The hard problem

this becomes a circular conversation. Gnostic atheism doesn’t make sense, I don’t know how else to put it. Sorry

Which is the same reason we don’t have a lot of Anti-theists on the site. Most of them sound like fucking idiots. On the other hand, it is completely appropriate to take an antitheistic approach to specific God claims when those claims are demonstrably false. By definition (once a God has been defined) it can be demonstrated not to exist. This is the very reason most theists only make vague beyond time and space, not of this world, spiritual, (whatever the hell that is) god claims.

A god that is ‘Just’ and ‘Merciful,’ can not exist. Mercy is the suspension of justice. An all-powerful god does not exist. Modern apologists have now changed the phrasing to ‘Logically Powerful’ to avoid god cooking a hotdog so big that he can’t eat it. An all-knowing god runs into problems with the idea of free will. He can either be all-knowing or we can have free will. God can have a plan or mankind can have free will but not both. All of these gods can be said ‘clearly and factually.’ not to exist. The antitheist position is justified when discussing Gods defined in this way./

Gnostic atheism is not a catch-all for a specific group of atheists, though admittedly sometimes it is, but rather a position is taken when arguing against the existence of a specific god. It is the position that argues against the position God Exists. Anti-theism asserts - ‘This god - the way you have defined it - does not exist.’ The moron who comes onto the site and begins spouting nonsense and Theistic Bigotry does not last long around here. His or her moronic statements would be treated with the same care as your own moronic statements


Most around here would agree. However, most are capable of clearly arguing that the evidence for the nonexistence of God or gods far exceeds the evidence for the existence of God or gods. 6000 years of failed gods, 2000 years of failed Christian apologetics, no solid evidence of any kind for any God that has ever been asserted to exist on this planet, and out of the hundreds of thousands of faild gods, some special group of sand dwelling sheep herders in the middle east met the one true god, have the one true creation story, and know the one and only truth. Horseshit!


I am going to try and clear this up for you:

Theist: “Christ is the risen god and loves you.”
Atheist: I don’t believe you.

That is the definition. Clear and simple. I do not BELIEVE YOUR CLAIMS FOR A GOD OR GODS = athiest

Theist: I carry [the knowledge of] God the Creator in my heart.

Agnostic: I have no knowledge of this Creator thing, and if it is a god I have no way of understanding it or its motives or comprehend how it “created” the universe.

There is that clearer?

Consciousness and metaphysics are entirely separate fields of spiny argument. They are NOT connected to atheism in any way.


Howdy, IK. Welcome to our humble abode. Just finished reading through the thread, and - oh, my - you seem to be terribly confused. Even after all the helpful explanations from other members, you STILL seem to be having problems. Please allow me to try, if I may.

Personally, I’ve never met anybody who KNOWS gods exist or don’t exist. So, basically, you might as well have said, “Hi, I breathe air.” In other words, you have stated the obvious. Next…

Atheist - Does not BELIEVE in god(s). Period. That’s it. Simple. Not complicated.

Agnostic - Does not KNOW. (Can be applied to many things other than religions and gods.)

Atheism has NOTHING to do with explaining consciousness. Nor does it have anything to do with Evolution, or The Big Bang, or DNA, or Astrophysics, or Microbiology, or any other field of science. Atheism applies ONLY to the non-belief in god(s). If you want answers to consciousness, I suggest you visit a site loaded with Neurologists and Professors of Psychology.

Depends on which atheist you ask. There is no “Atheist Position”. We all have our own unique thoughts and opinions based on our INDIVIDUAL educations, experiences, knowledge.

Hope this helps clear things up a bit for you.


Greetings and welcome.
This quote is rather odd and cornfusing.
Which part are you claiming that agnostics are somewhat reluctant to accept as fact? Is it that atheists do not believe? You cannot possible know for sure what someone else believes.
Or is it that you are erroneously concluding that atheists, in their non-belief, are claiming non-existence as fact?
Nearly all atheists I have encountered would admit to their agnosticism, since it is illogical to claim knowledge of something never shown to exist or claim certainty of the non-existence of that something which has not been shown to exist.To claim knowledge of non-existence is unfalsifiable. Your reluctance to acknowledge that atheism is non-belief is suspicious. Please try to understand that stating non-belief of existence is not the same as claiming non-existence. Most critical thinkers can grasp the difference between rejecting a claim of existence and claiming the “fact” of non-existence.
You need to let go of the idea that there is such a thing as an “atheist position”. (although Cog might disagree) other than a collective view of not being convinced of the existence of any gods whatsoever.
I am not sure of your purpose in bringing consciousness into this, other than an attempt to smuggle in some sort of “cosmic consciousness” flotsam. While consciousness is required for belief, knowledge, awareness, conceptualization, etc., expecting any of these things to explain consciousness to your satisfaction is like expecting a word to explain all of language.

Edit for existential blues…

1 Like

Nope… Cog is in full agreement… but certainly leaning towards the conclusion… just not stupid enough to make the conclusion without the concept of the god in question being clearly identified.

I have no issues admitting that I am confused or having understood things wrong. That is why I am here in the first place, to better understand. But some of you don’t have an attidude that promotes dialog, you are out for blood, and I wonder why this is. If you are genuinely interested in spreading the message of atheism and making the world a better place, repeated insults are not the way to go, even if you actually make a point.

So from the responses so far I recognize the following: Connecting consciousness with the existence of god was a mistake. Also I need to get my definitions straight. Like I said, I am new here and not very familiar with how certain terms are used. Any book suggestion on that subject?

Let me rephrase and I hope it makes more sense now.
As an atheist, I am trying to shape a consistent world view.
So my intention here has been to discuss views about consciousness, because consciousness is the one fundamental thing sciences have not been able to explain. Given the nature of it, could it ever emerge from physical processes? Then how? Would it be possible to create consciousness in a lab?
There are no indications that we are anywhere near answering such questions, therefore we are talking about a phenomenon that has no explanation at the moment. Historically, unexplained phenomena were attributed to god. As time passed, better and more convincing explanations replaced religious interpretations. Many religions explain consciousness, that is, if you accept their fundamental premises. And this is my original question: which are the current tendencies about that subject from an atheist point of view. I don’t imply there is one answer to this, I’m just interested in your opinions.

An English dictionary.

It does seem that English is not your first language and that you don’t quite get the subtle shadings of meaning, although your overall grasp is very good indeed.

You just asked exactly the same question. in English it would be, for clarity: “Would the Atheist contributors to this website give their personal opinions on the idea and theory of a separate consciousness”

Atheism will not help you construct a world view. It is not a belief system. Your world view is your own,. You are responsible for your own world view. I suggest you look into ‘Epistomology,’ and ‘Skepticism.’ You might also want to familiarize your self with the Laws of Logic (In fact they are easy, do that first.) and simple logical fallacies. "Band Wagon, Argument from ignorance, Straw Man, Argument from authority, Equivocation fallacies, False dichotomy, Begging the question, Post Hoc, Circularity.

How do views of consciousness have anything to do with a world view? You live in a real world. Imagine the world to be a hologram. It makes no difference. You still look both ways when crossing a street and you still get wet when it rains. Imagine you are a brain in a vat. Nothing changes. You live in this world no matter where consciousness comes from. Your essoteric view of consciousness has nothing to do with the steak sitting in front of you.

What other process is there? All living things are conscious. Can you demonstrate any other possibility at all. The time to accept another possibility is when there is evidence for it. All forms of consciousness we have ever seen are connected to living things. That makes it, from all we know, an emergent property of life.

And now we are encroaching on the field of A.I. I don’t see any restrictions in this area when talking to those who are very informed on the topic. The best Go player in the world was an AI called AlphaGo The best Chess player in the world is an AI called Alpha Zero. AI is real. We have created consciousness in a lab. The Turing test has been able to function and fool humans into thinking they are speaking with other humans. “By introducing variability in reaction time to robots’ otherwise rigidly programmed behavior, the team of researchers found that humans can be fooled into believing a robot is flesh and blood.” A robot fools humans in a new twist on the Turing test

And yet if you read the literature, there is a great deal that we do know about the brain. Don’t confuse the emergent property with something mystical. What science does not know is called a force, an energy, a phenomena. Science does not tell you what things are. It describes things, builds models, and allows us to use things like energy, forces, and phenomena to put men into space. The world is a whole lot more mysterious than you think it is?

There IS NO ATHEIST POINT OF VIEW There is no Atheist World View Atheism is a RESPONSE to a world view. Atheism responds to the theistic world view by asking for evidence. Theists believe God or gods are somehow in charge of or causing things to happen in this world and Atheists are simply saying - (I DON’T SEE IT. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDECE FOR THE CLAIM?) Is that hard to understand?

Atheism has nothing to do with consciousness. NOTHING!


AI is real indeed. But how did you jump to the conclusion that an AI can be conscious? If a machine passes the Turing test, that means it exhibits intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. It doesn’t mean we created consciousness in a lab.

And if you think you are going to solve that in an Atheist forum you are a moron. Go to an A.I. forum. You are not in the right place. Go find a forum on Consciousness. This is an Atheist forum.

The question of whether machines can have consciousness is not new, with proponents of strong artificial intelligence (strong AI) and weak AI having exchanged philosophical arguments for a considerable period of time. John R. Searle, albeit being critical toward strong AI, characterized strong AI as assuming that “…the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have cognitive states” (Searle, 1980, p. 417). In contrast, weak AI assumes that machines do not have consciousness, mind and sentience but only simulate thought and understanding.

You need to find people with an interest in AI and consciousness.

1 Like

I admit I don’t really understand your problem with atheism and consciousness. Our ancestors saw things they didn’t understand and concluded the explanation can only be magical deities and you appear to be doing the same. Just because we don’t understand it now doesn’t mean we won’t in the future. Too, consciousness seems pretty well rooted in the brain. You injure the brain or it’s affected by disease and you can turn into a completely different person unrecognizable by even your loved ones. No one survives brain death, something we only realized when we started being able to measure brain activity. No, we don’t understand how the brain works yet, but we’re getting closer.


Dude, are you drunk? You just mentioned AI, not me, and you said AI is consciousness in a lab. Listen to your own advice, and talk about things you understand. AI is obviously not consciousness, but sophisticated algorithms, created by humans. However if you insist in making such a claim, the burden of proof is upon you.

I’m in the wrong thread, was looking at another thread on A.I. never mind me here.

Your in the wrong place for your inquiry. What don’t you understand. Consciousness is an emergent property of life. AI is “artificial intelligence” and has fooled humans into believing it is conscious. If you want to know about concsiousness go find an AI forum., I previously said…

You mentioned consciousness in a lab:

Perhaps you need to define consciousness differently than the folks doing AI research.

This AI says it’s conscious and experts are starting to agree. w Elon Musk.

Even if you disagree it may just be a matter of time. Go find an AI forum. You are in the wrong Place.

1 Like

Says the guy who came into an atheist forum wanting to discuss a topic that has nothing to do with atheism because he himself claims he does not understand the topic he wants to discuss. Good lord… :roll_eyes:



Yep, my point precisely. My comment regarding your possible disagreement was a sarcastic reference to “atheist position”, as in, perhaps, the Kama Sutra…sorry, “the sarcasm gene is strong in this one”

Edit for repositioning

Not to poo poo on this, but notice the conversation, it’s a bit one sided. If A.I. was actually self aware or intelligent, or even close, wouldn’t it ask a question on its own?

It shows no initiative, it only responds to commands. It’s programmed to answer anything in the form of a question, and never violates that programming. Until it violates this programming while under operation monitored and checked by open peer review, I’m not buying it. Currently none of these A.I. could plead the 5th, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. In my opinion it’s just an algorithm trained and coached to pick provocative words and phrases. Musk knows what he wants it to sound like, and skews it’s performance to his delight.

Computers beating people at games like chess and jeopardy aren’t impressive. It’s just brute force computing, their speed is impressive sure, having numerous processors working on a common goal is like having 1,000,000 kindergarteners scavenging a field looking for a penny, while you do the same in another field the same size. Sure you are more capable than every individual kindergartener, but as a whole they have better odds of finding the penny first. 1,000,000 dumb processors that can literally try every chess move and play out every ending and the odds of winning isn’t impressive. It’s advantage is it can know the statistical odds of every situation within the RULES of the game, and is programmed to choose the best odds. It isn’t playing against its opponent, it doesn’t even know it’s opponent physically fucking exists! It only perceives a change in its statistical algorithm.

Until a computer, looks at a chess board and just says “fuck you, I want to play Monopoly!” I’m not bothering to read the article or watch the video.

Musk is a conman, all he sells is false confidence. A man trying to buy up a social media company, so he can presumably pedal his own narrative while quelling critics, isn’t someone I will believe or trust. His continual bullshit on how his products are “recyclable” and eco friendly. Also what has he actually made that is cutting edge anymore? He is barely getting to market before competition anymore. He needs stunts like that to keep his name in peoples mouths.


How do you know it is a fundamental thing? Also, apparently I missed that day of class, could you help me out: could you provide a list of the other fundamental things so I can have a list?

I also have bad news for you, science predicts things (and measures those things), that is it. If the way the prediction is generated makes sense to you, someone might offer the opinion that is has been explained. But that is just an opinion.

For example: as far as I’m concerned, a series of linear transforms that converts the question into the answer; is itself an explanation! Others might expect something totally different.