Atheists and Agnostics don't believe in God but want spread their nothing word

a reply to: DeadSeraph

An afterlife could be a natural extension to life that arose naturally in the universe. Maybe the afterlife works to funnel souls of the recently departed to some other purpose. Maybe reincarnation or to assimilate with the universe. I'm not saying I agree, but it's a possibility.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Its a logical fallacy to claim that there is an afterlife and an eternal soul, but no source to either.

That's your problem not mine.

I'm going on the semantics because that is what the words mean and how they were meant to be used.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I'm an agnostic. I know this because I refuse to believe that we can know for sure if god exists or not. Neither answer can be argued satisfactorily.

Why do some try to make this so difficult?

Agnostic --- God can not be proven or disproven. It is a default position, but the correct meaning is clear.

Atheist --- lack belief in a God. It doesn't mean they turn their brains off to ideas, opinions, philosophies.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Its a logical fallacy to claim that there is an afterlife and an eternal soul, but no source to either.

That's your problem not mine.

I'm going on the semantics because that is what the words mean and how they were meant to be used.

No, it really is your problem if you can't even describe your own belief system or provide a logical basis for why you believe what you do.

a reply to: Prezbo369

That is why radical atheists go out of their way to try and stomp out what they consider religion without realizing they themselves have a religion.

You're describing anti-theists not atheists.




Umm.....so is Richard Dawkins an atheist, an anti-theist, a nihilist or.....and which sect does he adhere to anyway?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
No, it really is your problem if you can't even describe your own belief system or provide a logical basis for why you believe what you do.

I don't have a belief "system", and even if I did, I don't see why it would need to be described, I also don't need to provide a logical basis to anyone. You're the one asking so the need seems to be yours.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeadSeraph

An afterlife could be a natural extension to life that arose naturally in the universe. Maybe the afterlife works to funnel souls of the recently departed to some other purpose. Maybe reincarnation or to assimilate with the universe. I'm not saying I agree, but it's a possibility.

Thank you for at least putting forth an attempt to explain this contradiction. My question still remains: Where did the soul come from? How is it the system of reincarnation (assuming it exists) was determined? Who determined the rules?

If we base our understanding of the known universe on our present understanding of cosmological evolution, our universe came into being from a big bang. How is it then that "souls" and an afterlife came into being from a random explosion of matter that just happened to give birth to the human species?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
No, it really is your problem if you can't even describe your own belief system or provide a logical basis for why you believe what you do.

I don't have a belief "system", and even if I, I don't see why it would need to be described and I also don't need to provide a logical basis to anyone. You're the one asking so the need seems to be yours.

If you are incapable of presenting a logical basis for your belief, you have lost the debate. Concede, or present your case.

Edit to add:

Furthermore, I think I have conclusively proven that atheism is a "belief".

a reply to: DeadSeraph

My debate is about words, their definitions and correct use.

a reply to: daskakik

I accept your concession.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Concession to what? You did not show that the words that we were discussing mean what you claim them to mean.

Without that you have proven nothing.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeadSeraph

An afterlife could be a natural extension to life that arose naturally in the universe. Maybe the afterlife works to funnel souls of the recently departed to some other purpose. Maybe reincarnation or to assimilate with the universe. I'm not saying I agree, but it's a possibility.

Thank you for at least putting forth an attempt to explain this contradiction. My question still remains: Where did the soul come from? How is it the system of reincarnation (assuming it exists) was determined? Who determined the rules?

I couldn't tell you. I don't make assumptions about things without evidence. Though if daskakik believes that enough evidence exists for an afterlife to exist, that doesn't necessarily mean that evidence exists to answer your questions. That's not how it works.

If we base our understanding of the known universe on our present understanding of cosmological evolution, our universe came into being from a big bang. How is it then that "souls" and an afterlife came into being from a random explosion of matter that just happened to give birth to the human species?

That is a good question. However we aren't entirely sure a soul exists, so hoping for enough evidence to answer this question is a tall order.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

It is a question of whether you believe the Universe coming into existence was by chance or design ...

The Big Bang theory shows only effect not cause ... IE what caused the Big Bang to occur

Science does not have the ultimate answer ... Nor does religion ... for belief in a God begs the question ... who or what made God

dbl post

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Concession to what? You did not show that the words that we were discussing mean what you claim them to mean.

Without that you have proven nothing.

I didn't need to prove anything. You did it for me. Atheism is a belief. One which you can't even adequately explain (or at least your own view of said belief).

You don't believe in a God yet you aren't a materialist. Your views are incompatible yet you insist they can be reconciled without even attempting to demonstrate how. Not only are you demonstrating a belief, you are demonstrating a faith.

If it is beyond your capacity to explain how atheism and an afterlife or an eternal soul are compatible, you have lost the debate and proven my point for me.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You do realize that the words and concepts exist outside of me.

I already said that it's plain as day just by looking at the definition of the words. I'm not debating something that is so obvious.

I consider myself an Atheist. Not because I don't believe in God or a divine being but simply because I don't know what to believe. When and if I experience some sort of enlightenment I'll change my opinion.

I find myself saying Christian comforts or offering my prayers to Christians and other Abahraimic faiths as a courtesy and out of respect but I don't preach anything to anyone and I don't want or expect them to preach their faith to me. That includes any form of faith.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DeadSeraph

You do realize that the words and concepts exist outside of me.

I already said that it's plain as day just by looking at the definition of the words. I'm not debating something that is so obvious.

Because you can't. That or you simply refuse to. You are simply falling back on the dictionary definition of the term "Atheist", as if disbelief in God somehow absolves you of the need to explain how a Godless universe could accommodate a soul or an afterlife.

a reply to: Kukri

I consider myself an Atheist. Not because I don't believe in God or a divine being but simply because I don't know what to believe. When and if I experience some sort of enlightenment I'll change my opinion.

Then you should reconsider how you define your beliefs.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Because you can't. That or you simply refuse to. You are simply falling back on the dictionary definition of the term "Atheist", as if disbelief in God somehow absolves you of the need to explain how a Godless universe could accommodate a soul or an afterlife.

I don't have that need. You are the one that seems to have that need because you keep asking.

It's the same mistake that people make when discussing evolution.