Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 76. (Read 89184 times)

There are only two points that we know about this:
1. There are some things that we haven't determined if they have come form somewhere or not;
2. There are some things that we know have come from somewhere.

We haven't found anything that we know just existed, all by itself, without having been caused by something else. In fact, there are so many thing that we DO know have been caused by something else, that it is unlikely that the things we don't know about, simply, spontaneously existed.

The idea of something being outside of the universe is something we cannot comprehend. Everything is part of the universe or else it does not exist... at least that is what our understanding is. Why is our understanding like this? Because we are completely part of our universe.

However, because cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy show that the universe had a beginning, there must have been something outside the universe, and before it, to cause the beginning.

Whatever it was that caused the universe, is something that would have to be outside of universal laws. If it weren't, it would simply have been part of the universe. The only way for the universe to have caused itself would be through some form of spontaneous, uncaused action. We have no evidence of spontaneity happening anywhere. There should be at least some dregs of spontaneity around if there ever was such a thing. We haven't found any.

The whole thing boils down, again, to two points. There are tons and loads of cause and effect actions that have taken and are taking place, that we know about. There are some things that we don't know about. A third thing is that, although we can imagine and guess about spontaneous activity, we haven't been able to find any for sure.

Why am I an atheist?  im a atheist too

here are the reasons why.

1. is there any proof that god really exist ?

2. how in the world will they know his face and his real story

please no bad comments

If anything is thinkable, then it is thinkable that things do not need to come from somewhere. You can't have it both ways - either you can use logical inference or you can't. If you aren't using logical inference then anything is thinkable.

No, that is not his logic at all; you obviously did not read the text.  
Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!

The fact of wide-spread to universal entropy says that there had to be a beginning. If there weren't any beginning, entropy would have caused a space/time equilibrium long ago, and no complexity would exist at all.

Since there was a beginning, there was a beginning of cause and effect. The beginning of cause and effect was the Great First Cause. It Itself may or may not have had a cause of its own. But if it did, that kind of a cause would have been so far beyond the area where mankind can think that we wouldn't understand it at all. Why not? Consider a First Cause that is so great that It could move countless subatomic particles and waves to produce the universe of today through thousands of years of cause and effect activity. Such a thing is simply mind boggling, way beyond the mind of man.

Caught up in religion? That's exactly what the adamant atheist is.

If a person never thought about it, he might be an atheist without having a religion of atheism.

When there is science that proves God - or even if it doesn't, it comes very close - atheistic believers in science can't be atheists and not have a religion. Perhaps if there wasn't any evidence whatsoever for God, or if there happened to be only evidence that suggested God didn't exist, then atheism might not be a religion.

Just because someone says, "I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion... ," doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about, or that he isn't a liar.

Check the dictionary definition of "religion" at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. All atheism is, is a bunch of dreamers who want something so badly that they are unwilling to even recognize that it might be some other way. That in itself is part of what a religion can be and very often is.

By the evidence, atheism is a religion.

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

Why are you unsure? I already gave you multiple proofs that causality is a scientific law (bolded). Now what do you think about these proofs?
You don't realize that these questions were already answered by Herbert Spencer. All of science rests upon the principle that everything has a cause, and all experiments are conducted in an effort to learn more about the true cause (source). I strongly encourage you to read Spencer's First Principles.

I'm not sure what to think -- I was asking you. Do you think that everything has to come from somewhere -- yes or no?

What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?

In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science!
So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates).

BADECKER:

For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don't care that what they are saying really doesn't make any sense.

Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy. There are, after all, all sorts of secular philosophies of life, none of which are religions.

Source:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/fl/Atheism-Myths-Is-Atheism-a-Religion.htm

ORGANOFCORTI:

When we inquire what is the meaning of the effects produced on our senses — when we ask how there come to be in our consciousness impressions of sounds, of colours, of tastes, and of those various attributes we ascribe to bodies, we are compelled to regard them as the effects of some cause. We may stop short in the belief that this cause is what we call matter. Or we may conclude, as some do, that matter is only a certain mode of manifestation of spirit, which is therefore the true cause. Or, regarding matter and spirit as proximate agencies, we may ascribe the changes wrought in our consciousness to immediate divine power. But be the cause we assign what it may, we are obliged to suppose some cause. And we are obliged not only to suppose some cause, but also a first cause. The matter, or spirit or other agent producing these impressions on us, must either be the first cause of them or not. If it is the first cause the conclusion is reached. If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause.

Source:
http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

It is called cause and effect, and it is exemplified in Newton's 3rd Law.

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

Actually, it is quite easy to understand.

We all seem to have a handle on the life we live. Our experience keeps us thinking that things will go on into the future as they have in the past. Few of us realize that we don't know anything at all about our future. A sudden car accident proves this out.

This is why we have religion. Religion allows us a way to combine the fact that we know so extremely little, with the security we need to operate effectively in life. Atheism is simply another form of religion, one which allows a person with the mind-set of an atheist to live life with a semblance of security.

The fact that the atheist says or thinks that atheism isn't a religion, shows a blind spot in his mind, the likes of which all people of all religions have. We can all find religions that seem stupid to us. We might respect the people of those other religions. But we see aspects of stupidity in them that the believers of those religions don't see.

It's the same with the atheist. He sees aspects of other religions that he believes are stupid. And he doesn't see that he is doing this in religion-like fashion. The atheist wants to be strong. He wants to be secure in life without religion. So, he has set himself to believe that his atheism is not a religion. But, because he is human, he must have religion just like all the other people. He has only created for himself a religion of non-religion in atheism.

Yes, it's true.
I post interesting things.
The subject is life, GOD, rebirth.
I am discussing with OP and others.
My posts in this thread are the context.
You have to read my posts to see the context.
If you don't read my posts, you will think there is no context.
All of my posts are relevant, this quote by Eliot happens to be broad and ambiguous.
If you fail to think about what I post then you will find it challenging to ask any fruitful questions.
I refuse to accept OP's authority that awareness ends at death; he could just as easily say that it ends when you fall asleep!
I find it puzzling that atheists like OP are stating that we did not exist; why can't they just ask the question "where did we come from?" like the rest of us? 

Back it up just a second, let me make sure I understand what you're saying -- you just post stuff apropos of nothing in particular, just stuff you find interesting?

My posts are the context; I am leading this discussion to more fruitful ground, but first I need to clear up some things:

OP would like to ignore the scientific studies/observations and totally side-step the issue of rebirth (cycles) and the TRUE meaning of this life.
OP says that we are prisoners here; if this is our prison then what exactly is the reason for us being here?
I doubt that all of this "prison" stuff just caused itself by way of simple mechanism; that is absurd! Simple mechanism cannot yield the brain; according to the latest scientific tests, simple mechanism cannot even yield a functioning worm brain! Something is missing from the simple mechanistic understanding of mind.

Unfortunately, OP refuses to engage with the four points of evidence that Hammeroff puts forward. OP fails to realize that even a prison is there for a purpose; there is no prisoner without a prison and likewise there is no prison without a prisoner! OP thinks that he will be "executed", but he has no reason for thinking that his awareness will perish; everything indicates that awareness is cyclical, but one who holds to the physicalist materialist dogma will not entertain any alternative ideas.

Look at how OP brushes aside ALL relevant criticisms before even giving them a second thought; talk about closed-minded!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14473782

I don't know everything, but I question the OP, and I think I know what I'm talking about!



By the way, OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true.  Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

That cannot be right; I will provide a counterexample: All humans who use reason have the ability to come to a conclusion about ethical behavior. They are thereby compelled to behave ethically, and thereby they are good in their actions. A person's actions at any time may be good, so it is false to say that a person could be eternally bad.

If it were true [that what is good is undecidable by the human mind and impossible for man generally] it would mean that human reason is utterly irrational in asking the ethical questions it cannot answer, while asserting emphatically that only reason can answer our ethical dilemmas.

All people have meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning (purpose). The first step in self-actualization is to recognize and obey the LAWS OF GOD, by understanding them you will be able to become an effective servant of GOD.

Life is short, but this is a fact about nature, not man's character per se. Man carries the spirit of GOD, but man is also part of nature, so each one has a purpose for being here.

How do you know that this time-space is the only awareness and the only life that will ever exist or has ever existed for you? Maybe you have already lived a thousand lives and in some of them you may have even lived a thousand years? Since you have the spirit of GOD within you, you are already eternal.
It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

You have not justified the opinion that all people are bad, so there is no reason for any individual to "know" that he is bad; it is simply not proven.

Yes, but it is only the pattern that is in us. We have no strength to exercise that which is within us. Rather, we travel a path that is laid out for us, even though much of the time we feel that we are the one laying out our own path for ourselves.

What exactly did you post this in relation to? Without context it could mean anything.