Is a lie more useful than the truth? (Religion)

I don’t really fit into the whole theist, atheist, or agnostic labels. To be honest, I couldn't care less about the answer to whether God exists or not. I’m perfectly fine with the idea that I might just cease to exist one day, and even if there were an afterlife, it wouldn't exactly blow my mind. Because of that, I struggle to wrap my head around these kinds of debates. It leaves me feeling like I’m missing out on something vital—some fundamental human experience that everyone else seems to be sharing. I guess I'm just a little confused. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:I don’t really fit into the whole theist, atheist, or agnostic labels. To be honest, I couldn't care less about the answer to whether God exists or not. I’m perfectly fine with the idea that I might just cease to exist one day, and even if there were an afterlife, it wouldn't exactly blow my mind. Because of that, I struggle to wrap my head around these kinds of debates. It leaves me feeling like I’m missing out on something vital—some fundamental human experience that everyone else seems to be sharing. I guess I'm just a little confused. 😁

dontgiveafuckizam?

Amy Bennett said:It helps, sure, but answering the question in the title really depends on whether you think there's any truth to be found in faith.

On another note, I've been thinking lately that atheism might sometimes stem from over-fetishizing the analytical part of the brain—that tendency to break everything down into smaller and smaller pieces until you lose sight of the big picture and ignore basic intuition.

Atheism is really just the absence of God from your worldview—it’s that simple. But apparently, there’s always some idiot out there who refuses to play by the rules...

I think that’s just surface-level philosophy. Realistically, there aren't many true believers out there—and honestly, not many atheists either.
Most people just drift through life, following whatever's trendy—they don't really bother digging into the heavy stuff.

Sam Martinez9 said:But why?

What actually lasts is the consciousness that observes everything else.

Melissa Stewart6 said:What actually lasts is the consciousness that observes everything else.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that consciousness is infinite. Nor is there any proof that the universe itself is infinite—though if anything possesses such scale, it would be the cosmos.

We only ever observe manifestations of consciousness within living organisms, and those organisms are finite. It stands to reason that consciousness might simply emerge within an organism and vanish entirely upon its death.

Alyosha said:I wasn't actually talking about that—I was just laying out why I think certain people gravitate toward atheism in the first place. But regarding what you’re saying here... there’s no such thing as "just." This whole notion that you can simply pluck God out of your worldview and leave everything else untouched? It's a total fantasy. Honestly, it's just one of those cheap rhetorical tricks some atheists lean on, but it doesn't hold any water...

Fine. A rich monkey is still just a monkey.

Sam Martinez9 said:There is simply no evidence to suggest that consciousness is infinite. Nor is there any proof that the universe itself is infinite—though if anything possesses such scale, it would be the cosmos.

We only ever observe manifestations of consciousness within living organisms, and those organisms are finite. It stands to reason that consciousness might simply emerge within an organism and vanish entirely upon its death.

So, you're essentially arguing that consciousness is nothing more than what some people call a brain-based illusion.

Melissa Stewart6 said:So, you're essentially arguing that consciousness is nothing more than what some people call a brain-based illusion.

In my view, consciousness is simply the capacity of a living organism to respond to its environment. It can't be an illusion, because the biological response itself isn't an illusion.

Sam Martinez9 said:In my view, consciousness is simply the capacity of a living organism to respond to its environment. It can't be an illusion, because the biological response itself isn't an illusion.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Plants and bacteria react to their surroundings too, but we wouldn't call them conscious.

Melissa Stewart6 said:I don't think it's quite that simple. Plants and bacteria react to their surroundings too, but we wouldn't call them conscious.

But I did use the term living organism, didn't I? And both plants and bacteria fall under that umbrella, right? So, if they're living organisms, they possess a form of consciousness—they respond to what's happening around them.

Take a bacterium, for instance. It moves toward nutrients, recognizes its surroundings, and steers clear of what it perceives as toxic...

Sam Martinez9 said:But I did use the term living organism, didn't I? And both plants and bacteria fall under that umbrella, right? So, if they're living organisms, they possess a form of consciousness—they respond to what's happening around them.

Take a bacterium, for instance. It moves toward nutrients, recognizes its surroundings, and steers clear of what it perceives as toxic...

True, but humans have self-awareness. A bacterium just reacts.
Basically, human consciousness is on an entirely different level.

Melissa Stewart6 said:True, but humans have self-awareness. A bacterium just reacts.
Basically, human consciousness is on an entirely different level.

But you were discussing consciousness itself, not necessarily self-awareness, weren't you?

You mentioned that consciousness is infinite—so, do you believe consciousness is inherently infinite, or does it require self-awareness to reach that state?

I certainly agree that a bacterium and a human don't share the same degree of consciousness, but there's just no concrete evidence to suggest that self-awareness is an exclusively human trait.

Sam Martinez9 said:But you were discussing consciousness itself, not necessarily self-awareness, weren't you?

You mentioned that consciousness is infinite—so, do you believe consciousness is inherently infinite, or does it require self-awareness to reach that state?

I certainly agree that a bacterium and a human don't share the same degree of consciousness, but there's just no concrete evidence to suggest that self-awareness is an exclusively human trait.

What I mean is pure consciousness—the kind that reaches its highest expression in humans (and perhaps other beings out there in the universe). That doesn't mean animals lack self-awareness; they likely possess it, just to varying degrees.

Trouble arises once again—which is entirely predictable given the context—though one must account for the fact that Sam Martinez9 has a peculiar habit of failing to grasp nuance, inevitably reducing every complex topic down to the number three...

consciousness
1. The capacity for thought and reasoning regarding the objective world through holistic perception; awareness
2. Cognitive clarity and the reliability with which one identifies an object, the entirety of the world, or oneself
3. The standard functional state of the senses and their response to the external environment; a state of wakefulness [to be conscious], opposed to unconsciousness
4. The enduring presence of specific social, political, ethical, or other principles and motives [national consciousness; moral conscience]

Melissa Stewart6 said:What I mean is pure consciousness—the kind that reaches its highest expression in humans (and perhaps other beings out there in the universe). That doesn't mean animals lack self-awareness; they likely possess it, just to varying degrees.

If we assume consciousness is infinite, then logic dictates it must, and indeed should, manifest across all living organisms and potentially even within inanimate matter itself. An infinite consciousness would be expressed throughout an infinite universe; it wouldn't simply wait billions of years before making its presence known.

feralranger said:Trouble arises once again—which is entirely predictable given the context—though one must account for the fact that Sam Martinez9 has a peculiar habit of failing to grasp nuance, inevitably reducing every complex topic down to the number three...

consciousness
1. The capacity for thought and reasoning regarding the objective world through holistic perception; awareness
2. Cognitive clarity and the reliability with which one identifies an object, the entirety of the world, or oneself
3. The standard functional state of the senses and their response to the external environment; a state of wakefulness [to be conscious], opposed to unconsciousness
4. The enduring presence of specific social, political, ethical, or other principles and motives [national consciousness; moral conscience]

I tend to use the term "consciousness" in the sense defined by Antonio Damasio.

You are, naturally, free to use that term—or any other—however you see fit. I won't impose my definitions on you, and you are welcome to try and impose yours on me, though I simply won't be accepting them.

Sam Martinez9 said:If we assume consciousness is infinite, then logic dictates it must, and indeed should, manifest across all living organisms and potentially even within inanimate matter itself. An infinite consciousness would be expressed throughout an infinite universe; it wouldn't simply wait billions of years before making its presence known.

It’s a sentiment you see quite often in various animistic traditions, which suggest that a living spirit resides in everything.

Sam Martinez9 said:I tend to use the term "consciousness" in the sense defined by Antonio Damasio.

You are, naturally, free to use that term—or any other—however you see fit. I won't impose my definitions on you, and you are welcome to try and impose yours on me, though I simply won't be accepting them.

Honestly, invoking such a specific framework is quite absurdly pedantic when it’s completely divorced from a discussion centered on him or his particular research.

In an attempt to sound more knowledgeable, you’ve actually just increased the amount of contextual confusion, ultimately losing your way in a space where most people find common ground quite easily.

...it reminds me of Wand, who picks up some obscure fact in a similarly studious fashion and then tries to ride it like it's the alpha and the omega, despite having massive gaps in their grasp of the fundamentals...

feralranger As I have noted before, there is a certain weight to these discussions that often goes unacknowledged. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago while sitting in a quiet corner of a library in Chicago; we were discussing the inherent difficulty of progress, much like the eternal struggle of Sisyphus. One cannot simply expect immediate results when dealing with such complex matters. There is a rhythm to these things, a slow unfolding that requires patience rather than reactionary outbursts. We must look at the broader context if we want to make any sense of the current situation.
It’s just such an incredibly pedantic way to approach things—completely stripping away any sense of context regarding him or his specific body of work.

By attempting to overextend your knowledge, you’ve actually just increased the amount of contextual misunderstanding. You end up tripping over your own feet at a point that most people find perfectly clear.

It’s like Wand—he goes about things with this almost pedantic, textbook precision, then struts around acting like he's the absolute alpha and omega of the subject. But honestly? There are massive gaps in his grasp of the fundamentals.

As far as I can tell, neither Wand nor I are actually the subject of this discussion. So, if we're looking for someone who's straying off-topic, I’d say you're the one.