Yeah, going further, I would agree with Sartre's existentialism notion that, even if there was a God, He would have no more right to assign a purpose to you than your parents have (just because they "made" you). Whether or not God exists, we have to choose a purpose for ourselves in life.
I agree. I've actually been trying to find a few existentialist books to read... The Plague by Albert Camus is a really good novel in case you're ever interested.
Haha, I took existentialism as part of a first year elective. I think it has some good ideas, but it seems to be a bit too pro-subjectivism/relativism. More notably, emotivism, the dominant ethical theory, which states that there is no real right or wrong, just how we feel about it (meaning we basically go "Ew!" when thinking of murder, and that is all that it means to think that murder is evil) bothers me quite a bit. That said, I do not know the details of it very well. Also, I hardly ever actually read books. It's terrible I know, but I tend to skim a wiki on a position. I've gotten 80%+ in the 3 philosophy electives I've taken in university with hardly ever opening the texts. I didn't even buy my philosophy of physics book. I remember my Knowledge and Reality TA suggesting me additional books I should read and allowing me to do a little looser a final essay due to my "strong understanding of the course material" when I hadn't even read 90% of it !
Just the activity of thinking and responding and living.. isn't that admitting an activity of a soul? I think i used the word "know" improperly. Perhaps, we all admit of having a soul? I would think so. If there is no reason to believe anything immaterial, is it useful to ever use psychology? If there is no reason to believe anything immaterial, what's the point of having a branch of philosophy dedicated to the soul? Sartre's existentialism is pretty true. Not gonna lie. I remember reading it, and thus, trying listen to people as they go about.. The more I think about it, the more I think Sartre is correct. Existentialism, i think, is pretty much bottom-line Atheist, in my opinion. If there really is no God, then I guess anything goes. (Hence.. possbily leading to the feeling of subjectivism/relativism.) His work "Existienialism is humanism" is really interesting, imo. I'm just a starting college student. I'm still needing to educate myself more. Anyone interested in Existenialism should read up on sartre's entire works. It's really quite interesting. I would also recommend Nietzsche. Nietzsche is most likely well enjoyed by people in politics. So if you're looking for a Political position.. I suggest reading up that guy, and applying it. WHOA LOL. Sorry to change subject thread. Lets get back on track.
same here. I think when a living being (not just humans, also animals, plants...) dies, that's the end of it's life. Maybe I will feed some maggots or help plants to grow, but thats it. For me, that's the circle of life. Someone dies and he/she/it HAS a reason, but doesn't feel it anymore and there is no 'soul' kind of thing. I also don't believe in god or allah or someone like that, I'm atheist. I don't think that religion is basically bad. Because it teaches people some moral basics. But I stopped believing in god (my parents aren't that much religious, but I grew up evangelic) when I discovered (in school, books,...) how many people suffer because of religion, like religious wars, forced marriage and millions of other things. What doesn't mean that I disrespect religious people, some of my friends are religious, too.
I think we overlook life. A lot of people think that our lives have meaning, why live for 80 years and then just die, whats the point? Maybe there is no point to life? If there is a point in life, why did the Dinosaurs just die? In the end, I think all living creatures will share the same fate, death.
Psychology is not presupposing something immaterial. As I said above, the mind is what the brain does. Psychology is concerned with consciousness, but does not pre-suppose it is anything beyond the activities of the brain. And we have a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to God- that isn't proof that God exists. Just because lots of people talk about something seriously doesn't make it real. I think perhaps you are just defining the "soul" in a similar way to Jesse now? As everything you mentioned seems to be in line with the idea of the soul being our consciousness, and a product of our physical brain, and not in line with it being a supernatural eternal entity which will live on and be judged following our death. Lastly, I must say that, as an atheist, atheism does not logically implicate emotivism. I think whether morality is objective or subjective is an issue unrelated to the existence of God. For example, the Kantian notion of the Categorical Imperative (paraphrased as: do not do an action unless you can will that that action became a universal law of nature) is notably atheistic (even if Kant claimed to be Christian, it is hard to take his word for it due to the repercussions at the time for admitting to being an atheist). Either way, an objective moral system is in the least possible without a God, so it is unfair to equate atheism with relativism.
In terms of people not having souls, what about out of body experiences when people are dying? Wouldn't that be considered as our soul or spirit leaving our body? I have pretty strong religious beliefs, but I'm not going to bother defending them or anything, because I'm clearly in the minority, and I really don't need to explain myself or my thoughts on it anyway.
When the brain is shutting down, many hallucinations can happen. This has been shown pretty conclusively. And it up to you whether you want to discuss and debate your beliefs or not. I personally think refusing to argue your position is missing out on the chance to be shown why you could be wrong though. I think it important to have one's beliefs challenged.
Nothing anyone can say would be enough to sway me, so whats the point? You have a right to believe whatever you want, just as I do. I'm not the person to be trying to convince you that I could be right.
I find it curious that you claim to be a atheist but yet I recall seeing pictures of you wearing a cross in the pyp thread.
Wow, I like your memory, but you didn't look close enough. I own two necklaces which contain a crucifix- but both are inverted. Furthermore, to differentiate them from a Peterine cross, one has a snake wrapped around it (while I'm not a satanist, I always liked the idea of pride before humility and eating the apple to gain knowledge of good and evil) and the other is a rosary and has Jesus hung inverted on it. Both are meant as just symbolism for my anti-theistic beliefs. It also may tempt someone to confront me on my beliefs and, since I don't at all mind this form of conversation and debate, I do not mind putting what I believe out there and encouraging others to challenge it. Lastly, it also can act to filter out those who wouldn't be comfortable with my beliefs. I really can promise you that I am indeed an atheist, and have been for as long as I can remember.
We cannot take the consciousness out of the body and say "that there is somebody's consciousness". We can point out that a brain is thinking, but we cannot I'm probably not clear enough. Perhaps you should take up on what many philosophers discuss about a soul? I know I need to as well. As for not studying inmmaterial.. That is not always true. Why, then, would Theoretical physics be used ever? Sure, one might claim Math is related to Reality, but Theoretical Physics is all theory until a Practical Physicist (For the love of my life, I cannot remember what they're called ) puts it into action. Similarly, Truth is something Immaterial, yet we study this. Truth only becomes real when it is related to reality. But Truth itself has no base, but we study Truth. And indeed,There is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to God. I'm looking forward to taking a class about it because I want to know more about what other philosophers had to say about it. Whether or not something is judged following our death is mysterious. But I do believe that there is a soul. Lastly, I never said anything about Emotivism. I will say though, that an Atheist can logically implicate Existentialism. Everything about it lines up fairly well With Atheism. To deny Existentialism to Atheism... I would suppose you would require to change the definition of Atheism then?
Okay, a few points. 1. My mistake on emotivism! It appears to be more of a theory of the logical positivists than the existentialists. Existentialism tends to be morally subjective too though- and my point was that atheism does not have to be. 2. Atheism doesn't necessitate existentialism. I am not sure why you think it does. 3. There are things such as concepts and ideas, which you may call immaterial. But they do not exist BEYOND being an idea. There is a difference between the idea of spiderman, and spiderman himself. The former actually exists, the latter does not. This is the same with souls, God, etc.. Saying that the idea of these things exists is different from saying the things themselves exist. And these concepts can be useful and relate to reality- but the existence of these concepts does not in and of themselves say anything about reality. 4. Atheism solely means a lack of a belief in a God or Gods. I can deny existentialism all I want and still be an atheist. What you have not done is provide any actual evidence as to why we should believe a soul exists. You speak a lot about how some things are immaterial, but the soul is a specific type of immaterial thing with specific properties, and you haven't given any argument as to why we should believe it. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the soul's existence.
Ok, I can accept that, but the whole thing about eating the apple to gain knowledge of good and evil, and the fact that you believe it? That's a very Christian/Judicism based principle, about defying the word of God. I don't see how you can accept one idea and not the other. I also get the impression that while you are not a Satanist, you do believe that he does exist. How can there be an ultimate evil and not its counterpart?
No, no, no! The story is fictional. It is like I could like the hobbits in The Lord of the Rings because of their laid back lifestyle. It doesn't mean I have to think they are REAL. I don't believe the story of the Garden of Eden actually happened (that is ludicrous) nor do I believe it is a divinely inspired parable. I think it is a man-made work of fiction. In that work of fiction, Satan seems to represent pride and seeking knowledge, whereas God represents servitude and dependence. I side more with Satan in this particular work of fiction. None of it is actually real though. Just a story. I don't believe God or Satan exist.
I don't believe I mentioned anything about the Garden of Eden. The whole principle of eating the apple is a metaphor for the balance between having a pure life and a life tainted by sin.
Well, the Garden of Eden is where the apple is eaten. It is somewhat hard to mention one and not the other. The apple itself (and it isn't actually an apple in the Bible I know, just a fruit) was from the Tree of Knowledge. God did not want them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge because if they did, they would be like Gods and know of Good and Evil. The fact that knowledge of Good and Evil is considered a sin in The Bible (and pretty much the worst sin too) is why I am saying I sided with Satan in that parable. I support seeking such knowledge, not remaining in ignorance. God called the former a sin, Satan encouraged it. Hence, siding with Satan. It is not the difference between a "pure life" and a life "tainted by sin" as much as it is a difference between what the Bible seems to consider a pure life, and what I consider a pure life.
1) Existentialism does tend ot be morally subjective - because without any moral basis aside yourself.. it is thus, you to decide what is right and wrong. Am I correct on that? 2) Atheism does lead towards Existentialism, because if you deny it, it leads to an inconsistent life. For example: If there is no higher/external authority to lay down the laws, but it is then only you to provide it then. 3) Capito. 4) As I said, to deny would mean to be living an inconsistent life. Who is anyone to decide whether or not rape is bad? Or if Racism is wrong? Or that abuse is bad? If there is no God to lay at least a guideline, then it is up to you to provide a guideline. While I accept your challenge for empirical evidence, I know I don't know enough to provide it. The best thing I know and can think of is.. The living within a person. When a person is living and doing this thing, it is his soul that is keeping his living going. It's sounds awkward, I know. His will to life and Survival is his soul within his mind. It is his essence of living. It isn't Numerical, empirical evidence you so dearly desire, but it's the best I can give. I'm sticking with my beliefs as well as you are sticking to your beliefs, Good sir.