A problem that I have with some atheists is that they claim assertively "once you die that's all there is", but IMO this is a faith based belief - and not from a 'religious' POV either.
Basically, while it's true that human consciousness "in general" is caused by brain activity - what causes SPECIFIC people to be 'born in their bodies' isn't explained away that easily. For example why where you born as "you" instead of as your brother (and vice versa)? That can't just be explained away by brain waves.
So while a specific brain and set of memories does end upon death, saying that there is no 1st person consciousness after a certain physical death is just taking a guess, since science hasn't advanced that far yet.
Not to mention lots of other 'theories' - for example, what if 10,000 years from now an alien race is able to re-create everyone from their DNA? That might be sci-fi but it's totally valid to think about since it deals with future possiblities, not things which 'can be disproven' - so in that situation, you'd actually 'wake up' 10,000 years later in a new body instead of just 'be gone'.
Point is the honest answer is for atheists to say "I don't know" what happens after death, since anything else is just a belief based on faith.
It is not a faith based belief in the least, If it weren't true that there is no consciousness after death, then anesthesia wouldn't work, a hit in the head wouldn't make you unconscious, and people that claim they left there bodies and floated on the ceiling when they die would able to say what is quoted on a partial wall when they look down---no one has gotten it correct yet. certain parts of the brain stimulated can produce any kind of experience that people claim are supernatural, including out of body experiences. Even psychoactive drugs can produce this, as well as meditation. When people claim they or others were dead they obviously were not because rigor hadn't set in. Ever see a person get their head cut off come back to consciousness or from death even if they flop around? :wall: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on March 28, 2015, 05:33:38 PM
It is not a faith based belief in the least, If it weren't true that there is no consciousness after death, then anesthesia wouldn't work, a hit in the head wouldn't make you unconscious, and people that claim they left there bodies and floated on the ceiling when they die would able to say what is quoted on a partial wall when they look down---no one has gotten it correct yet. certain parts of the brain stimulated can produce any kind of experience that people claim are supernatural, including out of body experiences. Even psychoactive drugs can produce this, as well as meditation. When people claim they or others were dead they obviously were not because rigor hadn't set in. Ever see a person get their head cut off come back to consciousness or from death even if they flop around? :wall: Solitary
But take 2 identical twins with identical brains - each has a separate consciousness despite idential brains - so if you had an identical twin, how could you explain why you were "born in your body" instead of your brother's? And vice versa.
That can't be explained away that easily. I've heard that consciousness is a concept that exists on a 'quantum level', so I believe the concept transcends mere individual brains.
Sure you may not 'float out of your body' when you die, but how do you know you won't take on the 1st person consciousness of another physical body in another life (or that you haven't already done so in 'past lives')?
I don't have a problem with stating there is no afterlife, in exactly the same way that I state there is no caloric, phlogiston, or luminiferous ether: it's a theory that's not supported by evidence, and before I have to admit it as a postulate, I need something beyond "you can't prove it's not there".
In any case, if I were re-created from my DNA 10,000 years in the future, the 'me' that would inhabit that mind would be quite a different person from the 'me' that inhabits this one -- he would have completely different life experiences than I, and my DNA does not encode my mind--it only encodes the structure that my mind inhabits. My DNA was present at my birth, and did not prefigure the events that guided my development -- it provided a framework with certain biases for them to develop in and around.
So while 10,000 years down the line, you might get a dark-haired gay man with weak eyes and a roving intellect, you would not get me, even though I am a dark haired gay man with a roving intellect. You would get someone shaped by the experiences he has 10,000 years from now.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 05:37:34 PM
But take 2 identical twins with identical brains - each has a separate consciousness despite idential brains - so if you had an identical twin, how could you explain why you were "born in your body" instead of your brother's? And vice versa.
That can't be explained away that easily. I've heard that consciousness is a concept that exists on a 'quantum level', so I believe the concept transcends mere individual brains.
Sure you may not 'float out of your body' when you die, but how do you know you won't take on the 1st person consciousness of another physical body in another life (or that you haven't already done so in 'past lives')?
Ace, I agree with you in that I cannot claim that when I die that is it. What I say is that when I die, then I'll know what happens. Or not happens. I do think that when I die that will be it--eternal sleep. But that really is unknowable right now.
As for why I was born as me and not one of my brothers, that, for me, is pretty easy to explain. Happenstance is basically why. Well, happenstance, genes and environment.
Reincarnation is very real. I was Chuck Norris is my past life.
Quote from: leo on March 28, 2015, 05:50:12 PM
Reincarnation is very real. I was Chuck Norris is my past life.
Oh God!, Leo! I am sooooo sorry for you!
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 28, 2015, 06:04:41 PM
Oh God!, Leo! I am sooooo sorry for you!
Why you said that ? Being the reincarnation of chucknorris practically make me a god. In the case you aren't
familiar with the Chuck Norris facts , you should check them out. Sure Chuck Norris is a bigot asshole . If Yahveh and allah can be a big time assholes , I don't see why Chuck Norris can't be a asshole.
Quote from: leo on March 28, 2015, 06:24:26 PM
Why you said that ? Being the reincarnation of chucknorris practically make me a god. In the case you aren't
familiar with the Chuck Norris facts , you should check them out. Sure Chuck Norris is a bigot asshole . If Yahveh and allah can be a big time assholes , I don't see why Chuck Norris can't be a asshole.
Lets put it this way, if god was real and I came faced with him, I'd put a bullet though his head for all the people he killed. If I came faced with chuck norris, I'd not go to that level, but I would do to him like in the movie Hannibal, only it would involve kicking his worn out ass into a pen of ravenous bears not before coating his limp dick with honey.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 05:37:34 PM
But take 2 identical twins with identical brains - each has a separate consciousness despite idential brains - so if you had an identical twin, how could you explain why you were "born in your body" instead of your brother's? And vice versa.
Here is where you completely undercut your own statement:
Quoteif 10,000 years from now an alien race is able to re-create everyone from their DNA[...]you'd actually 'wake up' 10,000 years later in a new body instead of just 'be gone'.
This is very much trying to have it both ways. In the initial post, you posit that DNA is mind --
i.e., that upon being re-created in a hypothetical future, the 'you' of now would be re-created as well, and then you go on to point out that identical DNA does not mean identical identity.
An excellent (and slightly brainmelting) discussion of exactly this is in Douglas Hofstadter's
I am a Strange Loop; I recommend it highly. I haven't the space here to go into it in tremendous detail, but there's an excellent section exploring the ideas of self and identity using a hypothetical world where everyone is a twin and the notion of self implicitly means both minds together rather than each mind individually -- the twins together are the fundamental unit of individuality and self, referred to as a 'pairson' or a 'dividual' (I love a good pun, and I love a bad one even more :smile2:). It does rather force a head-tilting re-examination of what one means by 'self'.
Like I said, brainmelting -- it hurts, but in a good way, like chili.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 04:51:13 PM
For example why where you born as "you" instead of as your brother (and vice versa)?
since anything else is just a belief based on faith.
Uh you were born you for the same reason you were born "here" and not there, or you were born a human and not a horse (I am assuming). While I understand the thought as we have all had it to a degree, it is much more interesting to wonder why you are what you are before you are…get it? Once you are you the idea that you are you is only due to certain restraints is kinda arrogant. You are because if you are not, you wouldn't be you at all.
Now regardless of your "thought" you would have to grant that this concept to all the animals right? After all, surely you are not thinking that only humans are privy to this idea that we can only be us, because if we weren't then ,,er,,,,whatever. And I might add we have to grant this same idea to plants because after all the only difference between all of us and animals and plants is a few simple little dna switches.
Put aside your human arrogance and wonder why all living things cannot express the very same "thought" you are having.
Do animals have the same sense of self?
Oh, goddammit, Aitm, I didn't read your post before I asked about animals. GMTA and all that, I spose.
Any argument that humans matter in "all this" is bullshit. If one is ready to accept that the utopia of woo and myth you rightfully reject already, then why would you be any more important? How about this ride being finite?
Quote from: Mermaid on March 28, 2015, 08:21:42 PM
Do animals have the same sense of self?
I'll venture that this does apply to thinking animals such as chimpanzees. To a mosquito or a worm with no cerebral matter? Probably not.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 28, 2015, 08:22:27 PM
Oh, goddammit, Aitm, I didn't read your post before I asked about animals. GMTA and all that, I spose.
Admit it, you love me and want me.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 09:22:19 PM
I'll venture that this does apply to thinking animals such as chimpanzees. To a mosquito or a worm with no cerebral matter? Probably not.
ah, an elitist, how quaint.
Quote from: aitm on March 28, 2015, 09:23:53 PM
ah, an elitist, how quaint.
That's not elitism, that's my understanding of science - from what I can tell consciousness is dependent on having cerebral brain functions. A single-celled organism might be a form of 'life' but it's not 'alive' in the since that a mammal is - that's why animals (even non human animals) have some rights, but tiny organisms, plants, etc don't.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 09:30:27 PM
That's not elitism, that's my understanding of science - from what I can tell consciousness is dependent on having cerebral brain functions. A single-celled organism might be a form of 'life' but it's not 'alive' in the since that a mammal is - that's why animals (even non human animals) have some rights, but tiny organisms, plants, etc don't.
I don't think science knows enough about consciousness yet to make any hard and fast claims. I saw an experiment in which three sets of hot house plants were used as subjects. One group was the control group and had nothing done to them other than water and feed. The second group had classical music played all the time. The third had a recorded person yelling at them, calling them names and just being loud and obnoxious. The Music plants grew best, the control group was second, and the abused plants were stunted. Do plants have a consciousness?
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 09:30:27 PM
from what I can tell consciousness is dependent on having cerebral brain functions.
so it is your opinion that it is permissible to torture or otherwise torment lesser creatures due to your "higher consciousness"? Goodness, you certainly are showing how that works.
Quote from: aitm on March 28, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
so it is your opinion that it is permissible to torture or otherwise torment lesser creatures due to your "higher consciousness"? Goodness, you certainly are showing how that works.
Squashing a mosquito isn't a crime, but abusing an animal like a dog is.
From what I can tell we make the distinction based on how much 'awareness' the creature has (ex. more awareness means more awareness of the pain, plus higher level animals contribute more than insects, etc) - rather than the mere fact that "it's alive".
Sure, it is obvious by your previous posts that you think "something" put us in our own little bodies because golly gee, otherwise we would be our brother! Holy Cow!
Please…if god put you in your little body then he also put the little girl in the body with spin bifada and she lived in absolutely hell for her ten years before she finally withered away and died…..great lesson in morality there, not much in the little girls consciousness that we could tell.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 10:02:39 PM
Squashing a mosquito isn't a crime, but abusing an animal like a dog is.
...
And from where did you obtain these morals?
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 05:37:34 PM
But take 2 identical twins with identical brains - each has a separate consciousness despite idential brains - so if you had an identical twin, how could you explain why you were "born in your body" instead of your brother's? And vice versa.
That can't be explained away that easily. I've heard that consciousness is a concept that exists on a 'quantum level', so I believe the concept transcends mere individual brains.
Sure you may not 'float out of your body' when you die, but how do you know you won't take on the 1st person consciousness of another physical body in another life (or that you haven't already done so in 'past lives')?
Conjecture and nothing more.
Quote from: aitm on March 28, 2015, 10:16:43 PM
Sure, it is obvious by your previous posts that you think "something" put us in our own little bodies because golly gee, otherwise we would be our brother! Holy Cow!
There's obviously a reason why that can't be written off as simple brain activity, since that only explains consciousness in general.
Quote
Please…if god put you in your little body then he also put the little girl in the body with spin bifada and she lived in absolutely hell for her ten years before she finally withered away and died…..
great lesson in morality there, not much in the little girls consciousness that we could tell.
Nope, the universe is like a fine tuned machine - it's impossible for God to intervene with nature - all that occurs in nature is the result of direct cause and effect, not divine intervention.
Slightly related question, Ace:
How often do you crap and fart?
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 10:34:56 PM
all that occurs in nature is the result of direct cause and effect,
indeed, only on this planet we call it "teaching"
Quote from: aitm on March 28, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
indeed, only on this planet we call it "teaching"
Which is why worms instinctively engage in their behavior - despite not having any cerebral matter what so ever, therefore no ability to "learn" at all.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 05:37:34 PM
But take 2 identical twins with identical brains - each has a separate consciousness despite idential brains - so if you had an identical twin, how could you explain why you were "born in your body" instead of your brother's? And vice versa.
That can't be explained away that easily. I've heard that consciousness is a concept that exists on a 'quantum level', so I believe the concept transcends mere individual brains.
Sure you may not 'float out of your body' when you die, but how do you know you won't take on the 1st person consciousness of another physical body in another life (or that you haven't already done so in 'past lives')?
Did you even read what I wrote? They have separate brains and bodies. First of all there is no such thing as identical twins. Quantum level? Are you a Deepak Chopra fan? Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on March 28, 2015, 10:48:33 PM
Did you even read what I wrote? They have separate brains and bodies. First of all there is no such thing as identical twins. Quantum level? Are you a Deepak Chopra fan? Solitary
http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness
Quote from: Solitary on March 28, 2015, 10:48:33 PM
Did you even read what I wrote? They have separate brains and bodies. First of all there is no such thing as identical twins. Quantum level? Are you a Deepak Chopra fan? Solitary
Solitary!
You must find your one-ness and be one with your quantum!
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 10:34:56 PM
There's obviously a reason why that can't be written off as simple brain activity, since that only explains consciousness in general.
That…..makes no sense whatsoever
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 10:46:49 PM
Which is why worms instinctively engage in their behavior - despite not having any cerebral matter what so ever, therefore no ability to "learn" at all.
Fine, fine, I'll give you worms….sheesh….nice little moral worms.
Quote from: aitm on March 28, 2015, 11:02:49 PM
Fine, fine, I'll give you worms….sheesh….nice little moral worms.
They're "ordered" - they don't just kill or eat each other right and left because they weren't "taught" - call it "moral", or whatever you wish.
How do you know worms don't kill and eat each other?
Read and learn Ace:
Quotehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-make-sociopath-through-brain-injury-trauma/
It is hilarious that you post this because it is strong evidence you are wrong about what you post. Thanks for the laughs! Solitary
First of all there is no such thing as absolutely identical twins anymore than identical souls. Even twins have separate bodies and brains thus are different. There is absolutely nothing in science that suggests a world beyond science accept psychology and psychiatry which are not hard science, even though neurology is, it still is open to interpretation and bias. You sound like a Deepak Chopra fan who doesn't have a clue about quantum mechanics or understands it---because no one does!
Reality is our God
Science is our Bible
Evidence is our Scripture
Big History is our Creation Story
Ecology is our Theology
Integrity is our Salvation
Positive Evolution is our Mission
The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism, which is a dedication to the pursuit of the understanding of objective Reality. Our motto is, "If it's real, we believe in it." Since no one knows all of Reality, the Church of Reality is a religious commitment to the pursuit of Reality the way it really is. We think about thinking. We wonder about wondering. We try to understand the understanding of understanding. We are Explorers, not followers. The phrase "What is Real?" is our Sacred Question and the word "Reality" is our Sacred Message. We talk about Reality, think about Reality, and aim to make Reality more important in society.
The Church of Reality is based upon the Authority of Evidence
rather than the Authority of Scripture
Reverend Reality Speaks!
The Church of Reality is Religion 3.0. Religion 1.0 was about the authority of elders. Religion 2.0 was about the authority of scripture. Religion 3.0 is about the authority of evidence. This is a process we call the Evidential Reformation. We attempt answer the great questions that other religions address, like what is right and wrong, what is the meaning of life, how do people live together in a community, and what are our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other. We address these concerns in the context of Big History, our present Reality, and our future evolution. We are particularly focused on the future, which we call the Sacred Direction.
What we consider real is based on knowing rather that choosing to believe something. The difference between knowing and believing is knowing is based on the scientific method, which we call the Sacred Method. We use evidence, proof, logic, and reasoning to determine what is real. That doesn't make us infallible, sometimes we get it wrong. But when we realize we are wrong we change our minds because we have a value system that puts Reality first.
The Church of Reality is about making a religious commitment to the pursuit of the understanding of Reality as it really is.
Join our Email List
We are Monorealists, which means we believe in The One True Reality. This Reality is the sum of everything that actually exists. Our definition of Reality includes what some people call "other realities" that actually are real with the exclusion of imaginary realities and religious fiction. We care about what is real, not what we think is real or what we want to believe is real. The Church of Reality puts "real" Reality first.
We are about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Reality!
Your donation helps fund promotional activities that brings attention to living in Right Relationship with Reality. If you want to help get the word out and make Reality a religious value please help out by making a contribution. If you found this site and you like what you see then help us get the attention of more people. The more we can get people to embrace Reality the better the future of humanity will be.
The Church of Reality provides a religious identity for people who have made a personal commitment to pursue Reality the way it really is. When we are asked, "What religion are you?," we answer that we are Realists; we practice Reality because we believe in Reality. We also provide a sense of community, a social structure, and a moral compass to define right and wrong. We provide a sense of purpose about who we are, why we exist, and how we live our lives, in the context of science and logic.
We are of One Planet - we are all here together - and we are committed to making the future better than it is today. We are committed to making sure humanity evolves in a positive direction.
The Church of Reality recognizes the fact that the human race has a vast amount of shared knowledge. We call this shared knowledge the Tree of Knowledge, and it is through the growth of this tree that we can explore the universe around us. As the Tree of Knowledge grows, we evolve toward a better tomorrow, one where we will know more about Reality than we know today. Realism is not just a casual acceptance of Reality as real. Realism is a deeply felt choice, a commitment to a disciplined approach to determine what's real and to allow us to evolve in a positive direction.
Realists are not without values or morality. Our values are based on Humanism rather than a fictional holy book. As Realists, our values include Positive Evolution, Exploration, Honesty and Integrity, Freedom, Individualism, Peace, Courage, Environmentalism, Compassion, Justice, Inclusiveness, Scrutiny and Doubt, Humility, Reason, Wisdom, and Personal Responsibility. We believe in Original Virtue rather than Original Sin. We are a Doubt-Based rather than Faith-Based religion. These Sacred Principles form the basis for our Church Doctrine and are logically consistent with our missions.
The Church of Reality is an evolving religion. We are not tied to a fixed doctrine that was written in the past and is slowly becoming obsolete. If we get it wrong, we fix our mistakes. We are an Open Source Religion and everyone is welcome to participate in the development and improvement of our religion. We live on a vast wondrous universe that we are just beginning to explore. Why would someone want to waste their entire existence on a fictional world view when there's all this wonderful Reality to investigate and understand?
The Church of Reality is an Emergent Religion. Just as apples grow on apple trees when humanity evolves to a certain level something like the Church of Reality must occur. Humanity has two paths. We can either evolve forward or we will become extinct. We will either Stay in the Game or we will be Left Behind. Since we were created through the process of evolution and our ancestors all the way back to Pond Scum did what it took to survive, we are programmed by evolution to try to continue to exist. We therefore accept, through evolutionary bias, that to exist is better than to not exist. In order to continue to exist we have to evolve forward and we need to be in Right Relationship with Reality to do that. And that defines the mission and the purpose of the Church of Reality, that humanity should continue to exist and evolve forward so that we stay in the game. Our descendants should look back at this time and be thankful we did what we do here today. Otherwise, if we do the wrong thing, they might regret what we do today, or there may be no one around to look back. We will be forgotten.
What is Reality?
Reality is that which when you stop believing in it - it doesn't go away. ~ Philip K. Dick
Are you already a Realist? - Do you find yourself thinking about Reality? Do you think that it's important that what you believe in is actually real? Do you think for yourself rather than just believe what you are told to believe? When you counsel friends on important matters, do you advise them to take Reality into consideration? Do you believe the world would be better off if Reality were a more important part of society? if you answered YES to these questions, you may already be a Realist.
“A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.†~ Carl Sagan
If you like what you see, then join our Mailing List to get the latest announcements. We also appreciate those who link to us and review the Church of Reality in their blogs. We have a good religion started here. All we need is people to spread the word about it.
Church of Reality Introduction Podcast Listen Now!
The Sacred Missions of the Church of Reality are:
We Believe in Reality - the Way It Really Is
We Spread the Sacred Message - Reality
We Choose the Sacred Direction - Forward
We Honor the Tree of Knowledge
We Ask the Sacred Moral Question - What Is Good
We Issue the Sacred Challenge
We Are Activists - We Make It Happen
We Unite Religion and Reality
We believe in Reality - the way it really is!
If it's real - we believe in it. The name defines the religion. The Church of Reality is a Personal Commitment to the Truth. We believe in real reality, not the way we want reality to be, not our personal reality, but real objective reality the way it really is. We Realists are explorers and we explore the universe together with our minds. We think about thinking. We wonder about wondering. We attempt to understand the Understanding of Understanding. We ponder the Great Questions. We are a curious people and we are bound together in our quest to know the real world that we really live in.
Read more...
We Spread the Sacred Message - Reality
Our mission is to spread the importance of reality everywhere, to think about reality, to talk about reality, to allow reality to transform our being. Every time we mention the word Reality we spread the Sacred Message. We are here to ask the Sacred Question - "What is Real?" We want people to consider reality when making important decisions. By spreading the Sacred Message we cause people to be Real in the Sacred Moment (which is Now). Our mission is to say "Reality" as many times as we can and to get other people to think about reality as often as we can. We want people to be more realistic in their daily lives and to spend more time every day wondering about what is really real.
Read more...
We Honor the Tree of Knowledge
The Tree of Knowledge represents the sum total of all human understanding. It is the shared knowledge of the human race. It is the repository of everything we know. The fact that you can read this is because you can read and communicate with a common language that is among the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge. The human race survives and thrives through our shared knowledge. Our understanding of reality and our evolutionary process is through growing the Tree of Knowledge.
Read more...
We Choose the Sacred Direction - Forward
The Sacred Direction is forward - onward and upward. Our world view is Futurism not Dogmatism. Our Principle of Positive Evolution commits us to envision a future that is better than today. We are one planet and we are all in this together on our little ball in the universe. In order to answer the Sacred Question and explore our reality, society must evolve forward.
In order for us to explore reality the way it really is, we have to continue to evolve forward. We need to become a better society. We need to develop new technology. We need to find better ways to feed ourselves, to cure diseases, to keep our environment clean, to advance the sciences, to educate our children, to understand our minds, to live in peace with one another, and to have a fair and just society. These things cause us to progress and to move forward as a human race so that we can understand our world and the universe of which we are a part.
Read more...
We Ask the Sacred Moral Question - What is Good?
The Sacred Moral Question is, "Is this a Good Thing?" What does "good" mean? That too is involved in the Sacred Moral Question. Right and Wrong and morality and ethics are all relative to your basic assumptions and goals. We base our morality on reality and it is our duty to make sure that reality is taken into consideration when questions of right and wrong are decided. The commitment to Reality is a commitment to truth, honesty, wisdom, and responsibility. The Church of Reality is committed to getting the moral questions right.
Read more...
We Issue the Sacred Challenge
There are a lot of religions and many of them have an Extinctionist perspective on the future of the world. They look forward to the world ending in their lifetime. Our religion is based on Positive Evolution and the progress of humanity is sacred to us. We therefore challenge other religions on the basis of reality to help ensure that they don't destroy civilization pursuing their fiction based religious fantasies. One of our missions is to influence other religions to embrace reality and help them evolve into a better religion that doesn't threaten the future of the human race.
Read more...
We are Activists - We make it Happen
We are an activist religion. We don't just find problems - we solve problems. We are committed to coming up with solutions and take responsibility for bringing new concepts into reality. We make sure that the job is done right. We are a community, and we do the work needed to make the community work. We go out and learn, we try to understand, and we spend a lot of time thinking. We give of ourselves for the common good of all people. In the Spirit of the Tree - our shared knowledge - we support sharing. It is our duty to look around and figure out how to make it all work.
Read more...
We Unite Religion and Reality
By adopting the name "Church of Reality" we are dedicating ourselves to solving the puzzle of how to create a religion that is based on reality. They say it can't be done, but we say it can and must be done. We accept the task of creating a religion that provides all the community services that other religions provide, while staying true to the principles of science and logic. We accept the axiom that this is possible and we dedicate ourselves to the seemingly impossible task of making it work.
Bringing Religion into the 21st Century Reality as a Religious Identity
The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism. It is a religion that is based on believing in everything that is real. Our motto is, "If it's real, we believe in it." Since no one knows all of reality, the Church of Reality is about the pursuit of reality the way it really is. We commit to being intellectually honest with ourselves, and with others, so that we can cut through the mythology and understand the understanding of understanding.
Our world view is that religion is evolving in the Sacred Direction and that the Church of Reality is a blueprint for religious evolution. We want to inject reality into the world view of other religions so that we are all improved through Realism. The Church of Reality is different in that we are not dedicated to a fictional world view. Our world view is to see reality the way it really is. Other religions' world views are based on mythology. All religions have some basis in reality. Most would agree that murder is bad. On those universal concepts we in the Church of Reality agree. But in those other religions, if their world view contradicts reality, they are expected to reject reality in favor of their world view. Rarely are other religions dedicated to the pursuit of reality the way it really is. In this church, if you come to realize that what you currently believe is wrong, you are expected to change your mind. That's what's different about the Church of Reality. The beliefs are not static. Reality is a learning process. We are an evolving religion. Of all the religious choices out there, we believe that Reality should be one of those choices.
Read more... Read more...
Fundamental Concepts What the Church of Reality is Not
Every religion has it's own world view and culture. The Church of Reality is no different. Our world view and culture are rooted in the Sacred Principles which define our ethical standards. Although our mission is to explore reality, we need to deal with a lot of other related issues to do that. Here is an overview of what being a Realist is all about. To avoid confusion and misconceptions, here is a list of things that the Church of Reality is not. Sometimes a religion can better clarify what it is by stating what it isn't. We are like other religions in many ways and in many ways we are not like other religions. Here is a list of what we are not.
Read more... Read more...
Solitary
Explain how one can have a consciousness without a brain or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 28, 2015, 11:31:36 PM
Explain how one can have a consciousness without a brain or shut the fuck up.
actually I think that is his position.
Quote from: the_antithesis on March 28, 2015, 11:31:36 PM
Explain how one can have a consciousness without a brain or shut the fuck up.
Nope, the idea is that a 1st person consciousness can manifest itself in a different brain after the death of the current one - not that it'd just 'exist on its own' outside of a brain:
http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness
I'll second that! Ace you whole dialogue is called confirmation bias that is a fallacy in logic, and even happens to atheists and scientists---but it still means they are wrong when they do that. Deepak Chopra is a master at doing that, like so many religious authorities and their followers. Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on March 28, 2015, 11:37:45 PM
I'll second that! Ace you whole dialogue is called confirmation bias that is a fallacy in logic, and even happens to atheists and scientists---but it still means they are wrong when they do that. Deepak Chopra is a master at doing that, like so many religious authorities and their followers. Solitary
I've never read Deepak Chopra - I was referring to this:
http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 11:38:32 PM
I've never read Deepak Chopra - I was referring to this:
http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness
It is an interesting theory, and in a wild ass assumption but lets see it pass a physical and real test. Grab a couple dozen infants and stick them in a the woods and see how long they live eh?
I'd be careful with your source. Elsevier has been found to use fake peer reviews for their publications.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/19/elsevier-retracting-16-papers-faked-peer-review/
I would look for a better source.
Oh christ. More hokum. Why do these assholes keep coming here? We don't care.
Other physicists think Penrose has gone off the deep end with this. Even if it is true it doesn't mean consciousness has to be caused by a quantum event. If something is a quantum event it can't cause a non quantum event to happen even if everything depends on trillions of quantum events. There is no reason to think consciousness is caused because of quantum mechanics. Penrose thinks he understands quantum mechanics and he is wrong because no one does. Well maybe Deepak does. :biggrin2: Solitary
My answer to this is the same answer I have for many things: "It's possible, but not probable."
We only have a few reference points for loss of conscious brain function: coma, unconsciousness, and sleep. The latter isn't even a complete shutdown since you still dream. We also have a frame of reference in the form of what there is before you're born: nothing. Since death is yet another form of lost brain function, it's not unreasonable to conclude that this is all it is. Is it possible there's an afterlife? Sure. Is it probable? Not really.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 04:51:13 PM
A problem that I have with some atheists is that they claim assertively "once you die that's all there is", but IMO this is a faith based belief - and not from a 'religious' POV either.
Basically, while it's true that human consciousness "in general" is caused by brain activity - what causes SPECIFIC people to be 'born in their bodies' isn't explained away that easily. For example why where you born as "you" instead of as your brother (and vice versa)? That can't just be explained away by brain waves.
So while a specific brain and set of memories does end upon death, saying that there is no 1st person consciousness after a certain physical death is just taking a guess, since science hasn't advanced that far yet.
Not to mention lots of other 'theories' - for example, what if 10,000 years from now an alien race is able to re-create everyone from their DNA? That might be sci-fi but it's totally valid to think about since it deals with future possiblities, not things which 'can be disproven' - so in that situation, you'd actually 'wake up' 10,000 years later in a new body instead of just 'be gone'.
Point is the honest answer is for atheists to say "I don't know" what happens after death, since anything else is just a belief based on faith.
Aside from the complete lack of any evidence to suggest that an afterlife exists, your "idea" that an afterlife being "possible" is the same as trying to argue that god is possible from an atheistic viewpoint. Yes, is some fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a minute possibility that something an afterlife does exist there still remains ZERO supporting evidence to make such a claim. Therefore it is more logical to hold a lack of belief in it than to suggest that it is possible. It may be, in theory, possible but the likely hood of it being true is close enough to zero for me to feel comfortable stating that for all intents and purposes it is zero.
Many things are hypothetically possible, however it does not mean that they actually exists.
I believe that when the brain dies your consciousness dies with it. There for there is nothing after you die. But now I do believe there is a life energy with in each person some kind of life force. That energy might get passed on to other life. In that sense we might have an after "life" but is it really us at that point? No I think not. So there is no verifiable after life.
Science would point out that there is nothing after death. No evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 09:22:19 PM
I'll venture that this does apply to thinking animals such as chimpanzees. To a mosquito or a worm with no cerebral matter? Probably not.
Well, let's stick to mammals for the sake of discussion.
What is a "thinking" animal? What distinguishes them from non-thinking animals?
Quote from: aitm on March 28, 2015, 09:22:52 PM
Admit it, you love me and want me.
Admit it: You wish.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 09:30:27 PM
That's not elitism, that's my understanding of science - from what I can tell consciousness is dependent on having cerebral brain functions. A single-celled organism might be a form of 'life' but it's not 'alive' in the since that a mammal is - that's why animals (even non human animals) have some rights, but tiny organisms, plants, etc don't.
"Rights" are granted by humans and are human-centric, they are not a biological construct. They are all in context to humans.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 10:46:49 PM
Which is why worms instinctively engage in their behavior - despite not having any cerebral matter what so ever, therefore no ability to "learn" at all.
Are you sure? How do you know that?
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 04:51:13 PM
Point is the honest answer is for atheists to say "I don't know" what happens after death, since anything else is just a belief based on faith.
I think "I don't know" is the most honest answer but many people don't find that answer satisfactory. I can't claim to know with any authority that everything about me will cease to exist after I die. I don't really know how "I" got here and I can't say where "I" will go, and thanks to various ailments "I" can go before my body is even dead. To say with certainty that there is nothing after death is to be confident that humans really understand consciousness, the nature of the physical universe and how the two interact, and I don't think we are there yet. For example: is space and time eternal and infinite? If it is then there are a possibility that all the factors that led to my existence and consciousness have happened before and will happen again. Is there a multiverse? Could consciousness be associated with physical laws of the universe that we haven't identified yet? Is death like Schrödinger's cat? Who knows. I still feel at this stage in human evolution we still don't know everything we don't know. The bottom line is I don't know if there is anything else after I die, that is my honest answer.
Many people don't like that answer. I sometimes think some people are so uncomfortable with uncertainty they create a theory that fits with their current view of life just to ease their anxiety. In the book
Life of Pi the main character says:
I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.Doubt isn't my philosophy of life but I think we need to accept that sometimes we don't know, and while we may know in the future, for now it is a mystery. Because I believe we don't know what, if anything, happens when we die my strategy is to live for now and not for heaven, hell, reincarnation or oblivion. We will each learn the answer eventually.
Quote from: Ace101 on March 28, 2015, 05:37:34 PM
But take 2 identical twins with identical brains - each has a separate consciousness despite idential brains - so if you had an identical twin, how could you explain why you were "born in your body" instead of your brother's? And vice versa.
That can't be explained away that easily. I've heard that consciousness is a concept that exists on a 'quantum level', so I believe the concept transcends mere individual brains.
Sure you may not 'float out of your body' when you die, but how do you know you won't take on the 1st person consciousness of another physical body in another life (or that you haven't already done so in 'past lives')?
Identical twins may have the same DNA, but they don't have the same microbiome. Also, they may well have differing epigenetics.
Quote from: leo on March 28, 2015, 05:50:12 PM
Reincarnation is very real. I was Chuck Norris is my past life.
Wow, so was I! What a small world!
Considering the fact that the brain is ever changing, making new connections, old disused cells eventually dying off while new cells are formed, it's not unreasonable to make the assumption that several "versions" of our "self" have died. The newest version always having the memories of the former, therefore no break in continuity from the perspective of the "new self." Even the very idea of our consciousness may not be referring to a single entity at all, but to a cyclic process that is ever changing with multiple steps. This idea of our consciousness being a series of dying off and renewal is no different than claiming our skin is the same, even though cells are replaced and scar tissue from previous injuries are modified slightly as new cells transition. The skin that bore the injuries from years ago has long since been gone, but the new skin kept the "memories" of the injuries - not unlike what brain cells do when maintaining established pathways.
You wonder about an afterlife when it's very possible that the "you" from years ago has died and the "you" right now is not the same entity. People are so eager to assume their concept of "self" is a continuous entity from birth to death, and wonder if such a powerful thing can thrive beyond death. The concept of "self" is unlikely to persist beyond the cells needed to generate the "illusion."
Verify that consciousness is even a singular "entity" persevering despite our biological restrictions before asking if it can persist beyond death.
I have, on several occasions, encountered my own ghost from the future. The memory of it got me diagnosed as schizophrenic. I still don't know what it was. I don't think it was supernatural. But for me to say it didn't happen would be dishonest. To me it is an unexplained phenomena. But to everyone else it is a subjective and unreliable account. That doesn't bother me. I know what I remember, and I know I will never convince anyone it really happened. But I still don't believe in any kind of everlasting Heaven or Hell.
I have, however, wondered if the afterlife could be just a dream in a fetus' brain. How I would transfer from my dying body, to the fetus brain, I have no idea, nor do I need to know. If it is to be it will be. If not, I'll never know. Preparing for it is impossible. But one thing is for sure: death precedes life as well as following it.
My poem about it:
"The Dead"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/the-dead.html
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 30, 2015, 12:54:25 AM
I think "I don't know" is the most honest answer but many people don't find that answer satisfactory.
"I don't know" is the answer it took me the longest to accept; certainties are much easier. But I've come to take "I don't know" as a terrifically optimistic and forward-looking answer -- assuming the situation is genuinely one where we don't know. I always attach a "...yet" to the statement. :)
The real problem with "I don't know" is that people who want certainties use it as an entry point for whatever their pet theory is, ignoring the fact that "I don't know" is
not equivalent to "Anything goes".
So we don't know exactly how the universe began (yet). But we know
something about it, and it rules out certain theories of how the universe began, even if it doesn't rule out all but one of them. We don't have a Theory of Everything (yet) -- but we know the shape it needs to take and what observations it needs to address.
"I don't know" isn't the same as "No one knows anything about it at all so feel free to make wild guesses that don't actually have any basis in reality". The purveyors of woo haven't grokked this.
If I wake up in 10000 years I damned well better have that fucking flying car by then..
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQV3clCvow6JC2MLv-LA9cxjNsJhqh37Gi6UvclzQsUY2JrtUWl9TFrbzdQ)
Quote from: trdsf on April 02, 2015, 07:51:48 PM
The real problem with "I don't know" is that people who want certainties use it as an entry point for whatever their pet theory is, ignoring the fact that "I don't know" is not equivalent to "Anything goes".
Agreed. What you wrote reminded me of an interview I read today. There is no physical evidence that life exists outside this planet. "I don't know" if there is life elsewhere in the universe however there is reason to suspect there is extraterrestrial life, as Neil Degrasse Tyson explained when asked if he believes in the existence of aliens:
QuoteWell, it’s not a matter of “belief.†“Belief†implies that you feel something is true without evidence. I have a strong suspicion that something is true given the evidence, and that’s how I feel about life in the universe. You can look at how long the universe has existed. You can look at the ingredients for life as we know it. You can look at how common those very ingredients are throughout the galaxy and throughout the universe. You can look at how quickly life took hold on Earthâ€"basically within a couple of hundred million years after it possibly could have formed, it formedâ€"and that’s small compared with the age of the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years. And if you look at how many stars there are, and how many planets there are that are likely to be around them based on new data, you add all this up and say, “It would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest that we were the only life in the universe.†That is the posture that informed people take who study this. The prospect of there being life is not an exotic thought.
Quote"I don't know" isn't the same as "No one knows anything about it at all so feel free to make wild guesses that don't actually have any basis in reality".
Wild guesses are all we have though, when it comes to postmortem experience (Unless you accept anecdotal witnesses, such as near-death testimonies -
which I do not).
I can only imagine something that seems, to me, to describe the
transfer process that would be necessary to accomplish any kind of
continuity of consciousness, that is,
life after death. I imagine that it cannot take place in a vacuum, without a brain to give it functional ability, and that it cannot go on forever. A temporary state is all I can find reasonable. And I will admit that I base it on
my own memories and experiences.
But whatever I imagine, it is just that: my imagination; an expression of my curiosity. I don't ever preach it, and I only ever talk about it when someone brings up the afterlife. I wish the religious would accept that their holy book is, at best, the same kind of speculation, done by a much less educated man.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on April 03, 2015, 06:49:39 AM
Wild guesses are all we have though, when it comes to postmortem experience (Unless you accept anecdotal witnesses, such as near-death testimonies - which I do not).
My grandfather had a heart attack in 1990 and was technically dead twice in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He recovered and lived another 15 years -- and reported seeing nothing. I recall particularly, because mom (who was and is a Christian) reported it to me with some surprise, and I (at the time a practicing Wiccan) was surprised that he'd seen nothing because, yaknow, I was pretty sure there was an afterlife myself.
That may have been the first moment I seriously considered the possibility that there was no afterlife, because my grandfather was the most naturally and fundamentally honest person I have ever known, and there was no question in my mind that if Grandpa said he saw nothing, he saw nothing. Even if it didn't mesh with my (then-)worldview.
Brief digression: the hardest part of transitioning from being religious to not being religious was admitting to myself that no, I really wasn't ever going to see Grandpa again.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on April 03, 2015, 06:49:39 AM
I can only imagine something that seems, to me, to describe the transfer process that would be necessary to accomplish any kind of continuity of consciousness, that is, life after death. I imagine that it cannot take place in a vacuum, without a brain to give it functional ability, and that it cannot go on forever. A temporary state is all I can find reasonable. And I will admit that I base it on my own memories and experiences.
This also opens up the question of how much of one's consciousness is dependent on the physical body it resides in. So if my consciousness continues after brain death, I'm not entirely sure how much of what continues is actually me because it's no longer in its original housing, so to speak -- or at least how long it would remain definably me.
Paging Douglas Hofstadter... :)
Here's a thought that has crossed my mind: what if not every transfer is successful? What if certain people have been doing it for a long time, and others are just hit and miss? This is where my personal memories (so called "schizophrenia") lead my speculation. What if you just reset from the beginning of your own experiential timeline? Start it all over, with every opportunity to create a new branch. I'm sure the idea doesn't appeal to everyone, but like I said, maybe not everyone is adept at it anyway. Whatever it might be, I would imagine it's intuitive, and not anything you can prepare yourself for.
But this is all subjective. I would never offer my experience as anything others should take heed of.