The hard problem

Atheism isn’t Christianity. It doesn’t have a message. You’re obviously under the misconception that Atheism is a religion. It is not. If Monotheism’s goal is to spread it’s message that there is a deity, then Atheism is a rejection of that claim because it fails to present evidence for a deity.


I also responded to all of his questions, while correcting his views, and asserting Atheist World Views had nothing to do with consciousness. I’ve put up articles and citations debunking his nonsense. Debate? Yea, certainly there is a debate, It is not tied to Atheists.


I tend to agree and that is why I posted:

Edit for jetsam

Hello friends,

I’m an agnostic and for many years I have been wondering about something, which I will mention shortly. I heard about this group from the Atheist Experience podcast, and thought this group would be a good place to discuss (before getting destroyed on-air).

Be sure about what you are thinking, and you will at least only get destroyed if you are proven wrong.

To my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong), the main difference between agnostics and atheists is that atheists don’t believe in god and anything supernatural (like the soul), while agnostics are somewhat reluctant in accepting that as a fact, claiming usually that there might be “something”, but we can’t possibly know what it is.

No. Agnosticism is “I do not know”. It’s literally in the word, in Greek - "A (against, not) gnosis (understanding, knowing). Atheism (against, not, God[s]) doesn’t necessarily deny any other “spiritual” stuff. It’s simply the decision to not believe in God(s). It’s not a belief, incidentally. Quite the opposite.

Being an atheist makes a lot more sense than being religious, but I can’t really accept atheism because I always found that it has a fundamental flaw: It doesn’t answer the hard problem of consciousness nor does it provide room for such an answer.

I’ll wait for your religious explanation of consciousness, and the maybe we can dance around this topic.

Science explains human emotions as chemical interactions. When dopamine is released, a human feels happy. But here is the problem: In a materialistic interpretation of the world, the release of a chemical would make nobody happy because there is noone to perceive it. Therefore, when we say person X feels happy, this implies that there is an entity, and that entity is capable of percieving emotions (also sensory information and thoughts)

No, “science” does not. Science proposes any number of theories and hypotheses that fit the facts. Until there is evidence to deny a theory, or a hypothesis, it’s accepted as a “Work In Progress”. And a Materialistic point of view does not deny consciousness. Evidently. The conception of Materialism is: -
A) Largely impossible to have been formulated without consciousness (it could have sprung, fully-formed from the brow of the Creator).
B) Not antithetic to the existence of consciousness. Where di you get that idea from?

Although conciousness can’t be proved scientifically, noone can really deny conciousness from a subjective viewpoint.

Yeah, it can. Objective and subjective observation. If consciousness does not exist, then how did you type this post? And why on Earth would you (from a Solipsist point of view) be arguing with yourself now?

I have never really discussed about this so there might be a good chance that I am missing something. I would really like to hear which is the atheist position (or positions) on this subject.

Now you have.


All the best,



Wrong. I’ll just put this here.


Then how in the FUCK would you know it exists beyond physics? Would you just THINK about what you’re saying?


Consider consulting the Reading Extant Threads in Atheist Republic Forums to Discern Patterns in Definitions Book.

Edited: to correct member modifications

1 Like

Dear Cognostic,

Would you be so kind as to gatekeep atheism for us?


All atheists.

Uh…hang on just a sec there buckaroo… we let that sneaky simian watch the gate for us one night and we ended up making ten bucks a piece for playing for four hours…next day he had a new pair of high-heeled sneakers…

Edit for wtf?

1 Like

This runs perilously close to making Cog a mod.

An interesting development, I’ll allow that, but no one would want to be subject to seeing the victory dance.


Funky monkey …related to, but different from the funky chicken…

Edit for James Brown

WHOA! Whoa-whoa-whoa! :astonished: Are you out of your freakin’ ever-lovin’ mind??? Cog? A gatekeeper? Holy oily Christ on a greasy pogo stick! Do you have ANY idea what you are saying? Listen, even IF he could go more than four hours without losing or SELLING the gate keys, the very moment he starts “grooming” himself, he is completely oblivious to everything around him. You could march an entire church choir past him, singing at the top of their lungs, and he wouldn’t even so much as look up at them. And he tends to “groom” for hours at a time.

Look, it’s possible you meant well, I know. But if you ever have such suggestions about Cog in the future, PLEASE run them by the rest of us before you go making the statement public… (walking away shaking headmumbling to self)… Jeeeesus Christ that was disturbing…

(Edited to relieve tension.)



Thanks, I don’t like speaking for myself………said no one ever.

1 Like

Not a problem. Any time some asshole tries to smuggle his way onto the site with atheism.2 and consciousness is prob ably god bullshit, I am more than happy to point it out. Or… You could put on some fucking monkey feet a red nose,and fluffy green hair before making your next post. That way when you get treated like the fucking clown you are you won’t be so offended.

1 Like

March them past…;.; You know I would Join them. Chimps love a good parade.

1 Like

where is our consciousness when we’re asleep? where is it when we’re on a full anesthetic? where is it when we fainted? clearly consciousness is only a product by our brain


You are wrong. I’m tempted to stop right there but lest your nonsense corrupt anyone, I’ll address it. Like many atheists, whether they are agnostic or not, I accept as fact only those things that are factual in nature,. Things that are factual in nature are commonly called “facts.” How many people believe in this or that has dick-all to do with whether it is a fact. Atheism has to do with belief: Do you believe in any gods? If yes, you are a theist, - meaning you hold to some theism, while if not you are atheist, meaning “without theism.” Agnosticism has to do with knowledge / certainty: Once again the ‘a’ prefix indicates absence, and gnosis is the Greek noun for “knowledge.” Gnosticism was a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

What the bloody hell!?!? Atheism doesn’t answer any questions, nor does it try to. Atheism has to do with one thing only, namely belief in gods. And guess what - neither science nor religion nor philosophy nor anything else has an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. As far as leaving room for an answer, there’s a hidden implicaiton there that youdo know how to get to the answer of the HPoC, Once again: atheism has absolutely nothing at all to do with any question related to consciousnesss.

No, it does not. Science doesn’t explain emotion at all - science doesn’t even try to explain emotion. Scientists have identified a number of chemicals associated with emotion, but there’s a shitload more to it than just chemical interactions.

[deleted drivel]

WTF does it even mean to "prove consciousness? What is it that’s being proved? Science doesn’t prove anything, science can’t prove anything. Science is a philosophy that accepts or rejects ideas based on evidence but it doesn’t prove them. Science can however disprove ideas.

I can’t make hide nor hair of what that means.

1 Like

What has InstantKarma confused is that science attempts to explain phenomena by way of diligent logic, observations and repeatable experiments while religion just makes up shit and pronounces it as true.

If you compared what he know in ALL scientific fields from a hundred years ago (heck, pick any time frame) and the present there would be a massive body of work. Science and learning never stop.

But if one did such a comparison in theology, nothing has changed, there have not been any advancements.


Which has nothing at all to do with atheism and every thing to do with skepticism. Another distinction worth mentioning to someone who understands neither. Atheism is a position on a single claim, that most people who are also skeptical, have accepted. It’s skepticism and not atheism that would eliminate all the other non-factual claims. Atheist is what religious people call those who do not agree with their specific supernatural interpretation of the world. To the theists, “If you don’t agree with me - you are an Atheist, A Heathen, A Sinner, An Infidel, A Heretic, An Unbeliever, A nonbeliever, Unholy, Ungodly, Faithless, Non-worshiper, Profaner, Apostate (in many cases), Doubter, Cynic, Disdenter, Scoffer, A Fool, A Doubting Thomas, A misbeliever, and of course you are attacking me.” This is their world view.

Nothing above has anything to do with skepticism. These are all words Theists use to describe anyone who will not accept their claims. Skepticism asserts ‘The time to believe a claim is after it has been demonstrated.’ That goes for all claims. (Big foot, Crystal Magic, Chakras, Auras, Ancient Aliens, UFOs, Abductions, Reptilians, even Evolution and Abiogenisis.’ Skeptics allocate belief according to the evidence provided. No evidence… No reason to believe. This is where the confusion lies with God claims.

The theists see God in everything. To deny god is to deny the world. Skeptics take the world, one bit of evidence at a time. Atheists simply deny God claims and that says nothing about anything else they believe.

1 Like