# Personal from Impersonal



## T.A.G. (Jan 23, 2010)

Obviously it is impossible for a personal being to come from an impersonal force, but here is my question, other then we are not personal it is an illusion (huxley) what do the proponents of atheism say? The ones who say a personal being come from an impersonal being...


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2010)

I would ask what exactly they mean by personal.


----------



## T.A.G. (Jan 23, 2010)

A personal who has an immaterial aspect to them, who has a personality, who loves, hates, likes the color blue and not the color red etc.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 23, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> Obviously it is impossible for a personal being to come from an impersonal force, but here is my question, other then we are not personal it is an illusion (huxley) what do the proponents of atheism say? The ones who say a personal being come from an impersonal being...


 
It would probably be better to ask an atheist that instead of Christians. To us, the idea is absurd. If atheism is true, then there is no truly personal human beings; All human interactions and preferences are simply products of chemical and biological reactions and conditioning in the brain.


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2010)

> It would probably be better to ask an atheist that instead of Christians. To us, the idea is absurd. If atheism is true, then there is no truly personal human beings; All human interactions and preferences are simply products of chemical and biological reactions and conditioning in the brain.



That would be materialistic atheism, not pantheistic atheism or idealistic atheism. Both of these would emphasize a transpersonal reality.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 1, 2010)

from the materialistic point of view the atheist would try to appeal to evolution to ultimatly explain why we are here. but to explain what our beliefs, ideas, feelings, etc are, they rely on few general theories, all try to reconcile mental terms with physical procceses. i have found one argument that seems to demonstrate the failure of these attempts to any lay person or those unfamiler with philosophy.

according to any of these attempts logically speaking all mental phenomanon must be the same as physical processes of the brain. linguistically this means that the two sentences "i love my daughter" and "i love yellow cake" must mean almost exactically the same thing, let me explain. love becomes synonomous with whatever part of my brain is stimulated at the sight or thought of whatever i love. so yellow cake and my daughter both excite the same part of my brain therefore the word love means the same thing. but ask me what choice i would make if i had to choose between my daughter or yellow cake? bye bye yellow cake. 

the problem is that i mean two different things when i use the term love in those two sentences and the physical process can't exaust the meaning of love as i use the term. people just don't mean what the materialist says they mean when they speak. i hope this isn't confusing at all, if it is than please ask me to elaborate.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 1, 2010)

To really put the chocoholic atheist in a quandary, then ask him what he/she would do if she had to choose between her daughter and chocolate cake! 

Re loving one's daughter, this book by atheist philosopher the late David Stove, effectively demolishes evolutionary socio-biological theories of why we and animals are altruistic. Quite witty and easy to read. Knocks lumps out of Darwinism.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwinian-F...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265146356&sr=1-1


----------



## Michael (Feb 1, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> To really put the chocoholic atheist in a quandary, then ask him what he/she would do if she had to choose between her daughter and chocolate cake!


----------



## Theogenes (Feb 2, 2010)

Because the atheist cannot answer that question is the reason many will say that Man is a cosmic joke. He doesn't "fit" in the impersonal universe and so despair is the only conclusion. (Can you hear Francis Schaeffer in that answer??)


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 2, 2010)

Theogenes said:


> Because the atheist cannot answer that question is the reason many will say that Man is a cosmic joke. He doesn't "fit" in the impersonal universe and so despair is the only conclusion. (Can you hear Francis Schaeffer in that answer??)



If despair is the only conclusion, the atheists are being inconsistent with their own presuppositions in not throwing themselves of the nearest bridge or at least shutting-up. 

*Quote from Philip*


> That would be materialistic atheism, not pantheistic atheism or idealistic atheism. Both of these would emphasize a transpersonal reality.



Who are the pantheistic and/or idealistic atheists? Buddhists? What is this transpersonal reality they believe in and how do they defend his/her/its existence?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 2, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > It would probably be better to ask an atheist that instead of Christians. To us, the idea is absurd. If atheism is true, then there is no truly personal human beings; All human interactions and preferences are simply products of chemical and biological reactions and conditioning in the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be materialistic atheism, not pantheistic atheism or idealistic atheism. Both of these would emphasize a transpersonal reality.


 
But they would still end in the same logical conclusion, since all are just expressions of the One. Individualism and personality are only an illusion.


----------



## Theogenes (Feb 3, 2010)

Richard,
That's correct! If they were consistent they would commit suicide. Schaeffer points out that, and I believe it was Camus, who taught that suicide is really the only true philosophical question.
But atheists aren't consistent and we can use that to push them to reconsider their position.
Jim


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 3, 2010)

your right about camus Theogenes. if i remember corectly his answer to why we shouldn't commit suicide is not to ask the question in the first place. basically living in denial.


----------



## T.A.G. (Feb 5, 2010)

after reading a critique on naturalism that was supported by some top philosophy guys, it truly is impossible to be a strict naturalist and believe we are personal. For one says your personality is completely an illusion, your favorite color, you not wanting to die, you loving your wife in bed etc. All of that is just simply neurons firing at random. As Nash equated it to traveling in the UK and you see a welcome sign with rocks naturally falling down in communicating the words WELCOME. They have to say this because if they say that we are personable it is impossible for personable to come from impersonality, or to say immaterial come from material etc.


----------

