Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the consciousness question is not a threat if one believes consciousness is a process derived from the electro-chemical reactions in the brain. It simply replaces the brain with a computer.
Well, let's examine that, under the presumption that the digital simulation hypothesis is true.
That means your brain does not exist, except as a "simulated computer subroutine" of some kind. Which means you are one of two things:
1- A self-aware, sentient computer program.
2- A self-aware, sentient entity the exists outside of, yet somehow interacts within (or, is trapped within) the digital simulation.
I cannot think of a third alternative. Either way, it strongly implys that self-awareness and sentience at least CAN survive death. If the computer program that is YOU is terminated, it could, at least in theory, be restarted. And if you exist independently of the simulation, than death of a simulated body is meaningless, just as when you get blown up playing Battlefield causes you, the player outside of that reality, no harm.
Well, let's examine that, under the presumption that the digital simulation hypothesis is true.
That means your brain does not exist, except as a "simulated computer subroutine" of some kind. Which means you are one of two things:
1- A self-aware, sentient computer program.
2- A self-aware, sentient entity the exists outside of, yet somehow interacts within (or, is trapped within) the digital simulation.
I cannot think of a third alternative. Either way, it strongly implys that self-awareness and sentience at least CAN survive death. If the computer program that is YOU is terminated, it could, at least in theory, be restarted. And if you exist independently of the simulation, than death of a simulated body is meaningless, just as when you get blown up playing Battlefield causes you, the player outside of that reality, no harm.
I think. Y'all are making me strain my brain.
I agree. Assuming arguendo the digital simulation theory is true, self-awareness wouldn't be contingent upon the continued existence of imagined body form.
I was only pointing out that, even under the conventional understanding of the way the mind works, digital thought is concievable.
all have one thing in common multiply.One man can have 10 wives so he can knock them up and multiply.Anyone know of a religion where a women can have 10 men ?Church is against gays why?hey can't multiply.
This is the main reason why, on intellectual and rational grounds, I reject the existence of all gods and conclude that religions are simply man-made constructs.
In my opinion, a religion that was actually true, one that really was of divine origin, would need no apologists or defenders. It would be self-evident, so obviously true that no rational person could deny it. The empirical evidence for it would be overwhelming, so thorough that no reasonable person could explain it away.
Its truth would be so clearly plain to us that it would be in the very fiber of our beings. We would have it literally, as the Bible says, "written on our minds and hearts." It would be universal, accepted and practiced by all cultures and people groups. It would provide a coherent, reasonable, and just morality that would tell us exactly how to live, without any gray areas to agonize over, any cultural or historical contexts to decipher, any unjust principles to accept, or any past "divine" indiscretions (like much of the OT) to explain away.
It would accurately describe the past (in scientifically accurate terms, not fables like Creation or Noah's Ark) and provide a reasonable guide for the future (no fantastic apocalypse myths). It would provide useful advice (once again, in explicit and obvious, not vague or culturally dependent, terms) for all societies, such as how to cure cancer, how to manage natural resources, how to develop technology, how to run an economy, and how to punish criminals. It would eliminate the need for schooling, because it would be pure education . . . simply practicing this divinely inspired religion and communing with this hypothetical infinitely intelligent God would educate you far beyond what the best universities could give you in 20 years of advanced graduate courses.
So far, I have yet to find a religion like this. I'm convinced that it does not exist.Therefore, I rationally and logically conclude that there is no personal god (I can't completely rule out a non-interacting Deistic god) and that all world religions and gods are simply nonsensical man-made constructs.
If any theist has a logical argument to refute these things (not just "you need to have faith!!!!"), I'd be really interested in hearing it.
Of course no one truly believes in any religion - I'd say if you injected a truth serum into the most religious person out there - they would admit they don't really believe in a religion in its current form of ancient religious scriptures etc.
However we all need to have some belief in something in - and if it makes them happy and content then whats wrong with that.
I recently as talking to some religious people - and as they talked about scriptures - my instincts told me that needed to believe in something - if they didn't believe that particular religion, they would believe in another religion - it was more about there personality and ideals.
My Instincts told me it was just words - Isn't it more important to have your own inner beliefs, philosphy, ideals, outlook, sense of who you are and what you stand for- rather hiding behind religious scriptures written by other people.
Mr5150 and Boxcar Overkill: I understand your rhetorical point, but you are clutching at a slender thread. What "evidence"?
When a fellow (the OP) says Therefore, I rationally and logically conclude that there is no personal god." he is making a postive assertion. Either it is based on some sort of evidence or proof or it is just an opinion. I asked for evidence and the OP said he didn't need any. I suspect he didn't have any.
As a side note, I have not made any assertions in this thread. Just askin' for some proof, beyond personal opinion.
I was making a philosophical, not an empirical, argument, therefore I do not need to produce evidence.
Evolution explains the DNA, random chance (or possibly determinism) explains the natural laws. A quantum fluctuation could explain the big bang, but science does not know at this point what started the universe. "God did it" is not a good answer.
I like your O.P. Northstar. It seems the closest thing to this religion you seek is education. That is a very good philosophy to practice.
This thread was at a stalemate after two posts. One needs empirical evidence of a deity while the other needs a valid explanation for the creation of everything.
There's no middle ground between these two positions.
This argument has been done to death... literally.
Religions don't kill. People kill, yes these people are sometimes religious and claim to do it in the name of said religion. These individuals killed, not the whole religious community. And no, just because someone supports a religion does not mean they support killing people.
Let me put it this way...
Human's kill, does this make all mankind bad? NO. Most humans endorse people having babies and those babies can and sometimes do grow to be adults that kill. So in a way I guess you could say simply being a human endorses killing. Right? No... Why? Because we don't control each others actions. We can avoid them ourselves, encourage others to avoid them, but ultimately, we are all responsible for out OWN actions.
Of course no one truly believes in any religion - I'd say if you injected a truth serum into the most religious person out there - they would admit they don't really believe in a religion in its current form of ancient religious scriptures etc.
However we all need to have some belief in something in - and if it makes them happy and content then whats wrong with that.
The stock atheist response is that it is important to the rational that their beliefs should be logical and based on some sound evidence, so it is, arguably, 'wrong' to have beliefs based on anything else.
However, given that the individual has a perfect right to believe whatever they want, where's the problem? The problem arises when a bunch of them get together and try to force their unsupported ideas down other people's throats. It is wrong when they join an existing bunch of people whose repackaged bronze age mythology happens to appeal and they find themselves trying to influence law, politics and education on the basis of these beliefs -beliefs which are not adequately supported by logic and evidence.
That is what is wrong with it.
Quote:
I recently as talking to some religious people - and as they talked about scriptures - my instincts told me that needed to believe in something - if they didn't believe that particular religion, they would believe in another religion - it was more about there personality and ideals.
My Instincts told me it was just words - Isn't it more important to have your own inner beliefs, philosophy, ideals, outlook, sense of who you are and what you stand for- rather hiding behind religious scriptures written by other people.
Yes, it is, or rather it is is best that what you believe is grounded in the tried and tested mental tools which has the best track record in accurate reasoning and data (aside from the purposes to which such data might be put) as opposed to that which has the best track record in denying the same where it conflicts with their beliefs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What "evidence"? 
