COMING ATTRACTION!!!!

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Exerpt from forthcoming topic:

“Atheism is defined simply as a disbelief in the existence of a God or gods, goddesses, angels, demons, and spirits (with the latter potentially worshipped as deities). It means nothing more than that. However, the belief is not quarantined in isolation, as the atheist possesses additional beliefs concerning the world and it’s operation that stroll behind the basic belief in the nonexistence of God like children behind a parent. These “descendent” beliefs indirectly related to atheism yet uninvolved in it’s basic definition collectively comprise an atheistic propositional family.”

"A propositional family is a set of beliefs related in the sense that one belief logically implies the others (if the relevant beliefs collectively obey the law of non-contradiction). The primary directive of a propositional family is to describe the world in which an individual exists. For example, the beliefs that make up an atheistic propositional family are uninvolved in the definition of atheism itself, yet they are saddled with the job of answering a basic question of the atheist: “I believe that God does not exist, but what is the nature of the godless world that I inhabit?”

It can be argued that stereotypical atheism can be instantly recognized due to the vastly popular and nearly universal beliefs within it’s particular propositional family. Of interest to this paper is stereotypical atheism in terms of it’s description of the nature, limitations, and eventual fate of consciousness within a world in which a God (or gods) does not exist."

AND…

[b]"If one takes the logic of the popular view that consciousness only (‘obviously’) comes into existence when the physical universe assembles a biologically functioning brain, (and that the same consciousness ceases to exist if that brain should cease to function) all the way, then one would find this logic analogous to the logic that one could cause Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to spontaneously come to exist by simply wagging one’s fingers back and forth (the logic being that a physical object moving in a prescribed manner can somehow cause something that was previously as real as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to suddenly become real compared to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny).

No matter how complicated, intricate, or complex an explanation of the brain and it’s neural components (in terms of it’s quantum or chemical properties and interactions or it’s computational capabilities), it’s ability to make formerly nonexistent consciousness to come into existence makes about as much sense as the notion that one possesses the ability to conjure Santa Claus from nonexistence by tracing a circle with one’s finger in the air."[/b]

THIS AND MORE COMING SOON IN THE ARTICLE: "IT"S ABSURD! WHY SHOULD THE BRAIN GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS, AND WHY SHOULD CONSCIOUSNESS RESEMBLE THE EXTERNAL WORLD???"

THE ARTICLE THAT WILL SILENCE ALL SKEPTICS, AND WILL PROVE ONCE AND FOR ALL THE ABSURDITY OF THE NOTION THAT THE PHYSICAL BRAIN CREATES CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THAT THIS SUPPOSEDLY BRAIN-PRODUCED CONSCIOUSNESS MUST MIMIC THE APPEARANCE AND BEHAVIOR OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD!

Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity

2

Atheism is not just a negative Belief in the existance of God is is also a possitive beliefe in the non existance of God.
Therefore because an athiest has no evidence to prove God does not exist, Athiests have Faith that God does not exist.
Bottom Line Atheism is Faith.

3

That’s splitting hairs. So what? Atheism is faith. Ok, but it’s not faith in any god, so what’s the point?

4

It’s basically a declaration and nothing more.

5

Reply To Soldout (and Eclipse by proxy):

To Soldout:

Like Eclipse asked in the above post, “What’s your point?” The above statement means the same thing as:

                                [b]"3 + 2 = 5 can also be stated as: 2 + 3 = 5"[/b]

Granted. It is a well-known conceptual and logical fact that Atheism is a faith rather than an unquestionable, undeniable truth. It would be nice if more atheists admitted this, but unfortunately they struggle under two “psychoses”:

(1) Psychologically-Compelling Yet Inconclusive Pseudo-Certainty (in which one possesses a very powerful belief in the truth of an empiricially-inaccessible state of affairs (with the belief so powerful, for example, that it continuously nags the atheist with an overwhelming suspicion and conviction that a certain godless belief “IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE”). This powerful belief itself subconsciously functions as an existential revelator, in the sense that the very existence of the belief within the mind is a “revelation” or indication that the belief is somehow absolutely true (despite it’s empirical-inaccessibility) and all other counterhypotheses and counterpossibilities are unquestionably and unarguably false.

One with such a belief comes to hold that in a sense the universe has “whispered within one’s ear” that x (a certain godless belief) is absolutely true—despite the fact that theological counterbeliefs and counterhypotheses that are just as empirically-inaccessible and just as logically and metaphysically possible might, in fact, objectively (and inadvertently) belie the relevant godless belief.

(To play Devil’s Advocate: PCYIPC, admittedly, is a common staple of the religious mind. Yet it’s a bad fit of a dress when donned by atheism. Even as a theist one can state that “she” (atheism) should have better fashion sense.)

(2) Psychological Estimation of Likelihood And Probability As Opposed To Empirical Estimation Of Likelihood And Probability (in which one attempts to assign a “likelihood” or “probability” that a given empirically-inaccessible state of affairs is either true or false or “more likely” or “less likely” that another empirically-inaccessible proposition. One can argue that all empirically-inaccessible propositions that satisfy the criterion of logical possibility are 50/50 in terms of possibility of being either true or false. Stating that the existence of God is only .000000000000005% likely compared to the 9999999999999.5% likelihood of atheism is like stating that an alternative universe existing thousands of universes away from “our” universe is more likely than the existence of disembodied telepathic minds.

Psychological estimations of “greater or lesser likelihood and probability” are, as the name of the psychosis implies, psychologically and propositionally driven—in the sense that one has a very powerful and convincing belief that x (such that one suffers from the psychosis of (1) above), and as such this automatically makes x “much more likely than y”.

The only true sense of probability and likelihood that we should take seriously, in the end, is empirical probability and likelihood—dreaming up two possibilities that can be tested through natural experience or within the laboratory, assigning probabilities to them (and/or placing a bet on the outcome), then testing to see which comes out the winner. This is the only type of “likelihood” that one should buy. Everything else (the empirically-inaccessible yet logically possible) is fifty-fifty.

Unfortunately, while there are a minority of atheists that, while refusing to mouth the “blasphemous” word itself, admit that atheism requires f@#$$% (faith); all others tend to slip into one or both of the psychotic episodes (1) and (2) above rather than allow such admission.

Nuff said,

Jay M. Brewer

Gasp! Did Jesus Christ pull off a mental version “body-leaping” analogous to the “physical” body-leaping of Dr. Sam Beckett (Scott Bakula) in the 80’s sci-fi series: Quantum Leap in order to pay for the sins of humanity while dying on the cross???

blog.myspace.com/superchristianity

6

I suppose I would be overstepping my bounds if I suggested the colorful hyperbole be held down a bit and concisely state what you would like to convey? It reminds me of getting to the other side of the street via walking in the opposite direction.

7

Reply to Liteninbolt:

I suppose I could, but it would be less memorable and educational. The point of the fanfare is marketing…hooking an audience into a view that they might definitely remember and hopefully learn from.

As long as posts are not vulgar or repetitive, I think that “more concise” statements are best reserved for e-mail or private conversation.

Hope I’m not committing a crime,

Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity

8

No crime committed, do as you see fit.

9

Reply to Liteninbolt

Hrumph. Didn’t mean to get “edgy” in the last post. My apologies. Honestly, I have one single thread to go (the one advertised above), and then I’ll deliberately become more “to the point” when answering threads. Such long “discussion” posts are tiring anyway, and it’s been a while since I’ve simply sat down and “hashed it out” (sans photos) with another philosopher.

It’s about time,

Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity

10

No apologies necessary P_G. You must present your material in the way which suits you. Mine was more of a suggestion so we could have dialogue. It’s hard for me to weed through such lengthy material and come up with cogitations that don’t appear to be muddled. It seems to be the case with me lately since replies to my posts are nil to little. Hopefully this will change. O:)