Aethist corner of Elakiri

[ela_eluwa120]

Actually the weight of the soul is measured by scientists....



http://www.noeticsciences.co.uk/weighting-the-human-soul/

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html

It seems that they presupposed if there is some change in weight, it should be attributed to soul.

 

[Aethist]

 

[GuneBhai]

 

[twisted]

Heavenly Father—take to thee
The supreme iniquity
Fashioned by thy candid Hand
In a moment contraband—

Though to trust us—seem to us
More respectful—“We are Dust”--
We apologize to thee
For thine own Duplicity--

 

[AncientGlory]

It seems that they presupposed if there is some change in weight, it should be attributed to soul.

However I think the important question is if there is a change, how do you explain it? Any ideas(Other than soul)?

 

[djHiran]

However I think the important question is if there is a change, how do you explain it? Any ideas(Other than soul)?

There may be other possibilities, because there is no concept "conservation of mass" in physics (chemists think that it holds, but it is not correct). For example, if you allow A and B to react for example, the combined molecule AB does not have the mass of A added to B, but less. The lost fraction of mass is a very small indeed, but the important thing is there is a change. And this change can very accurately be quantified using special theory of relativity.

 

[Aethist]

Our discussion need not necessarily have a scientific basis.

not being rude but I do not participate in non quantifiable/ scientifically not measurable/ uncommon sense/ illogical discussions

having said that, you come and tell me, one day that NASA has discovered "heaven" or Stephen Hawking the greatest scientist of our time, disagrees to what he already said about "soul", then I will become a religious person ASAP

"when the brain dies it's all over for the mind" - Stephen Hawking - The Universe in a Nutshell

 

[AncientGlory]

not being rude but I do not participate in non quantifiable/ scientifically not measurable/ uncommon sense/ illogical discussions

What you decide to participate or not is a choice. Since you talk about common sense and logic you may realize that a universal truth about any of above is unknown. That is just common sense. You are going by a subjective reality and assume what you think logic is logic and dismiss the chance for something to be otherwise. One would have assumed that an atheist would have an open mind.

having said that, you come and tell me, one day that NASA has discovered "heaven" or Stephen Hawking the greatest scientist of our time, disagrees to what he already said about "soul", then I will become a religious person ASAP

"when the brain dies it's all over for the mind" - Stephen Hawking - The Universe in a Nutshell

I don't understand why you would think that I have any interest at all to make you a religious person. You ideas about Stephen Hawking being the greatest scientist of our time is like everything else just a subjective view. Hope you see common sense and logic in that.

 

[Aethist]

 

[Demon Code]

 

[djHiran]

 

[Aethist]

 

[Topophobia]

My views over the years have moved closer to agnosticism than atheism it seems. Atheism being the rejection of deity seems like an impossible position to take since it cannot be proven that a deity does not exist but only say that it is highly improbable. Furthermore position of atheism relies on the definition of deity and definition of a super natural act. Both could be subjective terms. It seems to me that claiming existence of a deity is unknowable is a more logical standard.

An atheist need not to provide an argument with mathematical certainty to justify his or her position. Existence of unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, and Santa clause too can not be certainty proven. For example, saying that no one has seen Santa does not imply the non-existence of Santa. The burden of proof lies on the party who make claims about such and such things like Santa Clause, God and so-on. If theists can not provide sufficient reasons for believing that God exists, then it is fairly justified to align ourselves with atheism.

 

[ela_eluwa120]

 

[Topophobia]

 

[AncientGlory]

An atheist need not to provide an argument with mathematical certainty to justify his or her position. Existence of unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, and Santa clause too can not be certainty proven. For example, saying that no one has seen Santa does not imply the non-existence of Santa. The burden of proof lies on the party who make claims about such and such things like Santa Clause, God and so-on. If theists can not provide sufficient reasons for believing that God exists, then it is fairly justified to align ourselves with atheism.

I did not say that an atheist has to prove his position. But somehow it seems to me that an atheist claims he knows GOD does not exist. I was merely pointing out that is an impossible claim. However the definition of atheism itself is broad and subjective. I guess I was only talking about a certain group of atheists.

If atheism is the rejection of belief in deities, I'm an atheist. However I think one cannot say that "a deity does not exist" with absolute certainty.

 

[Topophobia]

I did not say that an atheist has to prove his position. But somehow it seems to me that an atheist claims he knows GOD does not exist. I was merely pointing out that is an impossible claim. However the definition of atheism itself is broad and subjective. I guess I was only talking about a certain group of atheists.

If atheism is the rejection of belief in deities, I'm an atheist. However I think one cannot say that "a deity does not exist" with absolute certainty.

I agree that the word "atheism" is used in different meanings. Sometimes, the meaning of "atheism" tend to oscillate between the mere rejection of deities and the complete acceptance of science. Although I am not aware of the etymology of the term, in one of my previous posts, I have attempted to explore the different senses of "atheism".

Concerning atheism, I think the word "atheism" is a very confused (if not overused) term. Indeed, by reading some of the replies in this thread, I felt that some posters actually have confusions regarding usage of the word "atheism". (I am not an exception of this to be honest.)

Although I am not sure about the etymology of the term, I think that, in its strict sense, atheism denotes the disbelief in God or gods. In this sense, actually a Christian can be an atheist because Christians do not believe gods like ancient Egyptian gods, Horus to cite an example. In other words, we can say, Christians are atheists with respect to ancient Egyptian gods. Actually, under this interpretation of the term atheism, Jains and Buddhists are atheists too.

However, throughout the philosophical discourse, it seems that the usage of the term atheism has expanded to denotes many disbelieves. In this expanded sense, a Buddhist person can not be an atheist because according to this extended meaning of "atheism" one should reject reincarnation in order to be an atheist.

I don't prefer to identify me as an atheist because of this confusion when it comes to the usage of the word "atheism". I, instead, identify myself as a humanist.

 

[ela_eluwa120]

Originally Posted by Aethist
having said that, you come and tell me, one day that NASA has discovered "heaven" or Stephen Hawking the greatest scientist of our time, disagrees to what he already said about "soul", then I will become a religious person ASAP

"when the brain dies it's all over for the mind" - Stephen Hawking - The Universe in a Nutshell


I don't understand why you would think that I have any interest at all to make you a religious person. You ideas about Stephen Hawking being the greatest scientist of our time is like everything else just a subjective view. Hope you see common sense and logic in that.

There is nothing wrong with consulting some person when we are in trouble. For instance, we may consult a doctor to obtain some information pertaining to our health. In the same way, if we are to know something about the nature of the universe, Stephen Hawking, regardless of whether he is "the greatest scientist" or not, would be an appropriate authority to consult. If "Aethist" quoted from Micheal Jackson and said "when the brain dies it's all over for the mind", then he is surely being illogical because Micheal Jackson is not an appropriate authority in this matter.

However, despite it is not illogical, quoting from an appropriate authority merely adds some likelihood for our thesis. It does not demonstratively substantiate our thesis.

 

[Aethist]

Na na na Na na na Na na 2x
Talkin'bout you and me, yeah
and the games people play.

Oh the games people play now
ev'ry night and ev'ry day now
Never meaning what they say, yeah
never saying what they mean.

First you whine away your hours
in your concrete towers
Soon you'll be covered up with flowers
in the back of a black limousine.

People walking up to you
singing glory hallelujah
Then thy try to sock it to you, oh
in the name of the Lord

Na na na Na na na Na na 2x
Talkin'bout you and me, yeah
and the games people play.

Oh

Oh the games people play now
ev'ry night and ev'ry day now
Never meaning what they say, yeah
never saying what they mean.

And they teach you how to meditate
read up your horoscope and change your faith

and furthermore to hell with hate
Come on and give me some more, and more, and more.

Na na na Na na na Na na 2x
Talkin'bout you and me, yeah
and the games people play.

First your're giving up your sanity
turn your back on humanity, yeah
and you don't give a damn, a damn, a damn

Oh
Na na na Na na na Na na 2x
Talkin'bout you and me, yeah
and the games people play.

Talkin'bout you and me, yeah
and the games people play.

 

[AncientGlory]

There is nothing wrong with consulting some person when we are in trouble. For instance, we may consult a doctor to obtain some information pertaining to our health. In the same way, if we are to know something about the nature of the universe, Stephen Hawking, regardless of whether he is "the greatest scientist" or not, would be an appropriate authority to consult. If "Aethist" quoted from Micheal Jackson and said "when the brain dies it's all over for the mind", then he is surely being illogical because Micheal Jackson is not an appropriate authority in this matter.

However, despite it is not illogical, quoting from an appropriate authority merely adds some likelihood for our thesis. It does not demonstratively substantiate our thesis.

If you are addressing me, this is irrelevant to what I said. What I said was "your opinion is subjective", I took his opinion on Stephan Hawkings as an example. I also pointed out that above opinion is an opinion not a fact. What's it has to do with what you pointed above is not clear to me. "It is ok to consult someone when we are in trouble???" Is there anyone who does not know that??