ok atheists think with me :)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2014, 12:43 AM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
I really....I really can't tell if you're actually serious or not Shamma. There is so much wrong with what you just said it has to be a joke.




Right? Shocking

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 02:17 AM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(25-09-2014 11:39 PM)Shamma Wrote:  I just had a baby "c section" the previous month Big Grin

So cuz I'm soo polite Angel I couldn't leave you without a reply!

It was a hard month for me..

I like to understand people.. and go deep into their personalities !

So the best way to know why people become atheists is to ask atheists

Ohnestly I didn't read any of your replies sorry I couldn't !

I'll start now Tongue

and please forgive me if I didn't reply to you I don't have time Sadcryface although I'm sooo interested to discuss stuff with you guys.

At work.

HELLO! Big Grin

First, hope everything went well/okay with your operation. Smile

Second: Glad you've come back and are good/glad/happy to ask questions. Smile

Hope the good folks here can help you in your exploration of all that you seek to know/learn. Big Grin

Very much good cheers to you and yours and others of the forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
26-09-2014, 08:17 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2014 09:11 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
Ill focus on a narrow portion of your reply, because everything will get touched on by SOMEONE, and I want to explore something in-depth.

(26-09-2014 12:31 AM)Shamma Wrote:  
Quote:You'll need to define what you mean by "going nowhere" - if you mean that when you die that there is no afterlife, then you are correct, I don't think there is an afterlife. Once you die, you're dead. Why is that difficult to comprehend?

that's exactly what I meant Big Grin

it's difficult because ....... :roll eyes:

then why we exist?

For what purpose ?

Or is it also simply for the purpose of existence?

Are you 100% sure that people can't live forever? Do you know that someday you are going to die? Why not trying to survive from death?

Why no one claimed that he/she has the cure for death?

If you don't believe on god then you don't believe that we are here on earth to evolve and learn to be good people , better people.. but then we will all have to die and then return back tom death to be judged .. and thus of to hell or heaven..... then why not trying to live forever on earth .. why are people so convinced with their short limited life?

Why do people get old? and weak? and sick? Even if we lived healthy.. eat healthy never get sick.. sooner or later we all know that we are going to die.. why Sad

Are we 100% sure that there's no afterlife, or chance of eternal life? Well, some of us claim to be. Most of us would be open to modifying our views in light of evidence, but not simple preference or what-ifs. But I think the best way to understand it would be through what I call the Leprechaun standard. (I'll avoid your 100% descriptor because, well, that kind of casual usage conflicts with actual math.)

Are we completely sure that Leprechauns don't exist? No.

Do we generally give serious thought to the possibility? No.

Can we be completely sure that Leprechauns don't exist, in some way that they are commonly depicted? YES! While we can't dismiss Leprechauns in general, due to the vagueness of the claim, certain specific interpretations of Leprechauns can be evaluated and dismissed.

For example, we can be fairly certain that they're not hanging around at the ends of rainbows with pots of gold. This is because, through studying optics, we have discovered that rainbows don't HAVE ends. They're optical illusions, produced by sunlight undergoing prismatic separation and reflection by droplets of water in the air, and visible to us against a dark backdrop. Its shape is not really a bow, but an apparent circle. We typically can't see the lower part of the circle because there aren't rain or thick clouds that low, but it's quite easy to generate with sprinklers or the spray from a garden hose. The center of the rainbow is always directly opposite the sun from the viewer, and its apparent diameter is fixed. The point is that rainbows don't HAVE ends for Leprechans to hang out at, and also that the apparent location of the rainbow is different for every person depending on where they're standing. While this doesn't disprove Leprechauns in general, it does disprove this particular type of Leprechaun. Similarly, while we can't disprove afterlives in general, we can disprove some specific afterlife myths, such as "ghost whisperers" who, when really put to the test, don't pan out.

Regarding claims of God, afterlife, etc, most of us will admit that we aren't completely certain, and go further to say that grounds for complete certainty is a practical impossibility. We can, however, evaluate whether the grounds for believing in these things are greater, or less than, grounds for believing in Leprechauns. If there's little more evidence for them than for Leprechauns, we are as justified for not believing it as we are for not believing in Leprechauns. (Or unicorns, or Santa Claus, or so on.)

So, what are the grounds for believing in an afterlife, compared and contrasted to the grounds for believing in Leprechauns?

A) Popularity of belief. Both have it. Afterlives win out. More people believe in afterlives than in Leprechauns. However, we should note that a belief being popular does not often speak to its accuracy. Popularity of belief is not really good grounds for believing in something. Truth is not a popularity contest. Quite often, the truth has proven to be something that NO ONE believed before they saw evidence of it.

B) The existence of descriptions and depictions of it. Both have it. Descriptions of afterlives are more popular than descriptions of Leprechauns... but again, popularity is a poor guide to truth. So call this one a push.

C) Consistency of the belief. Generally speaking, if something is true, has good evidence, and is solidly proven, the nature of that proof and evidence gives or points to a means of studying the true thing and learning its properties and attributes. Look at what I said about rainbows is earlier -- anything with direct sunlight, a darkish backdrop, and a mist of fine water particles will do the trick, suggesting we could study rainbows using dark soil or asphalt and a garden hose. People, at least those who look into it and reproduce it, will tend to believe the same things about it, because they are checking against the same reality. But if something is false, there will be no method of studying it for its details, because it doesn't exist, and there will not be much consistency to the belief across multiple believers. Leprechauns win this one, because depictions of Leprechauns are less numerous, less varied, and more coherent than those of afterlives. But both score pretty dismally.

D) Consistency with existing evidence. I gave an example of this before, regarding how a certain conception of Leprechauns was inconsistent with the evidence about how rainbows work. Now, let's discuss afterlives. The basic idea of an afterlife is so vague that we can't really discuss it, but the basic notion is either some form of physical restoration in the distant future, or that consciousness, intelligence, personality, memory, etc can somehow survive death and exist independent of the body. (EDIT: or reincarnation as an animal or another human.) I'll focus on the second. We have evidence that these things are significantly changed and/or destroyed with damage to the brain. Head trauma can result in loss of memory, or intelligence, or significant changes in personality. The ability to process speech has been localized to a specific part of the brain through study of these unfortunate incidents (and through other methods) as has the ability to feel certain emotions. Depriving the brain of certain needs -- calories, water, oxygen, for example -- can severely impact consciousness. Yet when even minor trauma to the brain can produce this damage to our memories, emotions, etc, and when even minor reductions in physical necessities can remove us from consciousness... does this not seem to somewhat contradict the idea of a spiritual afterlife, in which our personalities, memories, etc survive the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of our brains, and our consciousnesses somehow continue operating despite those brains receiving no nutrients whatsoever? This is the sort of thing that we examine the idea of an afterlife with respect to.

Comparing and contrasting this with Leprechauns, afterlives win out. But this isn't because afterlives are particularly consistent with reality. Instead, it's because their claims lack specificity and testability, and so there will be fewer ways in which evidence COULD contradict them. With leprechauns, the idea is that we can physically find them somewhere, and this gives us the ability to test that claim. Myths about afterlives are usually placed beyond easy access. They're in the distant future, or some parallel spiritual plane that we can never sense, or some remote and ill-understood part of the world.

E) Direct, observable, reproducible evidence for the proposition: Leprechauns and afterlifes come in tied at NONE WHATSOEVER. What "evidence" exists are often strange phenomena that don't necessarily point to the desired conclusion. For example, the "white tunnel" of a near death experience is often pointed to as evidence of an afterlife, but is actually (this has been confirmed in laboratory conditions) a consequence of hypoxia in the visual cortex. Other examples, such as personal accounts, fail one of the standards of direct, observable, and reproducible. Rainbows, on the other hand, do have strong, direct, observable, and reproducible evidence in their support.

Taking all these and more together, the grounds for believing in an afterlife seem to be roughly the same as grounds for believing in leprechauns.

So can we be completely certain that there is no afterlife? No. But we can have a standard of evidence, which we'll call the burden of proof, for what it takes for us to believe something, and we can to a limited degree choose how credulous or skeptical we are. The evidence for an afterlife is roughly the same for the evidence for Leprechauns, and that means that to believe in afterlifes, we'd either have to break our rules and give the notion a special exemption from our standards of evidence (what's known as special pleading), or we'd have to lower those standards so far as to simultaneously believe in Leprechauns. If we wish to say that afterlives are very unlikely, but we should still act as if they're a reality, we must either make the same claim for Leprechauns and act as if THEY'RE real, or again engage in special pleading.

This same idea of a standard of evidence can be applied just as easily to the many, many different conceptions of gods.

EDIT: Oh, btw, there are atheists who believe in afterlives. They're just afterlives with no gods in them (otherwise they wouldn't be atheists).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(07-09-2014 02:17 PM)Shamma Wrote:  Hello Sleepy


atheists .. !

I really can't imagine that you guys don't believe on the judgement day!!

Do you really think that all theses life, creatures, humanity .. are going to "nowhere"

and exist for nothing .. Only for the purpose of existence??

Then why is everything matching ?? The circle of life .. animals plants food ... etc

every creature has its own environment and necessities for living..

What about human brains .. how intelligent ! How did this happen?? could it possibly be by chance , natural selection, evolution... !!

I really would like to think about these stuff with you guys.. just give me reasons why would someone not believe on a creator for all of this?? I mean really what makes you so sure .. and take the risk of disbelieving ??

The only real immortality that we know for certain the atheists subscribe to, the immortality of your actions to others (good or bad).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(26-09-2014 12:31 AM)Shamma Wrote:  then why we exist? For what purpose?

No particular purpose. (We can always find things that make life meaningful for ourselves, though. For Me, it's music.)

Quote:Are you 100% sure that people can't live forever?

I'm 99.999...% sure, and that is quite adequate for Me.

Quote:Why no one claimed that he/she has the cure for death?

Because a cure for death hasn't been discovered yet.

Quote:If you don't need your mother now.. that doesn't mean that she is not existed !

My mom lives in My house. I know she exists. I've never seen any evidence for your god, though, and until I actually encounter it in person in the real world, I'm simply not going to bother trying to believe in it.

I can't "just believe," either -- I always know if I'm trying to trick Myself into believing something that I don't believe, and it always fails. Every time.

By the way, congratulations on the birth of your baby!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
Shamma,

It seems that you have difficulty with the idea of humans not having a purpose and eventually dying and returning to nothingness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to guess that you don't have a problem with a flower not having a purpose and eventually dying and returning to nothingness. Yet a flower is also a living thing. Why is it easy to except the truth for a flower, but not for humans? Consider It's all simply the way the universe works.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(26-09-2014 12:31 AM)Shamma Wrote:  Although I'm faithful to my god and religion .. I don't stop learning and searching.. and nothing yet convinced me more than my religion.. That's the truth I would like to live with and die with..

"That's the truth I would like to live with and die with.."

If you get fired, do you decide to believe you didn't get fired because "That's the truth I would like to live with and die with.."?

If your house burns down, do you decide that it didn't happen because "That's the truth I would like to live with and die with.."?

You don't get to choose. Nobody does. (well, insane people do but that's beside the point)

Reality is not altered by belief or wishful thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(26-09-2014 12:39 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 12:31 AM)Shamma Wrote:  Why we didn't evolve into another specie yet?? all those years.. since the age of pharaohs .. we didn't hear of any evolution happening to a human being and convert him into another specie!! :roll eyes: right?

You fail to understand how evolution works. It takes a very long time for something to completely change into another thing. Not just a couple hundred years but millions.

So.. when did the big bang happened? Or .. how old is our earth?

in order to compare that time with the time we need to wait to see another evolution occurring !

The best way to prove something is to watch it by your own eyes!

That's what atheists say about God too.. we didn't see him .. he is not there

the same goes for evolution to me Sadcryface find it difficult to believe!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 07:42 PM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(26-09-2014 12:43 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I really....I really can't tell if you're actually serious or not Shamma. There is so much wrong with what you just said it has to be a joke.




Right? Shocking

No I'm not joking Big Grin

What is so wrong about what I said.. tell me Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: ok atheists think with me :)
(26-09-2014 07:40 PM)Shamma Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 12:39 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  You fail to understand how evolution works. It takes a very long time for something to completely change into another thing. Not just a couple hundred years but millions.

So.. when did the big bang happened? Or .. how old is our earth?

in order to compare that time with the time we need to wait to see another evolution occurring !

The best way to prove something is to watch it by your own eyes!

That's what atheists say about God too.. we didn't see him .. he is not there

the same goes for evolution to me Sadcryface find it difficult to believe!

Your thinking is full of fallacious logic. The best way is not to be there. In fact, in a court of law, often times witnesses can be discredited over time and depending on the situation. The reason for that is because eye witness accounts aren't always reliable and your brain tends to play tricks on you. Scumbag senses, basically.

This is why DNA evidence in a murder case is going to go further than a bum on the street who said, "I SAW IT WITH MAH OWN EYES!"




Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: