here's the main arguement for atheism: there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist.

this is wrong.

yes, there is no real proof of god, but that doesn't mean there is no chance of him existing.

say if there was a man who murdered another man. you see this happen, and when it's taken to court, they can't punish him, because there isn't enough 'proof'.

that doesn't make the man any less of a murderer.

it's the same with god. if he existed, but there was no proof, that doesn't make him stop existing.

if you've got any questions or arguements against this, post away and i'll try to answer them.

*edit* for the record, i don't believe in god or anything, just the possibility of him existing

We've done this over and over again. What you claimed is the main argument for atheism is wrong. It goes like this:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Positing that there is an all knowing all all powerful being that exists, with no evidence whatsoever, is an extraordinary claim with zero evidence to back it up.

Atheists are generally skeptical people and don't believe in the existence of extraordinary things without evidence. That doesn't mean these things don't exist, just that there's no reason to believe in them in lieu of evidence. We don't claim "there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist". We acknowledge that there are countless things that exist that we do not yet have evidence for. When there is reliable evidence that there is an asteroid in a certain place in space, we generally believe it. When someone claims that asteroid exists in that place with no evidence whatsoever, we generally won't believe it.

those kind of athiests are not the one's i'm talking about.

there are a bunch of people on this site that believe that there is absolutely no chance of there being a god.

i just didn't have any other term to call those people. if there is one let me know please, and i'll edit it.

those kind of athiests are not the one's i'm talking about.
Of course not. :rolleyes: You claimed "the main argument for atheism" is "there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist".

there are a bunch of people on this site that believe that there is absolutely no chance of there being a god.
Why would they use what you claim in the OP is the main argument for atheism? Even "those atheists" do not think that things that there are no evidence for don't exist. They would also acknowledge that there are countless things that exist that we do not yet have evidence for.


i just didn't have any other term to call those people. if there is one let me know please, and i'll edit it.
Some would define a "hard atheist" as one who asserts that no deities exists, but one who asserts no deities exist doesn't necessarily think "there is absolutely no chance of there being a god ".

I assert that the Earth is spherical, but I wouldn't say there is no chance that I'm wrong.

if there is one let me know please, and i'll edit it.
Please don't edit earlier posts now that we've gone this far. It makes it harder for everyone to follow the discussion as it's happened.

Woo he managed to make a straw man that still phails. Stop feeding the troll.

^^you might not, but some people think that there is no chance. those are the people i'm talking about.

there are a lot of athiests that believe that there is a chance of god existing. i realize that.

i wrote the above for the ones that don't.

i won't edit the post, but for the first post realize that i'm not talking about ALL atheists.

Woo he managed to make a straw man that still phails. Stop feeding the troll.

why does my arguement fail? it makes perfect sense.

^^you might not, but some people think that there is no chance. those are the people i'm talking about.
And as I replied, even "those atheists" would never use what you called the main argument for atheism. Even the hardest atheist wouldn't say "there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist". I dare you to find me one cite of an atheist using that argument.

there are a lot of athiests that believe that there is a chance of god existing. i realize that.

i wrote the above for the ones that don't.
Do you believe it's possible that flying pink dildos exist? (Serious question.)

why does my arguement fail? it makes perfect sense.
It fails because no kind of atheist makes the "main argument for atheism" you claimed in your OP. You're having a hard time having that sink in, aren't you?

"Do you believe it's possible that flying pink dildos exist? (Serious question.)"

for your dildo question, yes i believe in the possibilty. it has the same possibility of god existing.

"It fails because no kind of atheist makes the "main argument for atheism" you claimed in your OP. You're having a hard time having that sink in, aren't you?"

yes, there are people like this. i can't give you examples because i can't really know what people think. when asked about your opinions on god some people say "god doesn't exist" which can really mean "he probably doesn't exist" or "there is absolutely no chance of his existence."

just as there are people who take the arguement "the universe exists, therefore god created it" and then go on to believe that god exists, there are also people that might take the the arguement in my OP and believe that there is absolutely no god.

i realize that being an atheist does not neccessarily mean you believe that, but there are some people like that.

maybe the word for them isn't atheists, but i can't think of another word to describe them with.

yes, there are people like this. i can't give you examples because i can't really know what people think.
Atheists, among all sorts of people, write and talk about what they think. Of course you'd be able to give me examples if these sort of atheists exist.

If you don't know what people think, and you have no cites of atheists that would use the lame argument you posted, where on Earth did you get the idea that those atheists exist?

I'm sure there are atheists that may think that way, just as there are probably theists somewhere that use the argument that they know God exists because they went to a Metallica concert with Him. They are probably so few and far between, there's no use starting a thread about them because you most likely aren't going to find those sort of retarded atheists to argue with here.

i don't think they are that rare to find.
everyone's starting to believe atheism now, and with that comes the retarded people that would've followed god if someone weren't doing the thinking for them.

the only problem is that they don't think it through and they go from one extreme to the other. (being a complete believer to totally denying the existence of god).

i don't have any sources for people like this for the reason before, and also because there is none i can conveniently find at the moment.

the only proof that i can show right now that people like this exist is because people are generally dumb. the proof for that is religion.

these same people will see that it is now more 'popular' to be atheist and think it's cool and makes you better than everybody because you think god doesn't exist.

they'll take the arguement in my OP and believe that god does not exist, where smarter people will take it one step further and realize that there is a possibility.

remember, just because you're smart enough to realize something, doesn't mean that everyone else is too.

i don't think they are that rare to find.
You are basing that on nothing since you admitted you don't know what people think and can't cite one atheist using the argument that you apparently made up (yet you called it "the main argument for atheism". Yes, if you're not going to tell us where or who you heard this argument from, you leave us to believe that you made it up as an atheist argument, hence, Prometheum's charge that you made a straw man.

i did not make it up. the proof?
why are you an atheist?

i did not make it up. the proof?
why are you an atheist?
Are you saying I am proof that your view of what the main atheist argument is is correct?

So you don't think it's only some atheists but I'm even one of the atheists that would use the lame argument you provided?

I already told you in my first post in this thread why I'm an atheist.

If you didn't make up that argument, where did you get it?

what i'm saying is that you do not believe in god because there is no proof. what other reason would there be to be an atheist?

what i'm saying is that you do not believe in god because there is no proof. what other reason would there be to be an atheist?

Correct. I don't believe in God/gods because it's an extraordinary claim with zero evidence (no proof).

How is this evidence that you didn't make up the argument in your OP?

Your argument in the OP is:
"there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist."

That is not my reason for not believing in God/gods.

You seemed to believe I wasn't one of "those" atheists before, and now you're claiming I am? Your line of reasoning is all over the place!

maybe i wasn't being as straight forward as i wanted to be. here is what i meant.

the reason for being atheist is because there is no proof to prove otherwise. correct?

now some people will not think this through and come to the conclusion that god definately does not exist.

for the people that think this, i am telling them that it is wrong because there is always the possibility of god existing.

i hope that cleared it up.

maybe i wasn't being as straight forward as i wanted to be. here is what i meant.

the reason for being atheist is because there is no proof to prove otherwise. correct?

now some people will not think this through and come to the conclusion that god definately does not exist.

for the people that think this, i am telling them that it is wrong because there is always the possibility of god existing.

i hope that cleared it up.
Yeah, we heard you. And you titles this thread "why athiesm is wrong" and made up a bullshit argument that atheists (or some atheists) supposedly use. WE DON'T. You claimed that "there are a bunch of people on this site that believe that there is absolutely no chance of there being a god". Can you show us old posts to prove this?

You claimed you were going to use me as proof that you didn't make up the argument in your OP. You failed to do that.

When you have a real argument for "why athiesm is wrong" get back to us.

Well said.

Anyway, there is plenty of proof.

Plenty more than there is for evolution or the big bang!

Satan is just good at lieing.

i don't know how i can be any more clear than that, but maybe you're confused as to what i meant.

this is the arguement ALL atheists use:

there is no proof of god, therefore i choose to now, not believe in god.



now, some people may choose to believe in the probability of god, and others may not.

that's all i was trying to say.

now for the people that don't believe in the possibility of god, i'm trying to get them to understand that there is always a possibility. it's not important if i know who these people are, they know who they are and they'll hopefully learn something.

i do think that i chose the wrong wording for the title. i should have called it "people who don't believe in the possibility of god are wrong"



when i said i was going ot use you to explain my argument, i was simply talking about the "atheists believe that there is no proof of good, so they don't believe in god". not that they neccesarily don't think there is a possiblity of god.

Well said.

Anyway, there is plenty of proof.

Plenty more than there is for evolution or the big bang!

Satan is just good at lieing.

why do you believe in god? what proof is there?

"say if there was a man who murdered another man. you see this happen, and when it's taken to court, they can't punish him, because there isn't enough 'proof'. " That is called "circumstantial evidence" to convict. Now, There must be overwhelming evidence for this, therefore it is common practice for most courts to "actually" have a BODY to convict for murder. No body? No murder! This is called the law, reason, and the logic used by people that THINK and not just enjoy simple answers to complex problems!

PS - there is no god, because he would have told you that was a stupid argument@!

maybe that was a bad example (it is late) the real arguement is good. just because there is no proof, doesn't mean it didn't happen or exist.

here's the main arguement for atheism: there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist.

this is wrong.

yes, there is no real proof of god, but that doesn't mean there is no chance of him existing. .

As an agnostic, my response to the atheist that claims there is no God is the same as my response to the beliver that claims there is.

"Prove it."

Sure, there could be a God, but expecting me to consider that a reasonable rationale for worshipping the possibility of his existence strikes me as asinine.

*shrug* Whatever keeps you warm at night. I don't begrudge believers their faith. For every idiot that uses their religion as an excuse for whateverthefuckbullshit, there's another believer that is stronger/better for it. The failure is in the people, not the religion.

i don't know how i can be any more clear than that,
Then you've got issues.

but maybe you're confused as to what i meant.
I perfectly understand the English language.

this is the arguement ALL atheists use:

there is no proof of god, therefore i choose to now, not believe in god.
And you haven't demonstarated what's wrong with this.

BTW, you should replace proof with evidence.



now, some people may choose to believe in the probability of god, and others may not.

that's all i was trying to say.
What's your point?

now for the people that don't believe in the possibility of god, i'm trying to get them to understand that there is always a possibility. it's not important if i know who these people are, they know who they are and they'll hopefully learn something.
You've taught no one nothing.





when i said i was going ot use you to explain my argument, i was simply talking about the "atheists believe that there is no proof of good, so they don't believe in god". not that they neccesarily don't think there is a possiblity of god.
You're making no sense whatsoever.

Well said.

Anyway, there is plenty of proof.

Plenty more than there is for evolution or the big bang!

Satan is just good at lieing.

we've got pictures of the big bang http://tinyurl.com/yps8a2

edit: The flu virus evolves every year.

Well said.

Anyway, there is plenty of proof.

Plenty more than there is for evolution or the big bang!

Satan is just good at lieing.

Please, for the love of God, crack open a book. And read. Really, and truly, read.

You poor deluded people.........I truly do despair

God as a religious concept is as rediculous as "the earth is flat"

The posibility of a creator is your only way forward.

Please, for the love of God, crack open a book. And read. Really, and truly, read.

i'm not saying he's right, but how do you know for sure that all those things aren't the work of satan?

You poor deluded people.........I truly do despair

God as a religious concept is as rediculous as "the earth is flat"

The posibility of a creator is your only way forward.

i don't understand what you're trying to say. do you believe in god or not?

This is failure on an astronomical level. I'd give you negative rep, but fuck it.

Perhaps you should have titled your thread, 'Why fads are stupid.' The only folks who seem to be atheists without the genuine acceptance of an unlikely event being possible are fad-fags who follow anything without the slightest inkling of understanding (so long as it helps their image of either mainstream or rebel)...they're the same douche-bags that see someone famous wearing a name brand and take a cash advance on their credit card to deck themselves out in useless shit. Or on the "rebel" side, bitch about the consumerism and capitalism that drives celebrity sponsorship while they sip down their organic beverage after work...

I've never met or seen an atheist on the internet ever say there is absolutly no possibility of there being a creator. Because a claim like that would require evidence showing how everything came to be, which we have yet to discover.

Thats different then saying there is absolutly no possibility the gods described in RELIGIONS such as Christianity. Which I say all the time, its just complete fucking bullshit.

The problem with that is that while there may be a chance of him existing, it is so small that it is unnecessary to take note of it.

The problem with that is that while there may be a chance of him existing, it is so small that it is unnecessary to take note of it.

You're not a 15 billion year old bookie, so I don't think you have the authority to espouse the probabilities related to the existence of timeless entities.

You're not a 15 billion year old bookie, so I don't think you have the authority to espouse the probabilities related to the existence of timeless entities.

Whats the chance that anything that's fabricated actually existing? I mean, if I make up an imaginary monkey, what are the odds of that monkey existing? Because thats the odds of a god existing. The fact your delusion is older doesn't affect the fact that its a delusion.

i don't understand what you're trying to say. do you believe in god or not?


Not from any religeous standpoint no!

But the posibility of a creator is a far more interesting concept and one that dosen't require mans pathetic interpretations (ie beliefs) to sustain it!

God as a religious concept is as rediculous as "the earth is flat"

.

What do you mean? Surely you don't believe all that nonsense about it being round?

What do you mean? Surely you don't believe all that nonsense about it being round?

Worthless joke post?

God might exist.

A sentient god that gives a shit about one little person on one little planet, not so much.

If atheists are those who lack a belief in God, what are the ones who simply believe God does not exist called?

^Those are called "Strong Atheists."

^Those are called "Strong Atheists."

those are the people i'm talking to. for all you other athiests, i'm sorry if i made it seem like i was lumping you two together.

i don't know if i'd call them storng athiest though. they're just the people who think it's cool to think god doesn't exist. just letting them know that just because it's "cool", that doesn't make it true.

^^you might not, but some people think that there is no chance. those are the people i'm talking about.

there are a lot of athiests that believe that there is a chance of god existing. i realize that.

i wrote the above for the ones that don't.

They believe the chance is infinitesimal not nil.

^Those are called "Strong Atheists."

Wow, that really quite stupid sounding, if atheism already means you only lack a belief due to lack of evidence.

Oh well. Thats the term I'll use for describing people who believe there isn't a God, in any form whatsoever.

Wow, that really quite stupid sounding, if atheism already means you only lack a belief due to lack of evidence.

Oh well. Thats the term I'll use for describing people who believe there isn't a God, in any form whatsoever.

Atheist simply means that one does not believe in god (for whatever reason). A 'weak atheist' simply lacks a belief in god (think an agnostic atheist), while a 'strong atheist' lacks a belief in god AND holds the belief that god does not exist.

Atheist simply means that one does not believe in god (for whatever reason). A 'weak atheist' simply lacks a belief in god (think an agnostic atheist), while a 'strong atheist' lacks a belief in god AND holds the belief that god does not exist.

Yes..

OP, why even bother making a thread about the "fringe" atheists?

Every religion has nutty crackheads around the edges. What flipped your biscuit enough to make a vent thread on TOTSE?

I have much more beef to stew with radical Christians than with radical athiests.

I mean, I would much rather be around someone who is like "D'ere is no way god can, lyke, exist!!!11one" than someone who claims continuously that I will go to hell If I do not accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior and then gives me the silent treatment or shuns me for standing my ground.

This thread creates heart disease.

:mad:

OP, why even bother making a thread about the "fringe" atheists?
That's easy- he didn't.

He thought his title and OP were so brilliant that he was going to show us atheists how dumb we were.

When it was easily showed to him that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about, he claimed, "Uhh, I was only talking about certain atheists". Ya know, those atheists that he made up in his head.

I find it hard to believe that he knew he was only talking about a minority of atheists, yet somehow managed to forget mentioning something that important in his OP...and title.

It is not our job to prove there isn't a god, it's your job to prove there is one.

here's the main arguement for atheism: there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist.

this is wrong.

yes, there is no real proof of god, but that doesn't mean there is no chance of him existing.

say if there was a man who murdered another man. you see this happen, and when it's taken to court, they can't punish him, because there isn't enough 'proof'.

that doesn't make the man any less of a murderer.

it's the same with god. if he existed, but there was no proof, that doesn't make him stop existing.

if you've got any questions or arguements against this, post away and i'll try to answer them.

*edit* for the record, i don't believe in god or anything, just the possibility of him existing

Guess what? In the eyes of the law, he ISN'T a murderer.

Unfortunately this is not the case at all. There is no Jesus or Satan, only the maggots that will feast on your decomposing corpse.

there's your fucking proof. he/she might not have meant for it to be like i was talking about, but there it is.

he's saying "there is no jesus or satan"

i was only surfing the site and found this without even looking for it.



it was my fault for not realizing that some atheists don't believe in god and others do, but just by doing a little searching on the internet you can find things like this post where people say "there is no god".

that's a pretty fucking cryptic way of saying "i don't believe in god, but i do believe in the possibility of him."

here's the definition of atheism from wikipedia: Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.[3] Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic

i took this to mean that they completely deny the existence of god. the first line is why. "affirms the nonexistence of god". that means they believe that there is no god. so you can see why i thought that


anyways i know now that atheism doesn't neccesarily mean that you deny the existence of god, just that you thinks it's unlikely.

i'd like to just say this to everyone instead.

just because there's no proof of god doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

also, for those who think i'm still bashing atheism, with this new definition of atheism, i now know that i'm an atheist.

http://tinyurl.com/287yss

1 in 5 Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves in trying to explain to these people why a god does not exist.

there's your fucking proof.
Proof of what? Saying "There is no Jesus or Satan, only the maggots that will feast on your decomposing corpse."
in no way backs up your claim "there's the main arguement for atheism: there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist."




he/she might not have meant for it to be like i was talking about, but there it is.
Huh? If he/she didn't mean it the way you thought he/she did, then there it isn't.




he's saying "there is no jesus or satan"
And this means what? What great argument would you like to make for -Kaiser-?




it was my fault for not realizing that some atheists don't believe in god and others do
No, there are no atheists that do. That's why they're called atheists.


, but just by doing a little searching on the internet you can find things like this post where people say "there is no god".
And not one will say it for the reason you said they will. I explained to you in my second post that there are atheists that say there is no god, just as there are theists that say Muhammad was not a prophet of God or that leprechauns don't exist. Stop pretending you've proved someone wrong. You haven't.

Whats the chance that anything that's fabricated actually existing? I mean, if I make up an imaginary monkey, what are the odds of that monkey existing? Because thats the odds of a god existing. The fact your delusion is older doesn't affect the fact that its a delusion.

Prometheum, ask yourself the odds of your imaginary monkey existing. The most accurate answer you can come up with is 'unlikely'...there isn't any solid 'right' view when it comes to chances on unstudied events. I suppose you can 'guess and check'...but there's nothing to check a guess against, so it's all a bunch of ridiculous bullshit to begin with. (Much my sentiment on all religious and philosophical discussion...)

http://tinyurl.com/287yss

1 in 5 Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves in trying to explain to these people why a god does not exist.

this is sort of what i mean. you believe that it is certain that we revolve around the sun. it's the same with other things. some people believe it is certain that god does or doesn't exist. if i asked you if you believed that there is a chance that the sun revolves around us, you would probably say " yeah, there's a CHANCE", but every other time you would treat the earth revolving around the sun as a complete truth. i'm not saying you would do this, but that some people would.

i know that the sun and god are different, but the idea is the same. we can't know anything for sure, so we cannot say that one afterlife definately exists while another one does not.

Your argument more supports atheism just like the man may not have gone to jail I don't go to church because there is no proof.

On a completely separate note
Also the guy would go to jail because if you are a credible witness and three is some reasonable suspicion he will go.

say if there was a man who murdered another man. you see this happen, and when it's taken to court, they can't punish him, because there isn't enough 'proof'.

that doesn't make the man any less of a murderer.

See, you don't even know what you just said. You said if I myself were to witness a murder and the murderer was not convicted because lack of evidence, that doesn't make him any more or less of a murderer? And somehow that relates to believing in God?

No, because you see, I would have witnessed the murder. It was plainly in my view and I would be able to testify. Through possible DNA testing and how my story went, they could easily decide if it were correct or not.

But you can't compare this to God because no one has ever seen God. People have claimed to "talked" to God, but they didn't actually have a conversation with him. He wasn't in front of their very eyes talking to the person, which differs from viewing a murder with your very eyes.

So with no documented proof of God, you can decide if you want to disbelieve in God until evidence is shown.

I am an atheist only in the sense that I have never seen any proof whatsoever of a god. Sure, I have heard accounts of miracles, I have read some of the bible, but I have never seen anything to make me believe a god exists. It doesn't piss me off that 'God' appears on money or in the American pledge of allegiance. In fact, I'm happy for people with faith. I really would like to believe that there was an omnipotent, loving being who cared for me and helped me. I really would like to believe that there was something after death, that it wasn't the end, but I know that it is.

But I don't believe in following something as unbelievable as religion without somekind of evidence. I have yet to find any. I've talked to Christians about their faith, asked then if they ever had any proof of God's existence. The answer was yes, they had experienced God's help through the power of prayer.They said if they prayed and asked for help in a bad situation, even if the situation didn't get better, they felt better about it and learned to deal with it. But of course you would feel better if you truly believed that a god was helping and looking out for you.

If you believe anything that you're told, without proof, without asking questions, you can really be mislead. Just look what happened when peole blindly followed Hitler in Germany. Asking questions and challenging what you are told is a necessary part of life, however in many sects of the Christian religion, questioning your faith is a ticket straight to hell. Infact, faith, the base of all religions, is to believe something without evidence. Those with faith will have the ultimate reward of eternity in heaven, and those who think for themselves and question their religion will burn in hell. So religion teaches that following blindly, instead of thinking for yourself, is a virtue, the complete opposite of what I believe.

So if I ever find proof of god, or if I experience a divine miracle for myself, I will believe in a god. Until then I believe in what I've seen so far, nothing.

See, you don't even know what you just said. You said if I myself were to witness a murder and the murderer was not convicted because lack of evidence, that doesn't make him any more or less of a murderer? And somehow that relates to believing in God?

No, because you see, I would have witnessed the murder. It was plainly in my view and I would be able to testify. Through possible DNA testing and how my story went, they could easily decide if it were correct or not.

But you can't compare this to God because no one has ever seen God. People have claimed to "talked" to God, but they didn't actually have a conversation with him. He wasn't in front of their very eyes talking to the person, which differs from viewing a murder with your very eyes.

So with no documented proof of God, you can decide if you want to disbelieve in God until evidence is shown.


that's true, but isn't really what i meant. say that if i saw this murder, but didn't tell anyone (like god not giving any proof he exists) and then the jury finds the murderer innocent, because of lack of proof, that still doesn't mean the man is definately not a murderer.

it is like god because he is witness to his own existence, but doesn't speak up and so it's only natural to assume that he probably doesn't exist. it's only when we take the fact that we have no evidence and say that he definately doesn't exist are we wrong, because like in the example, lack of proof doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.

that's true, but isn't really what i meant. say that if i saw this murder, but didn't tell anyone (like god not giving any proof he exists) and then the jury finds the murderer innocent, because of lack of proof, that still doesn't mean the man is definately not a murderer.

it is like god because he is witness to his own existence, but doesn't speak up and so it's only natural to assume that he probably doesn't exist. it's only when we take the fact that we have no evidence and say that he definately doesn't exist are we wrong, because like in the example, lack of proof doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.

By that same logic we can't say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist either. Nobody is 100% certain in anything, but when the evidence is overwhelming we are as most certain as possible... If you are as most certain as possible you pretty much just act like you are 100% certain. I acknowledge that there is an infinitesimal chance that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, do you?

It is equivalent to believing that you will win the lottery every week for a year. Sure, there is a small chance it could happen but can you find someone who believes it will? If they think it is impossible, just give them the exact same argument that you have against atheists.

^^ i think you get what i mean. the point is just that, the theory that we are just going to rot in the ground (with no afterlife) is just as likely as the next theory, whether it be a spaghetti monster, or god, because there is pretty much an infinite amount of things that could happen after death and each is just as likely as the next.

^^ i think you get what i mean. the point is just that, the theory that we are just going to rot in the ground (with no afterlife) is just as likely as the next theory, whether it be a spaghetti monster, or god, because there is pretty much an infinite amount of things that could happen after death and each is just as likely as the next.
Where on Earth are you getting the idea that all theories are equally likely? Do you actually think there is as much of a chance of a spaghetti monster existing as not existing? Theories (and I'm using this word loosely) which are based on evidence are much more likely to be correct than those based on none. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that gods/monsters etc. are a construct of man's imagination. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that the workings of the universe work based on scientific laws. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings.

If I jump out of my window, there are an infinite amount of directions I can go. That would make the direction 'down' a very unlikely direction. Fortunately, all those other directions aren't as likely as 'down' because you're wrong- all theories aren't as equally likely.

here's the main arguement for atheism: there is no proof that god exists, therefore, god does not exist.

this is wrong.

yes, there is no real proof of god, but that doesn't mean there is no chance of him existing.

say if there was a man who murdered another man. you see this happen, and when it's taken to court, they can't punish him, because there isn't enough 'proof'.

that doesn't make the man any less of a murderer.

it's the same with god. if he existed, but there was no proof, that doesn't make him stop existing.

if you've got any questions or arguements against this, post away and i'll try to answer them.

*edit* for the record, i don't believe in god or anything, just the possibility of him existing

In all fairness see is the operative word here. Can you find me a person who claims to have literally "seen" God? And by seen god i don't mean woke up one morning saw how "beautiful" the world is and then decided they had seen God. People who literally claim to have seen god tend also to claim things like they have the ability to talk to cactii and that when they meet god he tells them to burn things.

Where on Earth are you getting the idea that all theories are equally likely? Do you actually think there is as much of a chance of a spaghetti monster existing as not existing? Theories (and I'm using this word loosely) which are based on evidence are much more likely to be correct than those based on none. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that gods/monsters etc. are a construct of man's imagination. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that the workings of the universe work based on scientific laws. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings.

If I jump out of my window, there are an infinite amount of directions I can go. That would make the direction 'down' a very unlikely direction. Fortunately, all those other directions aren't as likely as 'down' because you're wrong- all theories aren't as equally likely.

when you jump out of a window, the most likely way you're going to go is down because we've done learnt through physics that this has happened everytime we've ever dropped something or fallen. that's why it is very unprobable for this to change suddenly when you jump out of a window.

but when it comes to death and the afterlife, we know nothing. to me, a spaghetti monster is as likely as anything else because since we know nothing of the afterlife, we cannot make say that one theory is more likely than the other.

it's like a dice roll. if we just throw a die, there is an equal chance of a number between 1-6 to come up. if we take all the factors into consideration though, (rotation of the die, speed, friction, etc) we can be sure of what is going to come up, or at least know what is the most probable to come up.

in the afterlife, we have nothing to consider, because we know nothing about it, therefore, we cannot say what is more likely or less likely.

to most people, a spaghetti monster is less likely than that of a god, but i think it's just wishful thinking.

this is for all theories that are actually possible. that rules out, for instance, an all powerful god that can do anything, because someone cannot be able to do everything (ie. create a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it)

when you jump out of a window, the most likely way you're going to go is down because we've done learnt through physics that this has happened everytime we've ever dropped something or fallen. that's why it is very unprobable for this to change suddenly when you jump out of a window.
And since we've 'done learnt through' science that everything works fine through scientific laws and there is no evidence of anything supernatural existing, it's as unprobable for this to change when you die as it is when you jump out of a window.

but when it comes to death and the afterlife, we know nothing.
And before 1969 we knew nothing of what it would be like to be on the Moon...only we did. We didn't need to be on the Moon to understand what it would be like and we don't need to die to understand that when the brain ceases to function, that's all there is. Could there be something more after death? Sure. But something else could have happened after we landed on the Moon. Making up possible scenarios and saying they are all equally as likely has no logical basis.


to me, a spaghetti monster is as likely as anything else because since we know nothing of the afterlife, we cannot make say that one theory is more likely than the other.
That's asinine. Do you actually believe there is as much of a chance of made up monsters existing as not existing?

lol that "done learnt" was a typo.

what i was saying is that we know nothing of what happens after death (as in an afterlife).

of course we know that the brain stops working, and the body rots and all that. all that doesn't have anything to do with what could or could not happen in the afterlife.

as for your question about made-up monsters existing, no i don't believe there is more of a chance of them existing. i see a horse and it exists, so it obviously has more of a chance of existing than big foot, which i haven't seen or have reliable evidence of.

what makes that example different than before, is that we can see a horse and can then say it "exists", but since we cannot experience anything after death (yet. if ever, excluding actually dying) we cannot, therefore, say what is more likely to happen after death.

lol that "done learnt" was a typo.


Haha, best typo ever.

i see a horse and it exists, so it obviously has more of a chance of existing than big foot, which i haven't seen or have reliable evidence of.

Now take your ideas out of the hyper-communicative / scientific modern world. Much less evidence, much more insecurity. At any rate, "we move"-


of course we know that the brain stops working, and the body rots and all that

Okay, *checks on little clipboard* so we no longer have our 5 bodily senses, or the cognition of our brain matters. Basically no more life as we know it. *makes another little mark* Yep, so our normal life *ends*


all that doesn't have anything to do with what could or could not happen in the afterlife.

...but since we cannot experience anything after death...

Okay... this strike me as flawed somehow. Here's how I see it.

Death, as is readily observable, happens, and we "end." The concept of dying and ending is not created by us. [Sh]It happens and our buddy falls over and no longer "works" and we're like "Fuck! He's dead! He no longer functions as a human! Worms are going to eat the poor guy! Just like Lassie! :(" Death is a fact that stops things from functioning and returns their carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, and various other compounds to be used at will by the cycles of earth. Death presents itself to us. It knocks on our door even.

Afterlife? Human beings CREATED the concept! Who made it happen?

Maybe a revived man who recalls the storm of emotionally charged stimuli in his brain from the brink of death, claiming to know what is beyond?

Or just a basic human need for comfort and security? The gift of cognition being a curse as well as a blessing since humans have the unique burden of understanding their end is near?

What? We end? NU UH!!! Well, yeah. It is impossible to cognate "the end." Just as it is impossible to cognate the "beginning." Could you choose your traits, genetic makeup? Nah, you were just sort of like *SCHPLOP*---> "Huh? What the? What to do, what to do! :cool:"

So when you shut down, and your life as you know it *pop*s out of your perception. As before you were born (universal, cosmic nothingness, lack of consciousness, your future molecules were preoccupied doing other jobs) when your body is no longer your body, HOW... in the world can any sort of perceivable existence occur? Can humans be comfortable that the experience of death is indescribable? It is like claiming to be able to "see" blindness. Blindness is a lack of sight, not a color. You can't be like "hey Frank what color is that lamp?" "well, Bob, it's the color blind!"

Death robs us of us, can you handle it?

Just as there is a "miracle of conception" where a child is created by TEH SECKS!!!!?!?!? [lulz], I believe in a sort of "miracle of end," where the inconceivable happens= it ALL.... ends. *BOOP* GAME OVER.

You are blind. How can you claim there will be ANY color/pattern/light/darkness when you cannot see?

I think the issue is not "well, after you die the afterlife could be any number of things, we just dont know what since no one can tell us once their there!"

The issue is that afterlife is a concept completely engineered into existence by man, in a seeming absence of factual basis. How can you caim ANYTHING about "it"? The finger you are pointing (even if it is an uncertain, wavering finger) Is pointing to a Great Nothing.

:(

*disclaims everyting I just said here, I.E. don't get your panties in a wad, I typed this because I was bored and felt like thinking a bit*

lol that "done learnt" was a typo.
A typo? What keys did you mean to hit, but 'done learnt' came up instead? I'm only pointing this out because you've been pulling this ingenuous "I meant to say this, but it came out wrong" bullshit, every time someone destroys one of your arguments. I'm about to show where you do it again.

what i was saying is that we know nothing of what happens after death (as in an afterlife).
And Martini showed you that one could say the same thing about anything else we've never done before. Landing on the Moon could have caused all sorts of goblins and ghosties to pop into existence. Doing something new, whether dying or landing on the moon, is not a reason to claim that monsters, gods, or any type of supernatural entities existing is just as likely as them not existing.

To say, "we know nothing of what happens after death" is false. We know consciousness is in the brain. We know the brain ceases to function after death. We know there is no evidence that gods/monsters are anything more than the product of human imagination.

of course we know that the brain stops working, and the body rots and all that. all that doesn't have anything to do with what could or could not happen in the afterlife.
Of course we know that there is dirt, rocks and worms when we dig a hole. But since I've never dug one in the center of my yard, we have no idea what sort of demons can pop up. The spaghetti monster is just as likely to pop out of there as he is not to pop out of there, right?

as for your question about made-up monsters existing, no i don't believe there is more of a chance of them existing. i see a horse and it exists, so it obviously has more of a chance of existing than big foot, which i haven't seen or have reliable evidence of.
I guess you didn't really mean to say what you did earlier, eh?

a spaghetti monster is as likely as anything else because since we know nothing of the afterlife

I know, you're going to claim. "but it's different in the afterlife, because we're not done dead yet".

Irrelevant. Making up monsters and claiming that they have just as much of a chance of existing in an afterlife as not existing is poppycock.

what makes that example different than before, is that we can see a horse and can then say it "exists", but since we cannot experience anything after death (yet. if ever, excluding actually dying) we cannot, therefore, say what is more likely to happen after death.
Yes, we can. Just as we could have said what it would be like to walk on the Moon before actually doing it. It is much more likely that when consciousness ceases to exist that is the end of the self, rather than a made up soul popping out of you and meeting a made up spaghetti monster.

You said earlier (maybe in another thread) that you are an atheist. If you believe that there is as much of a chance of gods existing then not existing, how did you make that choice?

alright, first of all, it was a typo so you can stop with that shit. it's late when i get on the computer so the things i'm thinking don't always come out as clear or coherent as i'd like, but that's besides the point.


the moon example is very different than what i'm talking about.

when we sent someone up to the moon, we applied things we'e learnt and observed from earth. we guessed that the moon worked by the same rules as the earth did, and it turns out we were right.

when we sent them up there, we weren't sure that monsters were going to poof into existence (i'm sure the idea didn't really occur to them at the time) or if any other imaginable thing could have happened. we assumed that things would be the same, and they were.(physics-wise)

the moon was a place almost like the afterlife.
those monsters COULD have popped up.
we hadn't seen any monsters before then so it would make it unlikely, but it could have happened.

that's where the moon differs from the afterlife. we can't see any monsters on the moon so we assume that there probably aren't any in this world because we have evidence that makes it unlikely.

we cannot experience the afterlife for ourselves and so therefore, have never been able to see a monster there, so we have nothing to say it exists there or does not. to say a spaghetti monster is more likely than nothing after death, is wrong, because we have nothing to prove either case.

you said that we know that the brain stops functioning after death, and there is no evidence that there is some sort of 'afterlife'. But there is also no evidence against one either.

we know that consciousness stops, but we have nothing to say that the self doesn't go on.

if there is no evidence either way, we cannot say that either is more likely than the other.

you may say that a christian god is not as likely because of all the contradictions. the christian's exuse is to say that god meant for it to be like that for whatever reason. now what is to say that this is untrue? we can say this is unlikely, but without evidence against this theory, it is just as unlikely as the next.



why did i label myself as an atheist?

when i first started this thread, i had a different definition for it. here is my new one:

an atheist is someone acknowledges the possibility of god, but does not believe it over any other theory.


so, what that is saying is that i wouldn't be found in a church because i don't believe in the possibility that much.

for other people, it may mean a different thing. i'f i'm totally off with this definition, let me know and give me a different name for it.

---

i do apologize though if it seems like i'm saying one thing , but then changing it later. i do really mean what i say, it's just in the way i write that will make it seem i'm saying another thing. i'll give you an example. wheni was answering martini's question, " Do you actually believe there is as much of a chance of made up monsters existing as not existing?" i hould have added that my answer was for this world. in the afterlife, i believe that they just as likely.

that's what i should have added, but i didn't, and like the other times, my words got twisted around to look like i was contradicting myself.

to say a spaghetti monster is more likely than nothing after death, is wrong, because we have nothing to prove either case.
This has been explained so many times to you. If you still don't understand why making up monsters does not make them as likely to exist as not exist (whether before or after death), I don't think anyone can do much for you.



why did i label myself as an atheist?

when i first started this thread, i had a different definition for it. here is my new one:

an atheist is someone acknowledges the possibility of god, but does not believe it over any other theory.



so, what that is saying is that i wouldn't be found in a church because i don't believe in the possibility that much.
You don't believe in that possibility very much? You have stated over and over that gods existing are just as likely as not existing (only you think adding 'in the afterlife' is somehow an important distinction). If the odds are the same, how do you not believe in that possibility much?



when i first started this thread, i had a different definition for it. here is my new one:
You did? You claimed that you knew that definition all along, but only forgot to mention you were talking about specific atheists.

you said that we know that the brain stops functioning after death, and there is no evidence that there is some sort of 'afterlife'. But there is also no evidence against one either.
Your evidence against an afterlife is right there. Without brain function, "you" no longer exist.

Is it because your logic tells you that made up souls have just as much of a chance of existing as not existing? What do you base this on? It seems that your basing it on the fact that there is no irrefutable proof that 'something' else can happen to you when you die. There is no irrefutable proof that invisible unicorns don't live under my bed. Claiming that this means that there is as much of a chance of this being true as false is ludicrous. Please don't tell me that the unicorn scenario is different because we're still alive. The fact that you and I are still alive is irrelevant.

Please answer Martini's questions.

the moon was a place almost like the afterlife.
those monsters COULD have popped up.
we hadn't seen any monsters before then so it would make it unlikely, but it could have happened.

My earlier post kicked your logic in the nuts, I am just isolating this statement so that it can be seen by other new thread-readers in all its ridiculous glory.

The crap does the moon landing have to do with the afterlife? Well, nothing really. Your logic is held together with a lot of scotch tape. You claim it comes from facts and observations, but based on the reactions since my last overlooked post, I would say not so much.

Have a nice day everyone, the tramp has dug in, and even with a bullet to the head, he will not seem to leave his trench or even peer out into no-man's land.

~§~

alright, i give in, i can't do this every night.

i'm still not persuaded, but i'm going to think on what you've said and i'd advise that you give my views a chance as well. as illogical as hey seem to you right now, they may make more sense than you think after you've thought it through a bit more.

if you decide not to, then whatever, it's a free country, you can think whatever the hell you want.

I don't mind you having different views, but some of them seem to break a continuous chain of factual thought.

I am seeing what you are saying as bordering on the concept of spontaneous germination.

"From the time of the ancient Romans, through the Middle Ages, and until the late nineteenth century, it was generally accepted that some life forms arose spontaneously from non-living matter. Such "spontaneous generation" appeared to occur primarily in decaying matter. For example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice. Although such a concept may seem laughable today, it is consistent with the other widely held cultural and religious beliefs of the time."

There are many possibilities, but.... random monsters?

Yeah. That's all I got. Have fun.
:D

alright, i give in, i can't do this every night.
I had a feeling you might quit at this point, which is why I specifically asked you to answer Martini's questions. I don't think you can do it without contradicting yourself or having to admit you're wrong, and you seem to have a problem doing that.

I believe i posted this in a different thread, but here goes anyway-

Suppose one day we do actually discover hard evidence of God or some other ultimate being - how would we deal with that knowledge?

To my mind, if we proved that God existed, he would cease to be a God.

EDIT: Clarification; Science proves God exists, therefore God is no longer a religious creation and is therefore science FACT.

Religion becomes obselete.

I had a feeling you might quit at this point

I don't blame him for opting out. Arguments in this forum are the most tedious, time consuming wastes of effort known to man.
Not to mention the amount of smart ass wannabes thinking their gods gift to logic.

Suppose one day we do actually discover hard evidence of God or some other ultimate being - how would we deal with that knowledge?

To my mind, if we proved that God existed, he would cease to be a God.

EDIT: Clarification; Science proves God exists, therefore God is no longer a religious creation and is therefore science FACT.

Religion becomes obselete.

I believe there's a good possibility of god existing and that the spiritual universe doesn't contradict science. I think they go hand in hand.
But I also wondered about what happened if undeniable proof was given. I think there would be chaos. Everyone would become an extremist. And if true beliefs were revealed and they contradicted religeous beliefs, people would say it was the devil.
The best way for god to be revealed is fr each individual to find the answers in their own time.

I don't blame him for opting out. Arguments in this forum are the most tedious, time consuming wastes of effort known to man.

I hope this means we can all count on you not posting here anymore. Your asinine ramblings have proven to be quite a waste of everyones time.






Suppose one day we do actually discover hard evidence...



I believe there's a good possibility of god existing...

How about you two go continue this in a new thread? What Thunderhammer has brought up has nothing at all to do with this topic.

Edit: Ya know I think I will leave. This forum brings out the worst in me.

What Thunderhammer has brought up has nothing at all to do with this topic.

Actually i was bringing up the fact that nothing we have is conclusive, so i brought the thread forward to a point where we would consider the possibility of there actually being hard evidence.

I imagine that if such a thing were to occur, organised religion would cease to have an active role in society.

What would happen would essentially be the equivalent of having Atheist extremists, who would deny that the evidence was there - likely trying to falsify it as they always have, possibly taking it to new extremes too.

For there to be evidence, one must believe in the evidence - otherwise what are you doing except listening and copying what others say?

Gezz.. all this "god stuff" makes me wanna puke.

I'm fine with the fact that "some" people got the need to belive in a "god" Hoping that they will go somewhere nice at some point etc.

I got my own stuff i belive in.

But a god is the exact opposite of my belives.
I find the thought of a god, stupid as hell!!.

I've been wondering about "god" for decades and there is too many things not making sence.

Its not because there is no proof that he exists, but more because there is nothing to backup the so called proofs
and there is far to many flaws in all religions.

Actually i was bringing up the fact that nothing we have is conclusive, so i brought the thread forward to a point where we would consider the possibility of there actually being hard evidence.
That's terrific, Thunderhammer. You seem like a nice guy, so I don't want to be too hard on you, but asking others how they think they would deal with hard evidence of God/gods existing has nothing to do with this topic. Please lets keep this thread on topic and lets wait to see if VT will decide to come back and answer the questions he's been asked to. Thanks.

That's terrific, Thunderhammer. You seem like a nice guy, so I don't want to be too hard on you, but asking others how they think they would deal with hard evidence of God/gods existing has nothing to do with this topic. Please lets keep this thread on topic and lets wait to see if VT will decide to come back and answer the questions he's been asked to. Thanks.

o i c, you think i'm putting up a smokescreen for him.

I'm not, so i hope that impression didn't subtract from the worth of my post.

P.S: Science proving religion will disprove it at the same time. Thereby providing Atheism with a win-win situation.

Apologies if i came off a little sudden.

alright i'll try to explain.

if you roll a die, what chance do you have of getting a four? one in six is the obvious answer.

this only applies while we have no information on the way it's rolled. if we get a machine that always rolls with the same rotation, speed, etc. we can be certain what's coming up. take one of those factors and make it random, we only know what we're probably going to get.

it's the same with the afterlife. without any information,we cannot know whether somethingis more likely to exist or not to.
this is not to say that all theories have a fifty-fifty shot at existing. it's quite the opposite. they've got a 1-in- infinity shot if there is no proof to make it more or less. this is because there is practically no limit to what could happen after death and so if one is true, the others cannot be true. therefore, one-in-infinity is the probablity that any theory gets (when considering something that contradicts another, eg. saying unicorns exist in the afterlife does not contradict saying god exists, so it is a different matter all together).

this only applies to theories we have no evidence for or against.

there are theories that can be proven false right off the bat. an example would be a god that we all have seen and has told us each seperately that he is god.


as for the moon problem, i'm still thinking this through. it requires more thinking than it appears and i need to mull it over more.

with the afterlife. without any information,we cannot know whether somethingis more likely to exist or not to

Just isolating the statement I see error in so you can adjust your developing explanation more thoroughly on thi topic when you decide to post again.

I just don't get the "lack of information" part. Is this based on a belief we have a "soul" and something "has to happen" to it when we die? I totally understand your gambling explanation, but it does not quite seem to fit the matter at hand.

*wanders off into the forest of fluffy biscuits*

this only applies to theories we have no evidence for or against.


There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that there is no afterlife. That's what you seem unable to grasp. You are basically stating that something undetectable and unpredicted is as likely to exist as it is not to exist. That is not that case. Our current knowledge predicts that there is no afterlife, thus that is the most probable scenario.

what evidence are you talking about? i don't know of any evidence that proves no afterlife is more likely.

what evidence are you talking about? i don't know of any evidence that proves no afterlife is more likely.

Everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires ordered matter (like a brain) to exist. When the brain stops working, the consciousness is gone. You cannot have an afterlife without consciousness.

Hehe.

*slaps forehead*

D'oh!!

All that typing I did.... for naught!

:D

FOR SHAME!!!

Everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires ordered matter (like a brain) to exist. When the brain stops working, the consciousness is gone. You cannot have an afterlife without consciousness.

Yar, but we don't know everything there is to know.

You make a good point, of course.

it's the same with the afterlife. without any information,we cannot know whether somethingis more likely to exist or not to.
this is not to say that all theories have a fifty-fifty shot at existing. it's quite the opposite.
You don't see how you're contradicting yourself? If we cannot know whether something is more likely to exist or not, how the hell can you say that all theories have a 1-in- infinity shot? Are you saying that all theories are equal?

If these 'theories' have a 1-in- infinity shot of existing, what the hell have you been arguing about? You're totally contradicting your earlier statements:

t's the same with the afterlife. without any information,we cannot know whether somethingis more likely to exist or not to.

i think you get what i mean. the point is just that, the theory that we are just going to rot in the ground (with no afterlife) is just as likely as the next theory, whether it be a spaghetti monster, or god, because there is pretty much an infinite amount of things that could happen after death and each is just as likely as the next.

You can't take all of the infinite made up creatures that can exist and come to the conclusion that you add all of them up and each one is as likely as the next, including none at all existing.

There are an infinite number of possible gods and only one chance of there being none at all. Using your logic, there would be an infinitely small chance of a god not existing, so being an atheist would be illogical. Or is it any gods vs. no gods, which gives you a 50/50 chance of gods existing?





You specifically said "the theory that we are just going to rot in the ground (with no afterlife) is just as likely as the next theory".

Totally contradicting:

"this is not to say that all theories have a fifty-fifty shot at existing. it's quite the opposite."

ALL THEORIES ARE NOT EQUALLY VALID!

If you believe "no gods" is just as likely as "gods", how can you make this statement?:

"so, what that is saying is that i wouldn't be found in a church because i don't believe in the possibility that much."



If gods existing are as likely as not existing, how do you make the choice to be an atheist considering the odds are even?


Please answer these questions!

i might be contradicting myself from what i said way back, but what i said above doesn't.

like you said all theories ae not valid, but there are an almost limitless supply of valid ones.

now there are two possibilities for each theory. either it's true or false.

with every other valid theory there is, the chance of a single theory being true grows smaller, because they contradict each other. one cannot be true while the other is true.

if we have no proof either way for all theories, then yes, all theories have the same probability, one in however many possible theries there are.

using my logic there would be a very large chance of god not existing becuase of how many alternate theories there are that do not have a god in them.

without proof to go either way, there is only a small chance of there being nothing because there is only one chance in infinity of it being true. with proof we can raise the probability though.

the 'evidence' against an afterlife, to me, is not relevent. we know that consciencness ends here on earth when we die, but that has nothing to say about it continuing on in some other place.

the point is, all theories with no evidence, are just as likely as the next (with no evidence),but the chance of them occuring are still very small due to the large amount of other things that could happen.

also why am i an atheist? well i'm not really sure if it's the right term exactly, but here's my view on things. i don't believe in god (going to church, etc.) because the probability is too small. also, what if i do follow this religion and it turns out that i was supposed to do the opposite to get into heaven after death. i can only live my own life the way i find confortable and hope that my choices are the right ones when it comes time to dying.

i might be contradicting myself from what i said way back, but what i said above doesn't.
So it's okay to contradict what you said earlier in the thread? Why don't you figure out what actually makes sense before you start a thread?

You are actually still not making sense as I will show you.

like you said all theories ae not valid, but there are an almost limitless supply of valid ones.
Please define what makes a theory valid. Valid theories are those that are likely based on evidence. Saying the existence of a spaghetti monster is as valid as any other because we don't know what happens after death doesn't cut it.



using my logic there would be a very large chance of god not existing becuase of how many alternate theories there are that do not have a god in them.
And there aren't as many alternate theories one could imagine with a god them? There is an endless supply of possible gods. With an endless supply of possible gods and an endless array of 'alternate theories' without a god in them, using your ass backwards logic, the possibility of any gods existing is 50/50.

The problem with your logic is that you're assuming anything the imagination can think of happening in a theoretical afterlife is a valid theory of reality. It's not.

without proof to go either way, there is only a small chance of there being nothing because there is only one chance in infinity of it being true. with proof we can raise the probability though.
So you believe in an afterlife?

We have showed you over and over that we do have proof. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that everything works according to scientific laws. We know that the self resides within the functioning brain. We know that there is no evidence for souls and plenty of evidence against. There is 'proof'!

the 'evidence' against an afterlife, to me, is not relevent.
Of course it is! It blows your 'all theories are equal' theory out of the water!

we know that consciencness ends here on earth when we die, but that has nothing to say about it continuing on in some other place.
That makes zero sense!

the point is, all theories with no evidence, are just as likely as the next
That's not true. The farther out the theory, the more likely it is to be false.


(with no evidence),but the chance of them occuring are still very small due to the large amount of other things that could happen.

also why am i an atheist? well i'm not really sure if it's the right term exactly
Again, figure out what the fuck your position is before starting a thread.



but here's my view on things. i don't believe in god (going to church, etc.) because the probability is too small.
Using your logic, it's not. There are as many possible afterlife scenarios including different gods as there are afterlifes with no god.

also why am i an atheist? well i'm not really sure if it's the right term exactly


i don't believe in god (going to church, etc.) because the probability is too small.

All the explaining that we've done on what an atheist is, and you're still not sure if you're an atheist? Based on my second quote above, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST! If you are without a belief in the existence of God/gods, you are an atheist. How are you still not sure that this is the correct term?

the 'evidence' against an afterlife, to me, is not relevent. we know that consciencness ends here on earth when we die, but that has nothing to say about it continuing on in some other place.

How might this consciousness get passed on to the other place? If you cannot answer that, then you have no theory.


the point is, all theories with no evidence, are just as likely as the next (with no evidence),


That's not true, there is a principle called parsimony which states that the simplest solution is the most probable (think Ockham's razor).

Everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires ordered matter (like a brain) to exist. When the brain stops working, the consciousness is gone. You cannot have an afterlife without consciousness.

Well, here's the thing: nobody knows what causes consciousness. You're saying it's our brains, but the thing is, we can't find that part of our brain responsible for consciousness. When you look at the human brain by itself, consciousness seems to disappear completely - which, if anything, suggests that consciousness is outside the brain.

Well, here's the thing: nobody knows what causes consciousness. You're saying it's our brains, but the thing is, we can't find that part of our brain responsible for consciousness. When you look at the human brain by itself, consciousness seems to disappear completely - which, if anything, suggests that consciousness is outside the brain.

What are you defining as consciousness?

How might this consciousness get passed on to the other place? If you cannot answer that, then you have no theory.

Here we go:
You've heard about this "multiverse" theory. Well, as it turns out, a lot of quantum stuff doesn't work if there is not another universe not bound by the same laws as this universe. In every religious text, things from the "other world" take on a form bound by the laws of this universe - e.g. angels appearing as men with wings. This parallel universe could contain heaven, hell, purgatory, angels, spirits, and whatever else belongs in the spirit world. Our souls already exist in this parallel universe, and when we die this is made obvious to us, because we no longer exist in this one.

What are you defining as consciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Sorry to burst your bubble but consciousness is not that easy to define.

I am talking about our self-awareness, our higher reasoning, our subjectivity - all the things unique to being human, those elusive aspects of our existence that cannot be explained by purely biological means.

Sorry to burst your bubble but consciousness is not that easy to define.
This has nothing to do with vagabondtramp's contention that there is as much of a chance of existing after death as before death.

Would it make it less controversial for you if we were to say the "you" doesn't exist without a functioning brain and body?

Here we go:
You've heard about this "multiverse" theory. Well, as it turns out, a lot of quantum stuff doesn't work if there is not another universe not bound by the same laws as this universe. In every religious text, things from the "other world" take on a form bound by the laws of this universe - e.g. angels appearing as men with wings. This parallel universe could contain heaven, hell, purgatory, angels, spirits, and whatever else belongs in the spirit world. Our souls already exist in this parallel universe, and when we die this is made obvious to us, because we no longer exist in this one.

There are multiple multiverse theories, but quantum mechanics certainly does not support such notions that you have suggested. You many be referring to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (quantum mechanics is really just math), this however, does not allow information to pass between universes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Sorry to burst your bubble but consciousness is not that easy to define.

I am talking about our self-awareness, our higher reasoning, our subjectivity - all the things unique to being human, those elusive aspects of our existence that cannot be explained by purely biological means.

I never claimed consciousness was easy to define, you haven't burst anything. I just needed to know what YOU were talking about. Now that I know what you are talking about, I can claim that these thing are in the realm of biology. I don't see where you get the idea that subjectivity or self awareness are unique to humans..that's just rubbish. It's been proven the monkeys and other species are self aware. As for subjectivity, you cannot prove it's existence in anything except yourself. We have no reason to believe it doesn't exist in animals for the same reason we have no reason to believe doesn't exist in humans besides ourselves. Higher reasoning, is uniquely human, and related to specific aspects of the uniquely human brain. Cut out the right portion of the human brain and higher reasoning ceases to exist.

I would also like you to clarify your statement that when you look at the brain "consciousness seems to disappear completely."

If I am looking at my hand I won't see the shadow that it is causing. Does this suggest something other than my hand is causing the shadow?

You many be referring to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (quantum mechanics is really just math), this however, does not allow information to pass between universes.

Why not?

I don't see where you get the idea that subjectivity or self awareness are unique to humans..that's just rubbish. It's been proven the monkeys and other species are self aware.

Simply saying "it's been proven" does not make it so. If you are going to make claims like this, back them up. When was it proven, and in what study?

According to a recent study I read in Scientific American, only a few species of monkeys can recognize themselves in a mirror, and even then, it varies from monkey to monkey.

As for subjectivity, you cannot prove it's existence in anything except yourself.

Well no SHIT, that's the definition of subjectivity.

Higher reasoning, is uniquely human, and related to specific aspects of the uniquely human brain. Cut out the right portion of the human brain and higher reasoning ceases to exist.

Yeah? What part of the brain is solely responsible for higher reasoning, then?

I would also like you to clarify your statement that when you look at the brain "consciousness seems to disappear completely."

If a human brain were to be isolated and examined by a species that had never made contact with our species, they would have no reason to believe that we are self-aware, spiritual, etc. They may suspect that we are capable of higher reasoning, but they would not be able to confirm this. My point is, when you look JUST at a human brain and not at how a human uses its brain, you cannot infer consciousness.

If I am looking at my hand I won't see the shadow that it is causing. Does this suggest something other than my hand is causing the shadow?

You know this analogy is completely false on many levels; why do you even bother using it? An obstruction in your vision is not analogous to the inability to find biological origin for consciousness; cut it out.

From reading most of the thread, i'm getting the following.

Atheism is NOT:
-There's no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

Atheism IS:
-The belief of extraordinary things based on extraordinary proof. Just because there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just makes it extremely unlikely.

is this correct? This was my basic theory, just reworked into the post's qualities.

From reading most of the thread, i'm getting the following.

Atheism is NOT:
-There's no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

Atheism IS:
-The belief of extraordinary things based on extraordinary proof. Just because there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just makes it extremely unlikely.

is this correct? This was my basic theory, just reworked into the post's qualities.
Pretty close.

Atheism is being without belief in God/gods.

An atheist does not have to not believe in gods because they only believe in extraordinary things which are backed by extraordinary proof. An atheist can believe in Santa Clause with no evidence at all. All that is necessary is to be without belief in God/gods.

Why not?

That's what the proponents of the MWI say because that's what the math indicates. You can go learn all the math required if you want to truly understand what quantum mechanics means.

Simply saying "it's been proven" does not make it so. If you are going to make claims like this, back them up. When was it proven, and in what study?

According to a recent study I read in Scientific American, only a few species of monkeys can recognize themselves in a mirror, and even then, it varies from monkey to monkey.

So you are aware of the studies that prove self awareness in animals. Good, I was right in assuming that I wouldn't need to source such a basic claim. Elephants and dolphins can recognize themselves too.

Well no SHIT, that's the definition of subjectivity.

Then perhaps you should not be making such ludicrous claims that subjectivity is unique to humans.



Yeah? What part of the brain is solely responsible for higher reasoning, then?

The neocortex. Not sure if it can be called "solely responsible."


If a human brain were to be isolated and examined by a species that had never made contact with our species, they would have no reason to believe that we are self-aware, spiritual, etc. They may suspect that we are capable of higher reasoning, but they would not be able to confirm this. My point is, when you look JUST at a human brain and not at how a human uses its brain, you cannot infer consciousness.

That in no way supports the notion that the human brain does not cause consciousness. I guess we cannot infer that the human heart is used to circulate blood. I mean just looking at the heart and not how we use it, doesn't confirm this.


You know this analogy is completely false on many levels; why do you even bother using it? An obstruction in your vision is not analogous to the inability to find biological origin for consciousness; cut it out.

Actually it is completely analogous. You seem to think that for us to prove that the brain causes consciousness we have to prove it by looking at JUST the brain. I showed how this exact same reasoning fails when applied to a hand causing a shadow. When you look at JUST the hand, you don't see a shadow do you? You have to look at the hand AND the shadow at the same time to know that the hand is causing the shadow. A biological origin of consciousness has been found, it's the brain. Just because we don't understand it fully doesn't mean we don't know what's causing it (I don't need to know that my hand blocks the visible spectrum of EM radiation to know that my hand causes its shadow).

Pretty close.

Atheism is being without belief in God/gods.

An atheist does not have to not believe in gods because they only believe in extraordinary things which are backed by extraordinary proof. An atheist can believe in Santa Clause with no evidence at all. All that is necessary is to be without belief in God/gods.

So, to your mind there is a difference between refusing to believe in a 'God' (which is a fairly broad term anyway), and deciding not to believe in a 'God'.


Amirite?

So, to your mind there is a difference between refusing to believe in a 'God' (which is a fairly broad term anyway), and deciding not to believe in a 'God'.


Amirite?
I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion, but no. I don't know how to make this any simpler. An atheist is without belief in God/gods. What did I say to get you on this refusing/deciding thing?

God does not answer any questions to why we're here. At least with rational athiests we can say, we don't know what caused the big bang or what there was before it but hopefully we find out eventually. With quantum mechanics, it's probable that something can come from nothing. If nothingness is infinite, then it's only a matter of time before the improbable is possible. So even God is possible, but the improbability of a sentient being of infinite power and knowledge is so improbable that it would probably be in the farthest ends of infinite before that happened, and millions of universes could have come and gone before that happens or even if it happens. But those who argue that the universe can't come from nothing are just as or even more wrong. If God created the universe, then where did he come from? Nothing? Was he infinite? Did something create him? And if they did, what created that? It's better to cut out the middle man and just leave it to interpretation until/if we find the real answer.

The fact is that when people say they put their faith that God exists, they're not putting their faith in God but in people who lived 2000 years ago that wrote a book. It would be more rational to have faith if God himself told you he was God, but he didn't. Some people who bathed a couple times a year and slaughtered each other over things we would call misdemeanors today tell you to have faith in them. And that is just ignorant.