It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why do Atheist believe we cease to exist at death?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut
An 'absence of belief in God' is an item in the great set of 'absence of belief'.

You do realize that rocks are 'atheist' by your definition.

As I said "persistent vegetative state".




Rocks can't believe anything at all. I can. I can believe lots of stuff. I just don't believe in what a lot of people call a God that's all.


So how is an absence of belief, a belief?

Perhaps it is ony a belief that it is an absence of belief, or it might be an absence of belief that it is a belief but then that leads to the possibility that it is only a belief that it is an absence of belief that it is a belief which then one may conclude is really an absence of belief that it is a belief that it is an absence of belief that it is a belief, or it could be only a belief that it is an absence of belief that it is a belief that it is an absence of belief that it is a belief or...

Damn, the old Chinese mirror trick! I should have seen that one coming!





posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: neoholographic

What would evidence of "Non-Existence" be???

To measure something or show something that exists it must be something first. It must have a property that can be shown. Non-Existence or Nothing has no properties which I can show. Therefore what evidence could I possible have for it???


YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION!!!

There's no evidence of non existence at death. This is why you have no scientific evidence. You said to measure something it must be first. EXACTLY, and Socrates was measured from 470/469 – 399 BC. When he died, he didn't just disentigrate and vanish into thin air. Science doesn't support such nonsense.

All of his thoughts, feelings and ideas are energy and information. This information is conserved it doesn't just vanish. There's nothing that equates death with ceasing to exist. This is why you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support such an absurd notion.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Actually, from what I've found is that when you start getting to first causes and stuff like that, words seem to just get in the way. It becomes a battle of symbols and meanings that either overlap or they start losing meaning making it impossible to even use them.

It's almost like once you start getting close to some kind of real answer at that level of understanding it becomes something that is experienced for the moment and however long you can stay in that moment but that's it. Once you're out of it the quality of it fades and eventually you can start explaining the blurry idea of it with words again but that is all. You can never lock it down or take it with you exactly or translate it to language or symbols. It just IS and it IS what it IS but only for as long as you can look at it. Everything else is just reflecting it or is a shadow of it.

The simulation argument is interesting and solves some questions until you start looking for the first simulation. Then you end up in the same position we are in now. It makes no difference if this is a simulation or not other than the details. Whether it's the 1st time or the millionth one inside of a million others the root of them all is still the mystery we're looking to answer and we can't seem to find a way there yet.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, well. I would say a true lack of belief would have to like your disbelief in a "Hoomtaka". The reason being is that you have no idea what a "Hoomtaka" even is, although now you do know it's name. So in that case you had a true non-belief in "Hoomtaka" because before now you didn't even know it's name or anything at all about it. It just never existed at all until now, not even in name.

That would be a true lack of belief I think. God is said to be many different things and even different Gods depending upon who you're talking to. So while I may know that name and have different concepts of what God may or may not be I don't consider that to be enough to say I believe in God. Because I have no idea what is correct or not correct in all those descriptions and concepts. It's just a random blur of stuff. Imaginative stuff as far as I can tell.

So while that may not be as true of a non-belief as it could be had I never even heard the word God or any descriptions, it's still close enough for me to say I lack belief in God. Mainly because I have no idea what God even is so how the hell could I believe in God. It's like you believing in Hoomtaka. How could you believe in Hoomtaka since you wouldn't even know what it is without me telling you first.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Interesting.

I dont see it that way but I have in the past. It does get hard to focus on.

For me it seems as though something would have to exist as a first cause or prime mover. As you have pointed out without going into infinite regress there has to be something outside the system that is a constant.

Also the observation necessary for reality seems to be an issue. A conscious being can't fathom a world with no conscious observers. The quantum world doesnt exist without observation or at the minimum have a physical location. Is it possible an conscious observer is necesary? I think so. Everything i understand about cosmology poimts to this.

But honestly I have no idea. Certainly not enough to have a belief that makes me think someone elaes is wrong.
edit on 18-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I see what you're saying. I think the problem here is that we're using two different ideas of what it means to Exist.

You're including Existence to be Every Time and every possible dimension whether accessible or or not.

Basically you're saying that everything always exists even if we don't have access to it. Also that all time exists even if we aren't or can't experience it.

That's fine I guess but that is a very different way to use Exist. Because anything that I can't experience or even know of because it isn't within access for me, doesn't exist other than just being a fantasy of mine. Now, it could be that since I can imagine something it might therefore "Exist" somewhere outside of this reality. But it's outside this reality so it makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. It could exist or it could not exist and I'd never know about it.

So if you're right and it's outside this reality, science will never be able to prove or disprove it. Not without proving or disproving all the things that go along with it like what dimension it is in and all that.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
That never made any sense to me. Wh


Well the question itself is based on a false premise as explained in this topic, and every other topic that comes along

Atheism is a stance on deities...just that...nothing else. In this case, they do not believe in deities
Theism is exactly the same thing..a stance on deities. In this case, they believe in deities

Gnostics and Agnostics are then with or without knowledge
Agnostic-atheist = I dont know of any deities, therefore I wont believe in any
Agnostic-atheist = I dont know if there are deities, but there may be, I will believe in one (or many) because who knows

Gnostic atheist = I know by magic there are no gods
Gnostic theist = I know by magic there are gods.


As far as thoughts of a afterlife...you can have plenty of atheists who are deeply spiritual, crystal gazing ouija board using folks, etc...that is like asking why people who dont believe in the lochness monster doesn't believe in aliens..totally seperate things.


I think your question then are, Why are skeptics..skeptical about continuing after death.
Once you ask the right question, you may get some less religious answers.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's no evidence of non existence at death.

You cant prove a negative.

Lets switch gears
Do tapeworms have souls?
Viruses?
Fruitflys?
Dogs?
Hamsters?
Neandertals?
Amoebas?
Bacteria?

What qualifies to have a immortal soul and sense of self, and what doesn't?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong exactly. Because I can't say anyone is right or wrong about this. Nobody can honestly.

First, you have to be very clear on the terms. Like now, we need to really lock down what is meant by Existence. What does that mean. What is existence vs. non-existence.

But you see once again that puts us right back at the paradox point again, staring into the void. Because we're basically trying to define infinity or even multiple infinities in limited terms. Our words are going to fall apart and lose their meaning again.

"If God is everything than what came before God?? Nothing"

But do those words even make any sense when you think about it??? Nothing doesn't come before Anything because it's nothing. At best everything exist with Nothing (even though nothing doesn't really exist).

It's like music. What would the sound of music be without the pauses inbetween??? What makes music?? Is it the sound or is it the pauses that break up the sound???
edit on 18-10-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

?∃(x)(Fx)

You can most definatelty prove a negative.

I can prove there is not a Porshe in my garage.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: neoholographic
That never made any sense to me. Wh


Agnostic-atheist = I dont know of any deities, therefore I wont believe in any
Agnostic-atheist = I dont know if there are deities, but there may be, I will believe in one (or many) because who knows

Gnostic atheist = I know by magic there are no gods
Gnostic theist = I know by magic there are gods.


Sorry, but not everyone falls into neat little pigeonholes.
I am for want of a better term an empirical atheist.
I also have observed that theism must be taught and appears to be nurture not nature based.
I look forward to the day when people realise that unless they acknowledge ALL the creator myths. not just the one they believe, they are also an atheist.
At the same time I do not know if death of the physical shell is the end.
I do know I want to delay it



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible

I look forward to the day when people realise that unless they acknowledge ALL the creator myths. not just the one they believe, they are also an atheist.


That's what I keep saying. Believers always think of non-Believers (of God obviously) as something totally different than themselves, but they aren't.

If you believe in one God, say the Christian God, your only one God away from being an atheist. Both you and the Atheist don't believe in all the other Gods just the same. It's just that the Christian decided to hold on to that last one and the Atheist doesn't.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
So, OP if this entire reality is a Hologram, so is the Energy you say we never lose but rather change upon death.

Holographic energy Is still not 'real'. You can't definitively state we change but never die because you simply don't know.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I dont think you are sating anyone is wrong you seem to be careful with words and are reasonable.

However, your ignoring infinite regress here. You can't have an arguement need to be tied to another and another.

It seems to me something outside of the system that has existed always is one explanation and a rational one. Not superstious at this point.

I am also referring to the anthropic principle and how it may relate to requiring an observer at least in our universe with our rules. For instance a designer that could have become the universe itself and no longer exists as a conscious being could still fit this discription..just like AI we design the design would be "of its image"

For me it comes down to how or why would something exiat without a conscious observer? If that is true we are not the first and only.

I think this relates by the posibility of a multiverse. Perhaps our choices alone lead us to other realities withput physically travelling.

If we are in a simulation its also possible we are outside the system and therefor not really these meatbags at all. More like my wifi analysis. The brainwaves just being the receiver end. Not really the source.

Just trying to talk metaphysics without blasting away with my own opinions.


Music in my opinion is in between the notes. The anticipation of returning home, maybe you get there maybe you dont.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, well. I would say a true lack of belief would have to like your disbelief in a "Hoomtaka". The reason being is that you have no idea what a "Hoomtaka" even is, although now you do know it's name. So in that case you had a true non-belief in "Hoomtaka" because before now you didn't even know it's name or anything at all about it. It just never existed at all until now, not even in name.

That would be a true lack of belief I think. God is said to be many different things and even different Gods depending upon who you're talking to. So while I may know that name and have different concepts of what God may or may not be I don't consider that to be enough to say I believe in God. Because I have no idea what is correct or not correct in all those descriptions and concepts. It's just a random blur of stuff. Imaginative stuff as far as I can tell.

So while that may not be as true of a non-belief as it could be had I never even heard the word God or any descriptions, it's still close enough for me to say I lack belief in God. Mainly because I have no idea what God even is so how the hell could I believe in God. It's like you believing in Hoomtaka. How could you believe in Hoomtaka since you wouldn't even know what it is without me telling you first.


Too late!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Holy crap. There really is a Hoomtaka!!

As far as I knew I just made that word up right there in that post.

Guess I should have picked a different name and then verified that nobody else used it already.

In that case change mine from Hoomtaka to Hoomtakalikiliki-sonomurakachaz and keep the rest the same.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Noncompatible

I look forward to the day when people realise that unless they acknowledge ALL the creator myths. not just the one they believe, they are also an atheist.


That's what I keep saying. Believers always think of non-Believers (of God obviously) as something totally different than themselves, but they aren't.

If you believe in one God, say the Christian God, your only one God away from being an atheist. Both you and the Atheist don't believe in all the other Gods just the same. It's just that the Christian decided to hold on to that last one and the Atheist doesn't.


I know what Dick Dawkins said, and it might sound all reasonable 'n stuff, but no one really goes through a process of elimination that, if done dilligently, would likely take several lifetimes.

The usual process, however, is that you start out with no particular belief until faced with the undeniability of the object your faith (the numinous). Once you have found something that you are looking for, you usually stop looking.

So the "just rejecting one more God" proposition is not the case in actuality.

Also, 'rejecting one more God' is not compliant with non-cognisant unbelief. The rejection sounds like a conscious decision motivated by belief.

edit on 19/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT DEATH MEANS YOU CEASE TO EXIST?


The evidence of your own eyes. A dead body doesn't speak, doesn't move, it just rots. It rots till there is no flesh left and only the bones remain. It becomes fertiliser and helps plants to grow, implying that the life has indeed finished and has been recycled to enable other life to flourish.

Where is the evidence that death means you carry on?

The belief in survival is not derived from observation, which implies just the opposite. Rather it is in the teeth of the evidence.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

In a nutshell.
Do you remember you existed?
No?
That's why.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX

?∃(x)(Fx)

You can most definatelty prove a negative.

I can prove there is not a Porshe in my garage.

Thats proving a positive
there is positively no porsche. evidence based. The scope here you give is limited and directed at something measurable. When we are starting on the premise of something outside of measurement, aka: deities, ghosts, etc. Then its trying to prove something doesn't exist that is intangible to begin with.

Lets look at the god argument.

Reality exists independent of the observer..this reality exists how it exists regardless of what anyone thinks, therefore there is a ultimate true/falseness.
With that
There is no evidence of deities
There is no rational argument for deities.
Therefore, it is assumed there are no deities.
The only evidence here is evidence of absense. Therefore, until such a time where there is evidence of deities, then it must be considered a negative, at least until new evidence comes that can support the deity hypothesis.

It is not up to someone to disprove deities or ghosts as a concept...as it starts at a negative..no such thing.
Porches and garages are not negatives, they are known things.

Unicorns are another good example here. unicorns are just horses with a horn..sure..but we cant find much evidence for them outside of folklore. no bones, but hey, they are magical, when they die, they vaporize, no first hand account..but again...magic...peoples memories get wiped when they look away, etc.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join