Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Doesn't that mean my inner voice is mine, by definition?
Prove that the inner voice “belonging to you” is really an “ownership of personage”?
Uh. Yeah. Sort of self referential, isn’t it. Oh well. I think I’m done here. The Evil One prefers to remain hidden. He is better able to deceive in such a way as that.
Cheers!
Yep. Done proved yourself wrong.
Daz vedanya.
rmfr
Re: OP
Well, damn.... I'm afraid I will not be able to comply with your request, Mr. Rat. Upon attempting to investigate the true identity of my inner voice, it informed me it was under very strict security regulations that prevented it from revealing its true identity to me. According to my inner voice, revealing its identity to me would violate multiple world-wide treaties and pose a devastating financial risk to all of the Krispy Kreme Donut shops throughout the country. When I attempted to convince my inner voice to at least give me a hint, it threatened me with a Taser. At that point I backed off. Ever been hit with a Taser?... I have. Many times. It sucks. For now I will just be content not knowing the true identity of my inner voice. But, hey, at least I tried.
There is no limit to how far the Evil One will subject is to torture. It keeps Him occupied.
@Rat Spit Re: "There is no limit to how far the Evil One will subject is to torture. It keeps Him occupied."
Well, everybody has to have a hobby, I suppose. Can't really hold that against the guy.
That seems to be obvious. He created you didn't he?
What do you mean by created me? Like from the earth Genesis kind of bullshit? No. I don’t believe He created me. I was created by my mother and father and a very complex and somewhat random process of sperm meeting egg; cell division; cell growth; organ growth; the March of DNA - and so forth.
He created them didn't he.
Duplicate
He created duplicates didn't he?
Fictional beings, like their fictional tortures are not that scary unless you choose to be gullible and endow them with fake reality.
It can't be worse than the BS you're subjecting us to.
Days of your vapid nonsense masquerading as debate. The "evil one" the "over lord" ffs, seriously seek help, you're either trolling, or you're completely off your tits.
I suspect the latter.
I haven’t the time, patience, or inclination to ponder whether my ‘inner voice’ is ‘me’. It seems too
trivial a question given the need for thought and action in areas that would actually make a difference.
I'm not sure it does require a great deal of thought, as Occam's razor clearly applies. I exist, I can think, and those thoughts for some capricious reason he has decided to call my "inner voice". If he wants to claim my thoughts come from something else. then he has to evidence this claim, we already know our brains exist and our thoughts exist, he is the one adding something that isnlt evidenced.
Theists are forever putting their clapped out donkey behind their cart. It's an appeal to ignorance fallacy yet again, insisting we prove our thoughts originate form our own brains, or else he can claim they originate from some fictional deity he can't demonstrate any evidence for.
Well, if you have, for example, anxiety; racing thoughts; insomnia due to over thinking - these are all uncontrollable types of thoughts.
Insight into the true nature of Self presents solutions to such conditions.
All the insight in the world will not get you a cup of coffee if you don't have a buck in your pocket!
"Well, if you have, for example, anxiety; racing thoughts; insomnia due to over thinking - these are all uncontrollable types of thoughts."
Except they're not uncontrollable are they, and even if they were we can't control our emotions sometimes, our adrenaline levels, our heart rate our insulin levels. It would be absurdly superstitious however to suggest these didn't originate from our physical bodies, but from some unevidenced superhuman entity.
"Insight into the true nature of Self presents solutions to such conditions."
Indeed, but these would be objectively evidenced insights, not woo woo superstitions, which only bolster ignorance and fear, and always have.
What does this question even mean? "Me" is the name I've given to that voice in my head. So, yeah, that voice is me.
Are you meaning to ask us to prove that we have agency? That we actually control the thoughts in our heads? I'd say that we don't.
Interesting. But you still “believe” in the me which is you. Ie. you are compelled (by some force) to believe in your self. What compels you to believe in such a “me”?
"you still “believe” in the me which is you. Ie. you are compelled (by some force) to believe in your self. What compels you to believe in such a “me”?"
Objective empirical evidence. By stark comparison you can demonstrate no objective evidence for your woo woo superstition?
Stone Jadehat : "That we actually control the thoughts in our heads? I'd say that we don't."
Actually you can and that is what Rat Baby is on about. There are techniques that allow us to quiet the mind and take control of our thoughts. To focus on something specific and actually get all the voices, even the ones watching and watching the watching to all do the same thing.
You are correct - "WE DON'T" Some have learned how and even they "don't' all the time. And with that said, it still goes back to the fact, "All the insight in the world will not get you a cup of coffee without a buck in your pocket."
@Cognostic
This comment may get lost since I'm late in responding, but hey.
Yeah, I hear you on the value of quieting the mind and taking "control" of our thoughts. I'm a big fan of meditation and think it would be of value to most people, especially in being able to access the "it's watching all the way down". Research has shown that meditation benefits us in about a bajillion ways.
But it seems obvious to me that choice is an illusion, and I'm often surprised that more science-centered people don't agree. We're all the effect of many causes. Did I really make a choice to meditate for the first time? I'd say that all of the things I've observed in my life paired with my biology and a dose of plain old chance really forced me to "choose" to meditate. Could I have chosen not to? I'd say no. Because all of those causes tumbling over one another ultimately led to my "yes". There was no "me", no spirit or self, that was separate from my biology, memory, neurons, etc. that could have somehow disregarded those experiences and biology to make a different choice. I'm constantly making "choices" as a result of a whole host of causes. But a result of cause and effect is not a choice.
It's really difficult to admit the illusory elements of choice. How can we hold criminals responsible for their actions without individual responsibility? I have worked as a Social worker and Psychotherapist for more than a few decades, I am in the business of "changing" people and "altering behavior" and "thinking." There are thousands of techniques and yet no definitive research or evidence as to what actually causes change in a person. In fact, if you are a horrible therapist, the fact that someone goes to your office and pays a fee is enough to give them a 50% chance of altering the behavior that they came to session complaining about. Just the effort of arriving and paying the fee is enough to facilitate some change.
I am a big fan of "Change your mind and you will change the world." Nevertheless, and as I have said before. all the insight in the world will get you a cup of coffee if you do not have a dollar in your pocket. The Brain and what we call the mind are fascinating areas of inquiry and I believe we are making progress into understanding them. I really like "Sam Harris's Moral Landscape" and how science is looking into morality. A morality based on "Well Being" Daniel Dennet and Matt Dillahaunty seems much more logical, rational, and scientific than anything the Bible Believers have produced in 2000 years.
Sounds like you are talking Hegelian Dialectics. Another great theory. There is an idea and the idea naturally generates its opposite. Hot generates the idea of not hot or Cold. (Only ideas have opposites. There is no opposite to telephone, cow, or marshmallow, for example.) The original idea is a "synthases turned thesis." From the "thesis" a new idea, an "antithesis," it's opposite is formed. From the merging of the thesis and antithesis a new synthases takes place. This synthases, the resolution, becomes the new thesis. The new thesis contains within it an antithesis and round and round we go...
Anyway.... all chewing gum for the mind.
@Cognostic
I'm totally on board with morality based on well being, and am a fan of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Though believing in a lack of free will has it's challenges, I think it could have massive benefits to society. Instead of locking away a criminal because they are "evil" or "bad" and throwing away the key, we could lock someone up only as much as needed to keep others safe and say, "Look, you're a victim of your circumstances just as we all are, but we can't have you going around harming other people. Let's look at options for ways to alter your behavior in a way that makes it possible for you to thrive in society."
Instead of creating an "us" (the morally superior) vs. "them" (the morally inferior) politically, racially, economically, etc, we could see that we've all come to where we are involuntarily, and then take actions accordingly to work toward creating causes that get the effects we want in creating a better world. Admitting lack of free will takes a lot of the moral judgment out and instead has us looking at practical ways to alter our culture, systems and individual interactions in a way that can affect the future. It can give us a deeper compassion for each other and perhaps an opportunity to really look at solutions instead of trying to yell each other down.
Though I'm not sure what the effects are on the experience of personal autonomy. I'm still exploring this for myself. But I'd say coming to deny the existence of free will has given me greater compassion as well as some real humility.
"Let's look at options for ways to alter your behavior ." I fear we are entering the magical kingdom of Hitler's Utopia complete with gene technology, chemical alteration of DNA, and a pill that can fix anything. I fear we must tread slowly for there be monsters ahead...
I for one support gene modification, I mean sooner or later being “human” is not gonna be good enough. Our planet is already dying practically and no animal on the planet can adapt to it fast enough naturally. I believe that with 3D modeling getting better and better, we can map out the human genome and go from theoretical changes to real changes. It could lead to inhumane, brutal practices, or we could effectively wipe out hereditary diseases, allergies, neurological disorders. I mean we could change to better, smarter species to better understand the world around us. But of course, all of this probably only exists in a madman’s utopia, so I agree with you on treading slowly and carefully.
"Let's look at options for ways to alter your behavior ." I fear we are entering the magical kingdom of Hitler's Utopia complete with gene technology, chemical alteration of DNA, and a pill that can fix anything. I fear we must tread slowly for there be monsters ahead...
I apologize. I will reply to everyone (except Sheldon) in due time. Save to say, I am attempting to shine light on the nature of the Self. It can be seen as a Buddhist endeavour, however the Buddha preached “not-self” on the basis that form, feeling, perception, impulses, and consciousness (the five “skhandas”) were a)impermanent and b)subject to suffering. The Buddha claimed it was improper to name something inconstant and subject to suffering “Self”.
I am noting some different characteristics of this so called self. Ie. the uncontrollable nature of it; the impossibility of repeating an impulse; alongside the fact that we believe we are our selves - but fail to know for sure. Ie. it is a deception. That’s all for now. Duty calls.
RE: Buddhism -
Does this self you speak of lie at the beginning of this light you are shining or at the end? Why should one accept this idea of the nature of the self, then abandon it to find no-self? Knowledge seems to be something that always exists in the past, Knowledge of the self exists in the past, this light you are shining exists in the past. Can a mind burdened by this light you speak of and this idea of self find freedom from the self, or no self, by looking in the past as you suggest? Your rants simply serve to strengthen the self. Do minds burdened with knowledge see truth? If I met the Buddha on the road, I would smile as he passed. I have no place to go because no one ever listened to him. That's why he is the Buddha.
Pages