Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Michael 345]

Your idea of spiritual evolution is not at all "very similar" to what Darwin was on about, I'm afrai

Darwin evolution - mix up the DNA from two entities - if the new mix has a better adaptability it (Gloria Gaynor playing in background) will survive

So this is getting interesting

We have souls doing the horizontal Tango in order to evolve

Anyone know a church where that nugget of information is preached?

 

[Sarkus]

So why ask?

Because you are making a claim of knowledge. So I ask again: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Soul - my 2 cents worth

Soul is a made up CONCEPT - I'll let the clever ones in the thread work out which group of people made it up

After death and the body is rotting in the ground many people questioned "how / what from the body has gone to heaven?"

Taaa Dah - the soul is born

This is in and around 17th century but soul goes back futher (see notes later)

I have never seen any reference to a physical aspect to the soul, and even in the most ancient medical text I have read, never seen any anatomical aspect of a soul described, nor any drawings

Grey's Anatomy does not list the soul as a part of the body

The closest to being the best candidate for the position of a soul is concessness

Concessness does tick all the boxes and characteristics of the soul

Problem is none of the characteristics survive death as CHARACTERISTICS are a PROCESS, modern con-man uses words like spirit or life force as a label for the process

Giving the PROCESSES of life a name, soul, would then allow for the concept of some sort of existence after death

The body dies, the soul looks around, packs up all your memories, hopes, dreams, loves and looses - in essence the essence of you - and heads off to heaven / hell

Thought bubble - who gives directions to the soul?
As the soul leaves the body is there some? presence beckoning?
Is there any appeal system if the soul feels like something is not fair?

Notes later

*****

The concept of an immaterial soul separate from and surviving the body is common today but according to modern scholars, it was not found in ancient Hebrew beliefs.[1] The word nephesh never means an immortal soul[29] or an incorporeal part of the human being[30] that can survive death of the body as the spirit of dead,[31]

PLUS more Notes later

The traditional concept of an immaterial and immortal soul distinct from the body was not found in Judaism before the Babylonian exile,[1] but developed as a result of interaction with Persian and Hellenistic philosophies.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible

*****

Plus read ALL the following Wiki article for a complete wipe out of some persons (in this thread) ideas of soul (which are I guess personal, and the article, after all said and done, can be classified as group consensus) which means reliance on its pronouncements comes under, appeal to authority

Concessness, as I noted earlier, does have the potential to earn the title of soul

But so what? It is a PROCESS - not a INGREDIENT

Die - no PROCESS - goodbye soul

Concessness is certainly being studied and in time hopefully understand

My take, purely from reading the research, is that from the billions of chemical and electrical operations within the brain some self organise into feedback loops which other sections of the brain access (subconsciously)

As the loops are "brought forward" into the conscious area the brain is aware (conscious) of itself AND the input coming from the bodies nerve stimulation system is aware "I (the brain) have a body (I, brain, am connected to and incorporated with the body) I, brain, am NOT a seperate entity"

I don't believe in duality

Gets down off soapbox

Coffee time



Comments welcome but not necessarily replied to

So what you are saying is you have evidence that as there is nothing tangible about the soul it is indeed proof of God.
They have it wrong..it came in a dream so it must be true...I am a wolf spirit and wgen my human body dies I will go back to the plains 5000 years in the past.
And if that is not true why were there wolves on the plains 5000 years ago and not these days.
Now science cant explain that so evolution is wrong and its all right if you marry your distant cousin if you are sure she is not your sister if Daddy got around the congregation ☺

Still all we need to do is state the truth which grinds deep...its all made up stuff from the bronze age.

Getting cold here.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

So what you are saying is you have evidence that as there is nothing tangible about the soul it is indeed proof of God.

Not exactly - no proof of soul - no tangible substance - no physicality to dissect

The above doe not translate to proof of god

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Answer my question first, please.
Thanks.

Jan.

I did with my question.
You sometimes come over as evasive Jan but that ok it shows you are clever and evasive.
Clever is good but maybe not so much evasive.
But I get the picture ... when I say the scriptures are made up you have nothing to offer in evidence that they are not,...thats a win for me☺
I ask you to provide evidence of a soul and you offer failed logic...that is a win for me.
You use your cleverness to evade looking for truth.
That is a lose for you.
You should use your powers for good and offer no support to the forces of evil as represented by my suspicion that you have been taken over by the negative state of mind we now know as evasivness.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Not exactly - no proof of soul - no tangible substance - no physicality to dissect

The above doe not translate to proof of god

I bet Jan may see it as proof☺
The power of not made up stuff.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Getting cold here.

Have some of your special coffee

 

[Michael 345]

I bet Jan may see it as proof☺
The power of not made up stuff.
Alex

Hammer / nail

 

[Michael 345]

This from my archives

Not my idea but when I read it made me smile (remembering my days as a ambulance driver)

Apparently at the scene of a bad accident a relative of the person being loaded into the ambulance asked the driver where were they taking him

“To the nearest hospital ma'am”

“He's Catholic you know”

Deadpan the driver looks at her and asked “Do you think he would prefer to go to the nearest church and have prayers sent to god to fix his broken body?”

 

[Capracus]

No, I'm not. The article isn't titled whether or not most people have some sort of metaphysical belief, but whether there are people without a specific metaphysical belief - which the headline suggests is doubtful.
If the article, and subsequent discussion, is simply whether or not people hold metaphysical beliefs then that is a very different proposition than singling out and focusing on a specific belief.

I was addressing your parsing of the term theist. Theism is the belief in and reverence for deities, and deities are essentially supernatural entities. As I mentioned earlier, the characteristics of these entities can range from the most basic to the most complex, which could qualify any perceived supernatural entity as a god in a given context. For example, if the only requirement of a specific god was to grant you good luck, then whatever ritualistic appeal is made to this perceived supernatural entity is an act of theism. Whether an athlete believes that a special pair of socks supernaturally grants him luck, or a prayer to Jesus will do the trick, it’s the appeal to the supernatural that defines the practice of theism, not what form it’s imagined to be.

 

[Sarkus]

I was addressing your parsing of the term theist. Theism is the belief in and reverence for deities, and deities are essentially supernatural entities. As I mentioned earlier, the characteristics of these entities can range from the most basic to the most complex, which could qualify any perceived supernatural entity as a god in a given context. For example, if the only requirement of a specific god was to grant you good luck, then whatever ritualistic appeal is made to this perceived supernatural entity is an act of theism. Whether an athlete believes that a special pair of socks supernaturally grants him luck, or a prayer to Jesus will do the trick, it’s the appeal to the supernatural that defines the practice of theism, not what form it’s imagined to be.

So you are arguing that an athlete having a "lucky sock" makes them a theist?

 

[Michael 345]

So you are arguing that an athlete having a "lucky sock" makes them a theist?

Yes I agree. I think the idea of a God of odd lucky socks for athletes would be a hard sell

Think needs a bit more let's say spirituality and a lot less tinea

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because you are making a claim of knowledge. So I ask again: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence?

What claim of knowledge?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I did with my question.

How was that an answer?

Jan.

 

[Capracus]

So you are arguing that an athlete having a "lucky sock" makes them a theist?

Only if the athlete believed that the wearing the sock had a supernatural influence on their performance. If the sock simply appealed to a sense of comfort, fashion, or other acknowledged psychological conditioning it would not qualify.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

How was that an answer?

Jan.

Because it sort to qualify your question.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

This from my archives

Not my idea but when I read it made me smile (remembering my days as a ambulance driver)

Apparently at the scene of a bad accident a relative of the person being loaded into the ambulance asked the driver where were they taking him

“To the nearest hospital ma'am”

“He's Catholic you know”

Deadpan the driver looks at her and asked “Do you think he would prefer to go to the nearest church and have prayers sent to god to fix his broken body?”

I have been watching Richard Dawkins and cant decide if he is my favorite atheist or not.
Man does he cut religion to pieces ...utterly destroys it.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't want to repeat what Sarkus said too much, but I think it's worth emphasising that the whole "soul" concept is manufactured in such a way to make souls unfalsifiable.

I think you've got that mixed up with modern atheism.

Sure, we might all have souls, in theory, but it seems to make no practical difference to anything observable whether they exist or not.

An atheist perspective.
So what?

I know you have faith that the "problem of consciousness" won't ever be explained without introducing a supernatural soul, but that's just a belief you have, nothing more. You're guessing at what might happen (or not happen). You're hoping you're right. But you know nothing.

All you seem to know at this particular juncture. Is that you need to gain control over this discussion.

That's not quite true. For example, I have discussed the theory that consciousness arises from brains or, more fundamentally, from complex-enough nervous systems. It's an emergent property.

Same nonsense.

There is evidence for this. We can perceive gradations of sentience and consciousness in different kinds of animals, for instance. A fly or a worm, for example, appears to have a low level of consciousness and sentience. A rabbit or a dog has a higher level of consciousness. An octopus has a very high level of consciousness. In general, we observe that higher levels of consciousness correlate with larger brains and more complex nervous systems. This makes sense if consciousness is a result of a complex nervous system.

On the other hand, there's zero evidence for immortal souls driving the consciousness of worms, octopuses or human beings.

I liked how nothing came together during that little diatribe, yet you manage to cobble together a conclusion, based offa it.

No. That's a lousy explanation. It's a non-explanation. You're just inserting a place holder term and pretending you've solved the problem. "Well, you see kids, we all have these magical things called souls, and - hey presto! - we're conscious. Thank the Lord!"

It's a problem to atheists, James. Not theists.

See, there's you pretending again. It is clear that you know next to nothing about neuroscience, for example, but you still imagine that you're qualified to dismiss what scientists have to offer as "nonsense". If you had any real expertise, you'd be able to suggest why it is "nonsense", but you can't and won't do that. Will you?

I know enough to know that it is nonsense. But feel free to enlighten me on why it is a sensible placeholder, sorry, explanation.

It's almost endearing that you think that science is ideologically driven by an anti-religious bias. The truth is, good scientists go where the evidence leads. The soul is a dead end idea.

Poor James.
Reduced to putting words in people's mouth, then seriously respond to it, as though the person really said it.
But I hear you. You're an atheist, a person for whom there is no God. It's hardly surprising that, for you, there is no spirit-soul either.

You keep talking about language, as if it proves something about souls when people talk about "my body" or "my brain". How else would we distinguish your arm from my arm, using language,

How else indeed?

There's no difference when we talk about "my mind". It doesn't imply that the mind is separate from the body; it's just a device to specify which mind we're talking about.

How does it differ from saying "my car", "my mixedbag of spanners"

Similarly, when we say "I think that ..." or "I want ...", it's just an obvious shorthand to communicate what my conscious brain and/or my body are doing.

That's just you holding on to your delusion.
The reality is, it is self-explanatory and needs no amendment.

"I" want" .. is clearly the person, desiring, or demanding.

"My arm"... is clearly an expression of ownership.

Sorry mate, but you're notions are merely by-products of your delusional position.

Like I always say, atheism require constant updates, and management, just to simply keep it from hitting the dust.
But you modern atheist are nothing, if not persistent.

How do you know any of this?

I was explaining to Sarkus, as per definition.

Don't you realise that you don't know anything about these souls that you think exist? Doesn't it ever worry you, just a bit, that the foundations of your worldview are built on such shifting sand?

Do you know what you're talking about James?
How do you know, I don't know anything about what I am talking about?

You're an atheist James.
There is no God as far as you are aware.
And that is your limitation mate.
Soz!

Why did your God c noreate an alien atmosphere and force souls to live in it?

Go find out.
It may help with the delusion, and control issues you display.

No? It sure seems like you choose it to be undetectable by science, for starters. Why does it have to be that way?

Does it?

Silly question. Why are you in this discussion, Jan? Why did you start it? Is your worldview that important to you?

Because I felt like it.

No more important than any other natural phenomenon.
I bet its not nice for you, continually having to maintain, update, and manage your delusion. Even if it means suppressing truth and common sense, for the sake of some phantasmagoria.

I do feel for you James.

As usual, you have the causation backwards. You're a theist because you believe in gods and spirits. The belief comes first, not the label. Nothing follows from putting an arbitrary label on yourself or on another person.

You're an atheist because you have accepted there is no God. Sadly James, any notions pertaining to God, that you have. Falls under your dismal banner.

You keep concentrating on the "awareness" all the time. Step back and consider the bigger picture.

LOL! You are funny.
Do you think "awareness" is post standing back and looking at things?

God exists as far as you're aware. Boring. I already know all about that.

Sadly, that's all you can really know.

What I'm interested in is whether God actually exists, in reality, not in your "awareness". But you have nothing to offer in terms of enlightenment on that question. You admit it yourself.

You are interested in keeping your delusion alive. You need to believe that every stone has been turned, band nothing was found. Because if you don't, you will have no choice but to accept God.

What do you mean by "pure"? In what sense is God "pure"?

Go and find out James.

As an aside, it's interesting how religion is so often tied to ideas of purity and cleanliness and health, don't you think? There's a hint right there about the origins of theism.

You'll have to elaborate on that James, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It's illogical to pretend you know stuff you don't know, then treat it as if it is indisputable fact, for starters.

Then you should stop doing it James.
At least you've made the first step by acknowledging it. But it's the next step that counts. Admitting it. I'm rooting for you mate.

Like everything in science, it's a hypothesis that might turn out to be wrong. You never know. But I can't think of any strong competing scientific hypotheses.

It's a guess, so I suppose it qualifies a hopothesis.
As for any hope of a better placeholder guess. I won't hold my breath.

I'm guessing that, for you, no naturalistic explanation will ever be "equal" to your God explanation.

Why guess?
As an atheist you can claim it as a fact.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

How do you know, I don't know anything about what I am talking about?

Because the title of this thread is a simple, basic falsehood. And you claim to not know that. So anyone accepting it as sincere, or honest, is driven to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because the title of this thread is a simple, basic falsehood.

Why is it?

And you claim to not know that

Was it a real claim?
Or is it atheists saying it is a claim?
If the former please show me the claim.

. So anyone accepting it as sincere, or honest, is driven to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.

Atheists somehow seem to get away with crap like this, because generally people don't challenge them.

What are you blathering on about Iceaura? Please explain yourself.

Jan.