Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 79. (Read 89022 times)

Too "qwik2learn" the wrong thing. Just wanted to say that.     

These cases describe valid perceptions that did occur (correct and obscure facts were remembered by the patient, so it was obviously not imagination) and these perceptions were verified by medical staff (reliable witnesses) to take place during a certain time. Since the observation and timing details were independently provided by many impartial observers, it cannot be dismissed as unreliable. Nothing is embellished in this case, Dr. Parnia is well within his academic prudence to make the following claims:

This suggestion that you allege is not borne out by medical facts; we already determined that neurons do not have activity after 40 seconds and that brain activity (and brain function) does not return until blood flow is restored. There is NO evidence that brain function can be restored before blood flow is restored, so you have not met your burden of proof for your assertion that these neurons still show activity after 40 seconds.

You change the rules of the scientific method (quoting some lunatics and calling them visionaries), call scientifically proven conclusions I can only qualify as pure delusions, deny realities you can see frequently with your own eyes (try to talk to a corps and then tell me that "there is no evidence for the cessation of awareness upon death"), how can you seriously want to have a rational debate?

I like your willingness to discuss these issues, but you are eluding your self with anecdotal cases that, at best, suggest that neurons can still have some activity even one or two minutes without blood flow.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence for the cessation of awareness upon death.
Medical science showing that awareness does not end upon cessation of brain function:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/there-is-life-after-death-scientists-reveal-shock-findings-1475732

Is there actually any evidence for this claim that the destiny of your awareness is nothingness? OP makes the same claim but he also has no evidence, and there is strong evidence to the contrary:

"It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness."


I criticize the OP's theory that the brain is a generator of consciousness; the evidence points to a role more like that of a transmitter, but OP does not want to discuss that evidence with me in detail.
You can find your criticisms of the transmission hypothesis addressed in Irreducible Mind and other related publications, including ones I have cited for this thread.

A microbe scientifically examining a water molecule probably won't find much in the line of proof for either God or mankind.

I am an atheist cause i can't see any proofs of God, i beleive on science and if they will proof that god exist, i will change my mind instantly, everybody will.

My text have other important arguments beside the ones you picked.
Anyway:
1) Social consequences: This argument in based on a factual assertion, so it's simple.
You have here the full article: https://www.academia.edu/19164068/The_Negative_Association_between_Religiousness_and_Children_s_Altruism_across_the_World
The article doesn't says religious kids "have more more empathy and sensitivity for justice then children in non-religious households". Says that their parents said that, which is a different thing.
Read the full text: "Parents of Children from Christian Households View Their Children as More Sensitive to Injustices toward Others" (p. 2954, figure 4). "Consistent with research linking religiousness and adult self-reports of moral behavior, frequency of religious attendance, spirituality, and overall religiousness predicted parent-reported child sensitivity to the plight of others (empathy and sensitivity to justice). Religious individuals consistently score higher than non-religiousones on self-reported measures of socially desirable responding [26]. This previous literature, coupled with the currentfindings,supports an internal consistency in adults’ self-assessments of their moral dispositions and extends to their beliefs about their children." (P. 2953).
The article mocks those self-reports.
It would be a surprise if after failing on altruism, religious kids would win on empathy or non punitive justice.
There are some religions that have a complex of "chosen" people that will go to heaven compared with the "infidels" that will burn in hell and, so, are more or less a distinct kind of human, doomed to the flames, unworthy of the same respect. Most people convinced that they own the truth will be intolerant to the "others".
This kind of thought, which is the basis of the inquisition, still exists. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasons for these results.
Your health praises of religion are like considering religion as a kind of Prozac or Ecstasy. One lives happy in one's delusion.
I prefer to be haunted by my destiny of nothingness, than live under an illusion (as I wrote here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14296644), especially one that I think has serious social consequences.
I admit that this might have negative consequences on individual health. But it's absurd to believe in god for health reasons. It's like defending that we should be permanently high in order to be happy.
On Pascal's wager, or the "prudential reason to believe in God", I more or less mock it on my 11 point. It isn't honest.
But I'll have to evaluate more empirical studies, including the one you quoted.
2) If you read John Rawls' Theory of Justice you will realize that atheism/secularism doesn't need a god to justify Ethics. I'm no nihilist on Ethics as is clear on the next point.
3) I'm appalled by your attempt to justify the quoted passage of the Exodus.
What is written there is beyond any justification under current Ethics. It seems your problem is only with the punishment of the third and forth generation, no problem with the sons being punished by the sins of their parents, even if they believe in the "right god" and are good persons.
I think the current disastrous birth rate rate on western countries has little to do with religiosity. Even if it seems clear that religion induces people to have children, it isn't the lack of it that makes people stop having them. The reason is economic: people don't need to have children, the state/corporation pays their pension (until it soon goes bankrupt, then they will start having babies again).
Anyway, god won't punish only the atheists, but also believers on other gods. And those have been on Earth for more than 50,000 years. There would be plenty of generations to punish.
I don't see the point on debating the clear immorality of main rules of the Torah. If you can't see it on your own, you seem to live in a world with no modern individual rights.
4) Your theory on the Brain's role as a transmitter is precisely what I criticize.
You didn't explained how we lose conscience when the brain is injured/hill and why when the brain recovers we can't remember anything. If it was a transmitter, we should remember everything during the black out of the brain. It should be only an interruption of the "transmission".

The father is sitting on the armchair. On the end table next to the armchair is his drink in a glass. His little 3-y-o daughter is sitting on his lap.

Have you ever watched a child play with the hands of a parent? The little girl was playing, lovingly, with her father's hand. She would turn the hand this way and that. She would bend the wrist. She would open and close the hand finger by finger.

Finally, in her play, she lifted her father's hand and arm, and moved it so that his hand was on the end table. She opened her father's hand, and wrapped his fingers around the glass that held her father's drink. Then, she lifted his hand and arm, and twisted his wrist. The glass tipped, and the drink went all over the floor.

Now, tell me. Who dumped the drink, dad or his daughter? Do you think that the little girl had any kind of strength and control to actually mover her father's hand the way she did? And her father certainly would not have intentionally dumped the drink if he had been sitting there alone, or if his daughter had not done the things she did.

God is all powerful. But, he has given us certain control and freedom, while maintaining His power to Himself. In other words, we can do nothing at all, except that God is there exerting Himself in ways that make us feel like we did it.

This whole universe operation is far greater than we think or imagine. The enemy, the Devil, Satan, is also like the little girl in that his entire ability comes from God. God, for His pleasure in giving us freedom, has allowed us and Satan to move his hands and fingers at certain times and in certain ways.

It doesn't affect God in the least how we use our freedom... except that He is emotionally distraught when we hurt ourselves. But, because He has set our freedom in place, through using some of His power to enact it (our freedom), God let's us hurt ourselves if we want. And He lets Satan hurt us to some extent, although if you look in the beginning of Job, you will see that God has limits even on Satan.

In the little story, above, the father has the ability to clean up the mess his daughter made (but, mother probably did it while disdaining the foolishness of the game her husband was playing with their daughter). In similar ability, God has the strength to clean up the mess that we and Satan made of our lives. But, this is where the similarities between the above story and the reality of life end.

In reality, God does things in the wisest way. We are allowed our freedom. God will clean up the mess at the end, in the judgment. The difference in reality is that those people who truly forsake God will be destroyed along with Satan (who has set himself entirely against God).

God maintains control, maintains His love without turning, maintains justice even though it will only be clearly exercised in the judgment, maintains a place appropriate for us His faithful followers in Heaven, maintains wisdom in the best way in how He does things.

There is a whole lot more to the operation of this life than is apparent on the outside.

Wrong.

It went like this:

All power is God's.

God gave power and freedom to some angels, for His and their joy and glory.

Satan, one of the angels, was given great authority for caring for people.

Satan, in his freedom, turned evil and went against God and man.

Man was tricked by Satan into becoming evil.

God prepared a plan to root evil out of everything.

This plan included:
-    New Heavens and New Earth;
-    Destruction for the Old (this one);
-    The right to freely be destroyed with the Old or join Him in the New.

Satan and many of the angels decided to buck God's plan, have lost in their bucking effort, and will be destroyed with the old.

The offering still stands for mankind.

The interesting thing is that Satan and his demons are now locked in to their position. They asked for it this way, and God gave it to them.

Most living people who do not understand God are not locked in to their future position. Those who are saved virtually are locked in to the New. A few of the knowledgeable unsaved are locked in to the Old and destruction. How about you? Are you so completely adamant in your direction against God that you can never be changed? Or is there still some slight hope for you.

Change, before you are locked into your way of destruction along with this Old Universe.

So... you're saying... it went more like this?

High Stakes Intelligent Designing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg

and this?

The King of Kings' Speech [Bible slavery]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDgCnoCMf9k

A reasonably powerful enemy did this.

God is correcting it with the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Jesus work on the cross did two things:
1. It kept this universe from being destroyed for a time, so that we would have time to live;
2. It opened the option for those who accept salvation to go to the New Place.

Since everything operates on principle, you need to believe in the salvation to get to the New Place.

Simple. Your true self is the physical body you were born with. Without any definitions. Neither fat nor beautiful. Not white nor red. Just an instance of life/existence.
Your purported self is your physical body equipped with all of the definitions you have acquired throughout your life. It's like wearing a super heavy armor on top of your relatively light true self.

Your purported self is like an adapter plug that allows you to fit in with others. It generates a common ground that is universally recognized within the human world.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with spending time grooming your purported self but because the purported self is only a layer on top of the true self, the issues it faces/tackles/resolves are largely superficial. Hence the unease when contemplating death. Death is the termination of your true self first and foremost.

How can you see the beauty without seeing the ugly too?

Did your all-loving god create HIV, cancer, smallpox, floods, drought, malaria, flesh-eating bacteria, leukemia, and poisonous snakes (to name a few)?

I just want to say that you are only denying the existence of God. How can you came up with the idea of God. Since you know Him, He exists. Another is that maybe it is your personal experience that make yourself distance from God. Try to observe in your surroundings. Can't you see how beautiful His creation? Well I respect your view but I am not convinced with it.

Neither does the evidence favor atheism:


OP believed that it would be impossible to know of awareness after death, but he decided to stop responding to me as soon as we started discussing anoxia, brain function, and the timeline of awareness (see below). There is also a lot of supporting evidence from many different classes of phenomena that refutes the idea that awareness ends at death.

Even skeptic Chris French admitted that validating the formation of perception and memory during such a time-frame would suggest that consciousness is not being generated by the brain. Take a close look at the timeline! If one is "rational," then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.


It's time for OP to admit that I have given a satisfactory counterexample to his unsupported idea that awareness ends at death:


My first assertion is that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My second assertion is regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).
These points demolish OP's assertion that the brain came from "eternal nothing". In fact, these points of mine are part of a scientific consensus:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

For example, Louis Pasteur strongly stated his agreement with these assertions (quote omitted).

"Whatever sense we make of this world... depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously to conclude from that evidence… What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love." Accordingly, we can see that even in the growing numbers of non-religious people in the US, many are choosing NOT to go with atheism because it poses a clear health risk; fully 30% of the share identifying as “nothing in particular” are also affirming that religion is either “very” or “somewhat” important to them. So 30% of those who don't have a religion, still have a somewhat serious faith (not serious doubt).
Also, 53% of those raised as religiously unaffiliated still identify as “nones” in adulthood. That means that the odds of maintaining your religious unaffiliation (and therefore your serious doubts) is about 50:50, which is not impressive.
 "A devout life is... mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will. A devout life enables one to build these habits and most importantly successfully pass them on to our children."
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/health-and-religion-1373864