Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fafnir wrote:Why does there have to be a spiritual existance. Why not, when you die, your brain goes click, off, gone? And you're dead. That's it. Nothing. There's certainly nothing that points towards a supernatural occurance other than our own inclinations to believe in one, largely based on our own fears of our mortality.

It's not like your computer has any thoughts floating around once you take out its power supply.

But does the Data stored in the computer disappear, or is it there, you just cant access it?

The data is there, but with nothing to power it, it is useless.

Likewise, once the brain no longer recieves the resources it needs to 'power' it (blood and junk), it starts to degrade (organic stuff tends to do that...). Once that's gone, there's nothing left. There's nothing to suggest some sort of supernatural presence. It's meat.

Fafnir wrote:The data is there, but with nothing to power it, it is useless.

Likewise, once the brain no longer recieves the resources it needs to 'power' it (blood and junk), it starts to degrade (organic stuff tends to do that...). Once that's gone, there's nothing left. There's nothing to suggest some sort of supernatural presence. It's meat.

Fair enough.

Fafnir wrote:The data is there, but with nothing to power it, it is useless.

Likewise, once the brain no longer recieves the resources it needs to 'power' it (blood and junk), it starts to degrade (organic stuff tends to do that...). Once that's gone, there's nothing left. There's nothing to suggest some sort of supernatural presence. It's meat.

So then, what happens to the Data? Does it simply disappear alongside the brain?

Sorry, I am running on about 3 hours of sleep and a whole lot of Caffeine, so I'm very thick/philosophical, take that as you will.

Yes, once the brain is dead, so is the information inside it. But I prefer to think in terms of "perspective" rather than "data."

Data can be passed on through communication, perspective is something which belongs wholy to one person and cannot be duplicated.

That's all fine and dandy fafnir, but the biggest thing would have to be an argument for the soul being different than a computer's data.

While a computer's data becomes unnecessary once the computer is no more, the human soul is supposed to transcend the organic system of life.

Now in order to argue that you need to argue whether or not a human soul exists. As a Catholic I believe in ghosts, souls, God, Baby Jesus and the whole nine yards so for me the existance of a human soul is very possible.

A person's own perspective is truly unique, yes but it can be recorded and duplicated from that. If all the memories in a person's brain are but electrical impulses and chemicals then in due time we may be able to duplicate a person's perspective a la something akin to the Sixth Day and the evil guy who lived forever because they could transfer these things.

Now if you argue from a soul standpoint then a soul is non-transferable. A single soul exists for a single being and even if that being is duplicated and perspective is transferred another soul is in that being despite the fact that it thinks its the previous being.

Souls however exist only in theology and not in science so I can't prove nor disprove the existance of human souls. However, if souls do exist then they exist outside of the realm of science and cannot be duplicated.

The best argument for souls would have to be a jar of peanut butter that can grow bacteria with souls despite the fact that its in a soul-proof container.

halonachos wrote:
A person's own perspective is truly unique, yes but it can be recorded and duplicated from that. If all the memories in a person's brain are but electrical impulses and chemicals then in due time we may be able to duplicate a person's perspective a la something akin to the Sixth Day and the evil guy who lived forever because they could transfer these things.

The clone may have the same memories, thoughts and nuances, but the perspective is still different. It's a separate entity living at a seperate point in time and space.

The best argument for souls would have to be a jar of peanut butter that can grow bacteria with souls despite the fact that its in a soul-proof container.

That analogy is recursive an horrible. You say that the best argument we have for souls is by simply assuming that they're there, essentially.

The peanut butter thing was a joke first of all, another dakkaite can help you with that.

Otherwise I can't prove that souls do or don't exist. Although as soon as someone claims to see a ghost and says they don't believe in souls my hand becomes possessed like Ash Williams. Again, souls exist outside of science and can't be explained through science similar to how we exist just because we exist, you know, the whole "I think therefor I am." kind of deal. Science can't readily prove that we exist as an actual living species or if we're just some computer program thinking we exist as actual living species, we just have to trust that we are or aren't.

I'm aware of the peanut butter joke. I spent a while laughing at that video.

'Cogito ergo sum' is a logcal conclusion to various existential questions. It doesn't go into explore any depths, but rather accept the rules of the world around the individual based on their individual perception of it.
Souls on the other hand, are just an abstract concept with no real logical base.

I can believe in the concept of reincarnation because of science. When we die our bodies break down in to atoms/molocules? These get used to build something else. It wouldn't come as a suprise if science proves that clumps of these atoms/molocules can actually stay togetehr and end up in a new human, thus causing these memories of another life. As much as it's way out there, I believe in that possibility more than a God. No matter how you look at if there is a God, then the old argument is, who made him? If believers in God disimiss the idea of the big bang, the whole idea of something from nothing, how do you explain his existance?

rodgers37 wrote:
Right, i could be reading this wrong. But are you saying that some/most/all people who believe in God/afterlife, do so out of hope, or needing something after they die, something to live for etc. Before i say anything else, can you clarify exactly what you mean...

No, I said those are among the most significant, rational reasons to believe in God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:
It is also not his personal beliefs, he stated it as fact. Saying "I don't believe in the existance of heaven" is stating your personal beliefs; saying "Everyone who believes in a heaven believes in fairytales and is afraid of the dark" is not stating your beliefs, it is an insult aimed at those who believe in heaven. There is a difference, and i'm wondering how you cannot see it, because several members of this thread can.

You do realize that every sentence one utters does not have to be prefaced by "I believe" in order to be a statement of belief, correct?

When I point at a table, and say "This is a table." what I'm really doing is making a propositional statement indicating that I believe the object in question is called a table. I could place the words "I believe" ahead of "this" but it isn't necessary to do so, and only changes tone.

The issue here is entirely in your mind, Hawking made an authoritative statement regarding his own beliefs, that is all.

dogma wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:
Right, i could be reading this wrong. But are you saying that some/most/all people who believe in God/afterlife, do so out of hope, or needing something after they die, something to live for etc. Before i say anything else, can you clarify exactly what you mean...

No, I said those are among the most significant, rational reasons to believe in God.

Ok thanks.

Couple things i've picked up on while reading all the posts i missed last night.

The whole pre-marital sex thing, as far as i'm aware, that may be suggested, but i don't think the Church really minds anymore, probably because people do anyway, and they can't be saying that all their followers are going to hell because they had sex before marriage.... there are some people who follow this rule, and some divisions will expect it.

There was something else, but i've forgotten. Better go pray now

Many churches care very much about pre marital sex and homosexuality. Just because you don't doesn't mean it is the most common view. We see a lot of the westernised christianity which suprisingly is in line with our society.

Many religious people say that they respect everyone's views and that they are all balanced, but in the next sentence say that there religion is the right one. You can't have both at once.

Religion is about believing you're superior to others. If you didn't think your view was better you wouldn't believe it. You might not agree with shoving down people throats but that is still your view.

You can't stop someone saying something you find offensive without limiting their right to say their opinion.

I don't know why people believe they religious views are sacred. To you they are but I couldn't care less. You would laught if I took offense at you saying you didn't like a type of food, but that could be a belief I value. Reality check- people will disagree with your view and can judge you for them. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can't say it. I don't like people saying i'm inferior because I'm not part of their religion but I don't claim they are being offensive.

About Fafnir's view- This is how I see it. Our brains are just exceptionalaly complex computers. The "data" is just the structure, like computers store data in many thousands of switches. The Data is just how that structure translates. Once we die our the structure of our brains stops changing and deteriorates. It's hard to comprehend because of the way it feels to us but all the feeling and emotions we feel are just chainges in chemicals in the brain nothing more.

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.

Given the comments in this thread, I would suggest Atheism.

(dons flame-proof suit)

4M2A wrote:Many churches care very much about pre marital sex and homosexuality. Just because you don't doesn't mean it is the most common view. We see a lot of the westernised christianity which suprisingly is in line with our society.

Many religious people say that they respect everyone's views and that they are all balanced, but in the next sentence say that there religion is the right one. You can't have both at once.

Religion is about believing you're superior to others. If you didn't think your view was better you wouldn't believe it. You might not agree with shoving down people throats but that is still your view.

You can't stop someone saying something you find offensive without limiting their right to say their opinion.

I don't know why people believe they religious views are sacred. To you they are but I couldn't care less. You would laught if I took offense at you saying you didn't like a type of food, but that could be a belief I value. Reality check- people will disagree with your view and can judge you for them. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can't say it. I don't like people saying i'm inferior because I'm not part of their religion but I don't claim they are being offensive.

About Fafnir's view- This is how I see it. Our brains are just exceptionalaly complex computers. The "data" is just the structure, like computers store data in many thousands of switches. The Data is just how that structure translates. Once we die our the structure of our brains stops changing and deteriorates. It's hard to comprehend because of the way it feels to us but all the feeling and emotions we feel are just chainges in chemicals in the brain nothing more.

I didn't say it was the most common view, i'm not actually using very many facts here, because i can't speak for every member of every Christian faith, i can only really speak for myself, and to a lesser extent Catholics.

And the respect thing, well you can quite easily respect/allow what ever you want to call it other peoples beliefs without any argument. For example, i'm Vegetarian, but i'm happy to allow others to eat Meat, i can respect your decision if you do so, i can still think its wrong, but i'm not going to jump around shouting about it, i can just get on with my life.

Religion is not about believing you are superior... In fact, i would say calling a religion a 'fairy tale for people afraid of the dark' is someone trying to appear superior. And there was another comment in this thread, saying that intelligent/well educated people are less likely to be religious...

And sacred views... Well i don't know what to say to that, that hasn't already been said.
For a start, who is calling you inferior?
And it doesn't matter if you couldn't care less about someone's religious view, doesn't mean that you can't accept that its their view, and as long as they aren't unreasonable (like trying to force you to believe, or calling you inferior etc), there is no problem.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Hawking is in terms of education, intelligence and number of wives, superior to nearly everyone in this forum.

That doesn't make him right, of course.

I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...

Pffft! Like I have to worry about crap like that. I'm not going to die, I have magical BBQ sauce that makes me immortal.

rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...

Because Hawking is more likely to be right?

Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.

^ Yes but I doubt Hawkings (or anyone else really) is really qualified to say whether heaven exists or not. No matter how well you are educated in science, things like this that have little to do with science.

I think people need to stop thinking of the Supernatural as something that we could understand with our current science, that is if it exists.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...

Because Hawking is more likely to be right?

Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.

No, because he's an important person. He is obviously entitled to his view, and his work to him, makes him believe there is no God.

People with faith on the whole will ignore it, but if comments like that were ignored, there would never have been a debate in the first place?

Mike Noble wrote:^ Yes but I doubt Hawkings (or anyone else really) is really qualified to say whether heaven exists or not. No matter how well you are educated in science, things like this that have little to do with science.

Unless your field of science deals with the nature of reality and the universe. Wait...

Actually, science has, and can have, a great deal to offer to metaphysical and existential questions. No one is saying that science is the final authority on the nature of a god being or afterlife, but that isn't to say the only thing we learn from science is why leaves are green.

rodgers37 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...

Because Hawking is more likely to be right?

Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.

No, because he's an important person. He is obviously entitled to his view, and his work to him, makes him believe there is no God.

People with faith on the whole will ignore it, but if comments like that were ignored, there would never have been a debate in the first place?

I'm not sure it is possible to have a debate on the subject.

Atheists deny the existence of gods, based on the lack of evidence.

Theists believe in the existence of gods, despite the lack of evidence. Or rather, they are convinced by evidence which atheists would say does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

One side holds up a picture of a goose wearing cricketing pads. The other side holds up a picture of a melon with helicopter rotor blades. "Your argument is invalid".

The best thing to do is to say that science does not deal with the supernatural.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.

Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:I made that point earlier.
Thats why what he's said has the potential to offend people more, because of his intelligence people respect him and his work. So when he says something like this, he's going to get more of a reaction than if a atheist on Dakka said something...

Because Hawking is more likely to be right?

Surely faith isn't based on evidence so people of faith should ignore what he says.

No, because he's an important person. He is obviously entitled to his view, and his work to him, makes him believe there is no God.

People with faith on the whole will ignore it, but if comments like that were ignored, there would never have been a debate in the first place?

I'm not sure it is possible to have a debate on the subject.

Atheists deny the existence of gods, based on the lack of evidence.

Theists believe in the existence of gods, despite the lack of evidence. Or rather, they are convinced by evidence which atheists would say does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

One side holds up a picture of a goose wearing cricketing pads. The other side holds up a picture of a melon with helicopter rotor blades. "Your argument is invalid".

The best thing to do is to say that science does not deal with the supernatural.

A debate doesn't need to be backed up with facts, you can do it on pure opinion alone. This 8 page thread has been a debate, there are many examples of 'famous' (or what ever word you deem suitable) philosophers who's whole life work is based around wether or not God is real (or a large chunk of it) And people making counter arguments.

You can have a debate about anything, you could have a debate about something that can easily be proven (like is it raining outside...), or something that can't be proven.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.

Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.

+1 to this...

frgsinwntr wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.

Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.

+1 to this...

Its wrong on its face. But I would, again, expect no less from those criticizing religion. Some people may act superior, but thats not "what religion is about." In the words of the immortal bard: "You just don't understand."

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:Religion is about believing you're superior to others.

That is to broad to be even close to being true. There are a great deal of different religions (and different sects within religions) that would not come close to fitting this definition. Of course some fit this definition so closely it hurts, but trying to say it works for all religions shows a lack in your breadth and width in the manifestations of religious experience in the human character. I would recommend The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James as a starting point.

I'd like to see which religion is that way. But I highly doubt 4M2A can back that statement up.

Very few religions would overtly make such a claim, but any faith which turns primarily on salvation only for true believers pretty well fits the mold.

Saying "my belief is superior to yours" is a different claim than saying "I am superior to you."