, have introduced (at least wider scientific community) to new ideas, which have turned out to be correct. So, he's very much a scientist. A very high profile one actually. You might call them crappy books, because they (the ones about religion) totally trash your belief system, but you calling them anything doesn't make it so (I doubt very much you've actually ever even touched a book from Dawkins). For this we'd need proper arguments, which you will fail to deliver. Also, is it a belief system to say that you don't think a transdimensional giraffe created the Universe? Is it a belief system to say you don't think an elephant farted the Earth into existence? Atheism, at heart, is denial of insane ideas for which no proof whatsoever is presented (e.g. christian god). If it's a belief system, you could just as well call it rationalism, in contrast to religions, which we can group into one belief system: irrationalism.

edit on 27-6-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I was going to reply to only a portion of your post, and then I noticed that most of it is actually in need of a rebuttal.

You're correct and the original poster is wrong. Dawkins is very much a scientist and a very prominent one, probably one of the most knowledgeable biologists alive today. What he isn't, however, is a philosopher.

I've read his books. I've read God's Delusion and I've read The Greatest Show on Earth. As far as the former "totally trashing my beliefs", you're solely mistaken. As I said, Dawkins is not a philosopher. He presents absolutely no new argument against Christianity. In fact, he presents absolutely no argument against Christianity that doesn't already have an answer, sometimes over a thousand years old. Dawkins knows nothing of theology and only taints his own reputation by somehow thinking that his credentials as a scientist warrant him the necessary knowledge to dabble in other intellectual fields. The God's Delusion is an endless stream of appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks, plus the occasional strawman. Yes, it is a crappy book. No shortage of books exist in reply to it, demonstrating how it is faulty from all of logical, factual, and theological sides.

Yes, it is a belief to say that "you don't think a transdimensional giraffe created the Universe." It is also a belief to say that "you don't think an elephant farted the Earth into existence." Negative opinions exist. Do not confuse skepticism (the lack of opinion) with pseudoskepticism (assumption of negative as default).

I like how you redefine "atheism" to make a point. It is a denial of insane ideas for which no proof whatsoever is presented? Am I atheist now because I deny the idea that vaccines prevent death? There have been no proof whatsoever of this, as no studies have ever been made to prove this point. Atheism is, and will always be, defined as "absence of believe in a god", your silly redefinitions notwithstanding.

As I am sure you're aware of this, and by the context on which your argument is presented, I am to assume that by "insane ideas" you are refering to "belief in God." In this case, prove. Since you state with such absolute certainty that it is an insane idea, you need to prove it, or recant.

If you believe that atheism is rational, you might want to provide the necessary logical arguments to support it, as well. Please, spare me of the argument of ignorance usually offered. I want a real logical argument, for a change.

If you believe that theism is irrational, you might want to provide the necessary logical arguments to support it, proving it to be irrational.

Otherwise, you might want to refrain from making naked assertions for which you can offer no proof whatsoever in the future. Wait, if I deny your insane ideas for which you offered no proof whatsoever, according to your definition, am I now an atheist, despite the fact that I believe in God?

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by confreak

 

And by the way.. the vast majority of the world is not very smart..

Can I see the statistics on that?

Originally posted by Leahn
As I said, Dawkins is not a philosopher. He presents absolutely no new argument against Christianity. In fact, he presents absolutely no argument against Christianity that doesn't already have an answer, sometimes over a thousand years old. Dawkins knows nothing of theology and only taints his own reputation by somehow thinking that his credentials as a scientist warrant him the necessary knowledge to dabble in other intellectual fields.

While I agree Dawkins is no philosopher, I'd have to disagree with you on your claim that he doesn't have the "necessary knowledge to dabble in other intellectual fields". It doesn't take a biology doctorate to realize the fundamental, inescapable problem of those proposing the existence of a god or deity: the complete lack of evidence for such a proposition. Without such evidence, philosophical argumentation is superfluous.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
While I agree Dawkins is no philosopher, I'd have to disagree with you on your claim that he doesn't have the "necessary knowledge to dabble in other intellectual fields". It doesn't take a biology doctorate to realize the fundamental, inescapable problem of those proposing the existence of a god or deity: the complete lack of evidence for such a proposition. Without such evidence, philosophical argumentation is superfluous.

Your opinion about him notwithstanding, he admited himself as much. He does not possess the necessary knowledge of theology to dabble in the field, and he claims rational ignorance for this. Which would be all right, if he didn't feel like writing books about the subject. Interestingly enough, people feel absolutely no qualms about ridiculing a person writing a scientific book when they know little or nothing about the subject. People feel no qualms about ridiculing a person writing a historical book when they know little or nothing about the subject. Same as mathematic. Same as language and linguistics. But theology... apparently doesn't need knowledge of subject. Again, Dawkins' book is pointless. He offers no argument that is not centuries, if not over a millenia old, and that hasn't been answered already. It is only his own ignorance of the subject that makes him believe that his argument are anything revolutionary.

As per your second claim, you're completely incorrect. People talk about things for which they have no evidence whatsoever all the time. Case in point: atoms. Another case in point: bacteria. Another case in point: earth-like planets. Another case in point: extraterrestrial life. Another case in point: Higgs Boson. Another case in point: String Theory.

I could go on, and on, but it is not necessary. Your claim is completely incorrect. If it was correct, then there would never exist any discussions on any subject, since no new idea could be proposed unless one could present sufficient evidence before it even came into discussion.

reply to post by confreak

The problem though is, that creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible

You are absolutely right. It revolves around strawman arguments. Creationism is not science in any way. It cannot stand on its own. It is not testable, hence it is not falsifiable. Young earth creationism is the only one that makes testable claims and those claims fail miserably. Im sorry but creationism is not science at all, it is theology.

Good thread on: Theism & Creationism vs. Atheism & Evolution www.abovetopsecret.com...

--------------------------------------------------------

If that's the direction this thread is going - - - I think valid information is of vital assistance.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


Why can't you get that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is simply a term for those who do not believe. It is simply a disbelief in god. I see no reason to believe in god so I don't. It requires no belief whatsoever. These things have been repeatedly explained on these forums yet the religious can't grasp the fact that there are people who actually do not believe in a god.

If atheism is a religion than health is a disease.

Another thing, and this is not directed at you, but why is it that the religious cannot grasp the simple aspects of evolution. They have been explained multiple times yet they continue to use the same strawman arguments. Evolution is not random. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection which is not random at all. It should be clear now so anyone on this thread making the claim that evolution is random now is either outright lying or willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by Leahn
I could go on, and on, but it is not necessary. Your claim is completely incorrect. If it was correct, then there would never exist any discussions on any subject, since no new idea could be proposed unless one could present sufficient evidence before it even came into discussion.

My claim might be incorrect when discussing those other items you'd listed. However, in making the case that belief in deities is a delusion, explorations into theology and philosophy are unnecessary.

It seems to me that those who criticize Dawkins for not entertaining philosophical arguments often seem to do so because that's the arena in which theists/deists are accustomed to arguing. It's much more difficult to establish the existence of deities when facing someone well-versed in scientific scrutiny.

I didn't find Dawkins' arguments to be flawed or not compelling in his book, just that they are much different arguments than that of say Hitchens or Dennett (who do entertain theology and philosophy). Just my two cents.