Are atheists more content with their souls?

311

I'm thinking I might completely ditch religion altogether ,
My main reason is because I think it's not fair to expect more ,than the life I am given.
It's better to live now ,than die wanting.

Do I have it all wrong ?

Tim Robbins

_Brian_ wrote:

I'm thinking I might completely ditch religion altogether ,
My main reason is because I think it's not fair to expect more ,than the life I am given.
It's better to live now ,than die wanting.

Do I have it all wrong ?

No one can tell you if you have it all wrong.
Everyone has opinions, but it's up for you yourself to decide what you believe in or not.
My advice to you would be read up and check out some thoughts and then just take what you are most comfortable with.
There's loads of good books on theology, spirituality and atheism. Not to mention Philosophy and Science.
If you don't like reading there's loads of good videos if you have broadband for example this one here
http://meaningoflive.tv
presents a range of views on some of the big questions.
Enjoy.

18AD

Do whatever makes you happier, really. As long as it makes sense to you.
And if you can't decide, everything will fall into place.

I know some atheists who are still unhappy with their own life. What religion you prescribe to isn't always the problem/solution.

311

Thanks tim and 18AD ,
I'll get a book on it ,any paticular authors/writers that would be unbiased ?

Brian.

18AD

Admittedly, I have read little to nothing about atheism, so I can't really help you there. Maybe someone can pitch in with that.
I'd just say that you should observe what's going on around you from an unbiased perspective and see where it takes you. Question everything.

311

18AD wrote:

Admittedly, I have read little to nothing about atheism, so I can't really help you there. Maybe someone can pitch in with that.
I'd just say that you should observe what's going on around you from an unbiased perspective and see where it takes you. Question everything.

Thats life as far as I'm concerned ,I try my best to do it all the time.
Thanks AD

Dave!

I'm not sure that many atheists would be inclined to believe in a 'soul'.

As to the question you have posed, I agree with the others in that nobody can answer that but yourself. If you can live happily without imposing on anyone else's life in a negative manner, then go for it. It's not up to us to decide what you should believe. Gather all the evidence and arguments on both sides and decide for yourself.

Dades

I'd like to suggest you read Cosmos, by Carl Sagan.

Okay, so he was an atheist, but the book isn't written as one. More as human look at the wonder of the universe through science - rather than through religion.

311

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm not sure that many atheists would be inclined to believe in a 'soul'.

As to the question you have posed, I agree with the others in that nobody can answer that but yourself. If you can live happily without imposing on anyone else's life in a negative manner, then go for it. It's not up to us to decide what you should believe. Gather all the evidence and arguments on both sides and decide for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned a soul is something that every living thing has .
It's the only pure thing that no one can effect.

I'm not talking about a parcel in storage waiting to be delivered ,I'm talkning about a movement withing a living being that reacts to whats around it.

311

The Atheist wrote:

I'd like to suggest you read Cosmos, by Carl Sagan.

Okay, so he was an atheist, but the book isn't written as one. More as human look at the wonder of the universe through science - rather than through religion.

Thats all I'm looking for ,a description without a conflict of interest.

Brian.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

_Brian_ wrote:

As far as I'm concerned a soul is something that every living thing has .
It's the only pure thing that no one can effect.

I'm not talking about a parcel in storage waiting to be delivered ,I'm talkning about a movement withing a living being that reacts to whats around it.

a brain?

18AD

Mordeth wrote:

a brain?

Nah, amoeba's have souls too.

5uspect

Hey Brian,
To answer your question about being content, well as an atheist I don't think a soul exists, not even in the way you suggest. There is nothing about us that cannot be changed or affected. I guess i hold the seemingly cold view that we are just highly complex machines.

However I don't think this makes me cold or value life less in anyway. My mortality is something that often frightens me so I'm determined to make sure that I make the most of my life and ensure that those around me enjoy their time around me. Ultimately when we die everything we have ever learned, seen, felt or heard will be gone. But that won't stop me enjoying life to its fullest.

One of the most rewarding things for me when I gave up on the whole religion thing was the relief that i controlled my own destiny. I hope that whatever choice you make it makes you happy because thats all that matters at the end of the day.

I'm not sure about any books to recommend Dawkins et al would probably leave a sour taste!

Sangre

bacteria has a soul?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it does if you're a buddhist

18AD

...or an amoeba.

stevejazzx

Don't leave religon. If you have to ask then it's too early. You will reach a time when you'll either stick with religon or decide against it. Seeing as you believe in a soul (I do too and I'm an atheist and it's very hard reconcilling the two) I would read just about any book you want. If you're going through a difficult time (which i kinda picked up from the tone of your post, I may be wrong) then don't drop anything until you get your head straight. It was quite a difficult thing for me many years ago because of my upbringing but i am happier without religon if that counts.

Here's a great quote

Issac assimov wrote:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

-Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author

from
http://smack.accesscard.org/index/misc/atheist/

good luck with it!

rediguana

Enjoy your souls while they last, guys. According to the Christmas edition of 'The Economist' (in which there was a 'Happiness' special), "science will continue to shrink the space in which free will can operate". Take away free will and the soul kind of goes missing too. The thinking is that organic brain chemistry, and electrical impulses and the like, can explain more and more of behaviour and emotions (etc). So if humans have a soul, then why not dogs and leopards and stick insects?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

science isn't going to take away free will, it's just going to (probably) show we never had it

311

I find the sarcasm funny ,i didn't realise there was a sense of well being involved in something that was up for discussion .

Closed

Asiaprod

Sangre wrote:

bacteria has a soul?

Mordeth wrote:

it does if you're a buddhist

You learn something new every day.

The Cosmos is a great read to get started on.

I would agree with 5uspect "One of the most rewarding things for me when I gave up on the whole religion thing was the relief that now I controlled my own destiny."

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how can you control your own destiny? we don't have free will **** happens because of other **** that happened before it, we are no different. all our choices/decisions/expressions of free will are just complicated risk/reward/energy calculations being done by the brain.

'I' don't control my brain, order it to do these calculations.. 'I' am not aware they are going on.. so when a decision is reached and 'I' become aware of it 'I' naturally assume that a free choice has just been made. 'I' am just a by product of the brain sitting in my flesh bag, no reason or purpose or even existence.

i'd lean towards the idea that language played a huge part in our development of the ego but I wouldn't lay a testicle on it.

311

A friend of mine once said " Religion is a pigeon "
Can someone break that down for me please ?

Scofflaw

I've read most of the recent scientific work on "free will", and certainly it all points in the direction of us not being able to find it.

However, if I consider the technological achivements of the human race, I'm left with the question - in the absence of free will, how could it have come about?

Are we really saying that things like the General Theory of Relativity were blindly discovered by meat puppets blindly following their instincts? That Einstein's "complicated risk/reward/energy calculations" naturally led to E=mc2?

If we have no free will, then anyone could be Einstein, since the quality of the thinking apparatus that apparently thinks things through and comes to a theory, or a decision, is clearly irrelevant. A certain combination of circumstances forced the meat puppet called Einstein into a position where the Theory of Relativity flowed naturally from the calculations of systems designed to keep him fed, healthy and breeding...

...or are people really just saying "we're not as free as we think we are, and a lot of subconscious influences go into the decisions we think we make in an unconstrained way"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

your friend is a poet
and he doesn't even know it

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Scofflaw wrote:

However, if I consider the technological achivements of the human race, I'm left with the question - in the absence of free will, how could it have come about?

*shrug* how could it not?
many monkeys use tools, we're just better at it than they are (bigger/better brains). Do monkeys have free will because they figured out how to use sticks to do... whatever? what about birds that use their breaks to crack open hard shelled food, or polar bears that cover their noses so as to be harder to see in the snow.. Sure that's not technological, but it sure as hell was progress from thom the polar bears who didn't know that trick. Ingenuity and progress are a part of life. Freedom doesn't have to enter into it.

Are we really saying that things like the General Theory of Relativity were blindly discovered by meat puppets blindly following their instincts? That Einstein's "complicated risk/reward/energy calculations" naturally led to E=mc2?

where do you get blindly from? I'm sure a lot o work was put into that theory, not traditional labour like tilling a field or hunting/gathering.. but work all the same. And yes, that is what I'm saying.

If we have no free will, then anyone could be Einstein, since the quality of the thinking apparatus that apparently thinks things through and comes to a theory, or a decision, is clearly irrelevant.

umm... eh? how is the quality irrelevant? a better thinking apparatus will be more likely to lead to a better conclusion. I don't think I understand that point.

A certain combination of circumstances forced the meat puppet called Einstein into a position where the Theory of Relativity flowed naturally from the calculations of systems designed to keep him fed, healthy and breeding...

yes, such as his interest in the subject, his natural ability for it, whatever he learned, all the experiences of his life contributed to his formulating that theory. a led to b led to c.. led to e=mc2.

i don't know about the systems being designed for anything, but language is a pretty new thing in our species... it's probable that it's introduction and development had effects on our thinking process (being able to clarify and elaborate on problems and their solutions, as opposed to just going "stick.. food... URGH")

if we didn't have language, we couldn't have education in the scale we have today.. which would mean we couldn't have a percent of the level of technological achievements we've had so far... a leads to b.. etc. have a look at feral children too, do they havce free will? most of them can never integrate into 'normal' society, and most (i think most.. maybe just alot) can never gain a good grasp of any language.. the brain in their meat bag just wasn't prepared for it.

...or are people really just saying "we're not as free as we think we are, and a lot of subconscious influences go into the decisions we think we make in an unconstrained way"?

subconscious implies that we are conscious and that there is an entity to experience that consciousness.. there's no entity.. just the brain.
I'm not dissing the theory behind it.. just the terminology. we should listen to the buddhists and let go our the ego... but ignore them when they get all hippy like. reincarnation my hole.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

...or are people really just saying "we're not as free as we think we are, and a lot of subconscious influences go into the decisions we think we make in an unconstrained way"?

Mordeth wrote:

...../snip/....

Essentially, that's a yes.

The reason I used 'blindly' is because, in the absence of free will, we are simply automata. Your argument assumes that we are not. I think you're arguing against a soul, rather than free will, or perhaps against seeing ourselves as somehow uniquely unconstrained compared to all other animals. None of these have anything to do with the question of whether we have the power to contribute anything freely to our decisions/thoughts, no matter how little. Even if only 0.001% of 'our' 'decisions' is 'free' input unconstrained by previous events, that is still free will.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i didn#t say we're not as free as we think we are.. i said we aren't free at all... not really the same thing. but whatever floats your floatable.

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

i didn#t say we're not as free as we think we are.. i said we aren't free at all... not really the same thing. but whatever floats your floatable.

Indeed you did. Everything you said about it contradicted that, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how?

i'm stoned so it's possible, but i don't see it

Scofflaw

Mordeth wrote:

how?

i'm stoned so it's possible, but i don't see it

Ah. Fair enough. I didn't think your 'I' was always lower-case.

Anyway, some of what I would see in your post:

1. Ingenuity and progress are a part of life. Freedom doesn't have to enter into it.

Well, yes, it does. Ingenuity can't operate in the absence of freedom. Nor is there any reason whatsoever for progress if there is no free will, since there can be no choice to improve things. Evolution never produces real progress - it provides better adaptation. The Internet is not adaptive - it was a piece of ingenuity in search of a use.

2. I'm sure a lot o work was put into that theory, not traditional labour like tilling a field or hunting/gathering.. but work all the same. And yes, that is what I'm saying.

It's meaningless to say that "a lot o work was put into that theory" if it simply followed mechanically from circumstances. It's like claiming you put a lot of work into something falling to the floor - that's a mechanical operation of the law of gravity. So, no, you're not really saying that Relativity actually followed mechanically - you're saying that the circumstances of Einstein's life set up a likelihood that he would think about certain things.

3. umm... eh? how is the quality irrelevant? a better thinking apparatus will be more likely to lead to a better conclusion.

No - in the absence of free will, the quality of the thinking apparatus is irrelevant, since it is 'better circumstances' that lead to 'better conclusions'. Of course, you could claim that anyone in Einstein's exact position would have thought of the theory, but might have been too stupid to see what they were thinking about.

4. yes, such as his interest in the subject, his natural ability for it, whatever he learned, all the experiences of his life contributed to his formulating that theory. a led to b led to c.. led to e=mc2.

"Interest in the subject" means nothing if there's no free will. Plus, hopefully you can see that what you are saying here is that the 'quality' of the brain would be irrelevant - the circumstances mechanically dictated what he would think.

5. subconscious implies that we are conscious and that there is an entity to experience that consciousness.. there's no entity.. just the brain.

Which operates in some complex way to produce consciousness, which may well be an emergent property (handwaving, handwaving). This is the bit that makes me think you're actually arguing about the non-existence of the 'soul', or any other perceiving entity that's not the brain. Fine by me.

Whether the bit that thinks it's the "conscious decider" is actually the decider or not isn't relevant, as long as something is making at least partly unconstrained decisions.

cordially,
Scofflaw