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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible
Sorry, but not everyone falls into neat little pigeonholes.

Yes they do.


I am for want of a better term an empirical atheist.

Its agnostic-atheist


I also have observed that theism must be taught and appears to be nurture not nature based.

My dog is an agnostic-atheist (probably. dont see her praying too often)


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.

Well, if they acknowledge one, then they aren't an atheist, they just aren't necessarily polytheistic


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

I suspect there is more from personal observations. (makes no sense, but hey...quantum entanglement confuses me also)
And yeah, I am in no rush to get first hand info.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Actually no.

First off you can use falsifiability. Emperical evidence is not necesary particularly in physics where this is not possible or even mathematics.

Second it is completely unknown if reality exists oitside an observer, in your own definition of emperical science and falsifiability you can not know what hasnt been observered.

Explain how something exists if no conscious observers exist. Use ever have existed if you need this more clear.

If your talking Russel and his teapot that too has rebuttles.

God also has logical implication if you seperate it from miracles and folklore.

There is REASON to offer a first cause as a hypothesis. Or a designer, again the appearance of fine tuning and the anthropic principle are based in your own arguement of empericism.

Its basically medieval logic to say a negative cant be proven.


edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=21397665]luthier[/post
Second it is completely unknown if reality exists oitside an observer,

Prove that it doesnt.
Prove that you are not just a figment of my imagination.

You can't.

...therefore you are a figment of my imagination?

See how that works.
Reality is a baseline assumption. we live in reality, therefore science uncovers the nature of it. Saying reality isn't necessarily a real thing and we all may be the imagination of someone (Bob, God, a goat, etc) is just philosophy, not science and should then be ignored, it doesn't effect the reality percieved here.

If reality is a hologram, a false program, then still no difference..then science can be suggested the measurement of the limits and nature of the coding. point is, science is not a tool of philosophy...evidence is a tool of science, philosophy is what comes when you try to put meaning onto the evidence, but it is not in itself evidence.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Nope again.

It doesnt matter if I cant prove you exist. I can prove I exist. Even if its a simulation I am the observer and that is reality.

Look at the double slot? Do particles exist?

And no again on what philosophy is...that was some made up nonsense.

And by the way I can prove that reality doesnt exist without conscious observers existing, there is no one to observe it and therefor no purpose for conscious observation or reality as a concept. This is actually a priori.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: [post=21397665]luthier[/post
Second it is completely unknown if reality exists oitside an observer,

Prove that it doesnt.
Prove that you are not just a figment of my imagination.

You can't.

...therefore you are a figment of my imagination?

See how that works.
Reality is a baseline assumption. we live in reality, therefore science uncovers the nature of it. Saying reality isn't necessarily a real thing and we all may be the imagination of someone (Bob, God, a goat, etc) is just philosophy, not science and should then be ignored, it doesn't effect the reality percieved here.

If reality is a hologram, a false program, then still no difference..then science can be suggested the measurement of the limits and nature of the coding. point is, science is not a tool of philosophy...evidence is a tool of science, philosophy is what comes when you try to put meaning onto the evidence, but it is not in itself evidence.


It doesn't seem as if you understand philosophy or science.

Maybe start with Karl Popper to bring you into the modern era of science and philosophy you need to start at the beginning because science is nothing without philosophy. The question asked is philosophy and the answer is science or philosophy.

I think you assume applied science is all there is. I see this a lot with people who discredit theoretcial physics.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
And by the way I can prove that reality doesnt exist without conscious observers existing, there is no one to observe it and therefor no purpose for conscious observation or reality as a concept. This is actually a priori.


You are arguing illogically and keep spinning trying to prove a negative into a positive.

But whatever, I will hit this last point to show you the flaw in your logical conclusions here.

No one to observe it..by who's standard? Even if nobody is around, there may be a deity that is percieving the universe and all things, therefore there is always an observer, therefore there is always existance.
makes the same exact sense as saying it doesn't when nobody is around. You have to prove nobody is around to observe...not sure how you do that..thats proving a negative on unknowable things...which brings us back to the whole starting..you cant prove a negative in such matters (unless it is a very specific and narrow physical search...aka, prove there is no car in the garage)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Maybe start with Karl Popper to bring you into the modern era of science and philosophy you need to start at the beginning because science is nothing without philosophy. The question asked is philosophy and the answer is science or philosophy.

I think you assume applied science is all there is. I see this a lot with people who discredit theoretcial physics.


Science without philosophy is..science. its just a tool used to measure stuff.

applied science is what is being discussed here in this thread. not political science or anything else. we are discussing what is and isn't "real" as best we can determine based on the principles observed in this reality with the tools we have.

We cannot disprove a deity, as that is a unknowable thing that has no way to measure. Not sure why you want to push philosophy here, but it isn't part of the discussion no more than wine tasting is.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Science would not exist without philosophy.

Empericism was first a philosphy. Falsifiability was first a philosophy.

Your statement again is false.

Note: without a conscious observor. Not "anybody"

See this is why philosophy is so important so you understand even your own arguement.

And no we are not talking about applied science. That is engineering. We are talking about theoretical science. Namely metaphysics and cosmology.

Have you ever heard of thought expirements? No.

Well when I say there is no conscious observer that is what the case is. Thought expirements are an important part of science and philosophy.

You know like that pesky cat in the box.

Still wondering what your take is on the double slot as well.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




So life is just part of a cycle of life and death and it never ceases to exist. Your thoughts and memories are energy and information. This is what makes me distinct from you. How can this cease to exist?
]

The problem with the whole concept of life after death or reincarnation is that it seemingly applies mostly to human life rather than to all life within the universe...

I mean you don't hear to many people recollecting a day to day life as a dung beetle of some sort in a far away galaxy, it's usually something like I was Albert Einstein,Julius Caesar or I was a wolf in a past life. It's never droll or mundane and it also seems to revolve around one particular planet. What about simple cellular life forms like Bacteria or Viruses. As I said before it seems this concept is exclusively applied to very specific forms of life.

I'm not suggesting that this invalidates the afterlife entirely but what evidence is there to suggest from an objective view point that lifeforms exist beyond this state of being?
edit on 10pm31America/Chicago3102America/Chicagopm1002 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

If the being is incapable of memory chances are it wont remember anything.


But your right the same memory capablity should be accessed by any being with a memory.

However we have no idea what happens at death we can find what is false that is about it. We know you dont get up and dance 6 days later. For all we know we go to another dimension or make some sort of transition we are incapable at this time of knowing.

Theoretical ideas can also be tried and falsified. If you study cosmology the leading concepts are pretty hard to grasp for people who think a door is solid because you can knock on it.

edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX

Science would not exist without philosophy.

Did the first man that used a tool to knock fruit out of a tree require philosophy? no..it was applied science, physics, etc. your statement makes no sense.



Empericism was first a philosphy. Falsifiability was first a philosophy.

Now you are talking methodology (the scientific method). way to move the goalpost



Your statement again is false.

I accept your apology. confusing science with popular methodology I guess is...sort of...kinda easy to make...sorta. I guess. I wont judge.


Note: without a conscious observor. Not "anybody"

Anybody = conscious observer....unless you care to prove undeniably what consciousness is and isn't, also weigh in 100% on any extradimensional creatures, sentient conscious micro-organisms, etc etc etc.

Can you prove there is no invisible aliens right behind you? (of course you cant...cant prove a negative)



See this is why philosophy is so important so you understand even your own arguement.

Its not unless you are discussing methodology and origins


And no we are not talking about applied science. That is engineering. We are talking about theoretical science. Namely metaphysics and cosmology.


Metaphysics is not science, its philosophy..discussing things of abstract designs like self and point of existance, things like that...I think, therefore I am is a good statement discussing metaphysics.

Cosmology is the study of the stars/universe. The speed of light and the distance between celestial bodies is what is discussed there, not the point of it all, just the observation

Fun convo though. You are wrong and splitting hairs now, but you know you are wrong.


Last thing...you cant prove anything..proof isn't a thing presented, its a thing concluded. evidence is all you can provide.

So lets go back full circle into your claim and do a very basic debunking.
I said you cannot prove a negative.
You said you can.
I challenge your claim
Prove no gods exist anywhere at any time.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Ok you really need philosophy.

Yes the person first thought "i bet i can get that apple down" then found a way to do it.

Without thinking about what, how, why there is no science.

This discussion is not applied science in any way. Its theorerical science.

Cosmology is not astronomy you are confused there. Its the study of origin and development of the universe. It can now be done without studying stars at all with particle colliders.

Methodology and science go hand in hand. The concepts always originate in philosophy.

How do I break a stick off to get the apple happens first.

You should look up proving negatives before you further that line of thinking.


Just because you can not prove a negative does not mean you cant prove negatives.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. So that and cosmology is exactly what this thread is about.


You actually believe cosmology is what you claim? If so you truly do not understand cosmology at all.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

You said:

Where is the evidence that death means you carry on?

First you need to provide evidence that something ceases to exist. We know things are transformed from one state to another, there's no evidence that anything in the universe stops carrying on. Everything is conserved.

So why would consciousness just vanish at death? That makes no sense. You can say we die but you can't say we cease to exist because there's not a shred of evidence to support it.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX

Science would not exist without philosophy.

Did the first man that used a tool to knock fruit out of a tree require philosophy? no..it was applied science, physics, etc. your statement makes no sense.



Empericism was first a philosphy. Falsifiability was first a philosophy.

Now you are talking methodology (the scientific method). way to move the goalpost



Your statement again is false.

I accept your apology. confusing science with popular methodology I guess is...sort of...kinda easy to make...sorta. I guess. I wont judge.


Note: without a conscious observor. Not "anybody"

Anybody = conscious observer....unless you care to prove undeniably what consciousness is and isn't, also weigh in 100% on any extradimensional creatures, sentient conscious micro-organisms, etc etc etc.

Can you prove there is no invisible aliens right behind you? (of course you cant...cant prove a negative)



See this is why philosophy is so important so you understand even your own arguement.

Its not unless you are discussing methodology and origins


And no we are not talking about applied science. That is engineering. We are talking about theoretical science. Namely metaphysics and cosmology.


Metaphysics is not science, its philosophy..discussing things of abstract designs like self and point of existance, things like that...I think, therefore I am is a good statement discussing metaphysics.

Cosmology is the study of the stars/universe. The speed of light and the distance between celestial bodies is what is discussed there, not the point of it all, just the observation

Fun convo though. You are wrong and splitting hairs now, but you know you are wrong.


Last thing...you cant prove anything..proof isn't a thing presented, its a thing concluded. evidence is all you can provide.

So lets go back full circle into your claim and do a very basic debunking.
I said you cannot prove a negative.
You said you can.
I challenge your claim
Prove no gods exist anywhere at any time.


Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that can not be tested.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Yes the person first thought "i bet i can get that apple down" then found a way to do it.

So you equate analysis and mechanical engineering with philosophy
you are cheapening the word to encompass any thought process.
tapping a key on a calculator is not philosophy, its routine analysis.



Cosmology is not astronomy you are confused there. Its the study of origin and development of the universe. It can now be done without studying stars at all with particle colliders.

and definition is:

cos·mol·o·gy
käzˈmäləjē/Submit
noun
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

it is basically the science involved in astronomy. regardless, it is not the same as metaphysics. metaphysics examines more the why it would happen, cosmology examines the how


Methodology and science go hand in hand. The concepts always originate in philosophy.

Yes, hand in hand, but not the same.
methodology is to science what recipes are to cooking. it is a way that is most efficient, but its not required..you can "accidentally science" things without following any methodology in the same way you can cook without knowing how to in the first place...methodology teaches efficient ways, but it isn't...the thing in itself, which is what you are saying.
hand in hand, yes. but different hands to begin with.


Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being

And the definition:

met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality

its not a study of the world in a actual physical sense, it is just pondering the stuff outside of measurable reality as stated. time and space are not in reference to relativity..you dont go from discussing the possibility of your seeking of desire and how it is from a sense of selfless etc to suddenly switch to particle physics and relativity..its the abstract concepts in reference here.


You actually believe cosmology is what you claim? If so you truly do not understand cosmology at all.

I dont have to have belief, I have google


btw, the double slit experiment is a very big question that goes beyond me...and you given its still being hotly debated about from the greatest minds on the planet.
We can just say that for now..it is a exciting field of consideration on the subject of material sciences and nature of reality.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
First you need to provide evidence that something ceases to exist.

I sang a song, the song ended, you could no longer hear the song, because it was no longer being sung.
it ceased to exist


So why would consciousness just vanish at death? That makes no sense. You can say we die but you can't say we cease to exist because there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

The song (consciousness) was on a CD (brain). It was a one of a kind CD, no backups, no cloud storage, literally just that one CD.
The CD got tossed in a fire. the information on the CD is no longer..it ceased to exist. Sure, the ashes from the CD are still here, but the song is gone for good.

we done?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I think its obvious at this point you are not familiar with cosmology or metaphysics. Which is what this thread is about.


Are you saying metaphysical philosophy, philosophy of physics, philosophers of time and space, particle physics, and expiremental theoretical physics are not included in the study of cosmology?

Just to be crystal clear you believe its applied science?

Tapping a key on a caculator is a physical action it has nothing to do with anlysis. If that was a metaphore its a bad one.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX

I think its obvious at this point you are not familiar with cosmology or metaphysics. Which is what this thread is about.


Lets go back to the thing you started with.. a direct question, lets forget all the other stuff that clearly we disagree with and go back to the beginning.
(NinjaAdd: I understand plenty of philosophical principles are added and tested in cosmology. it is the root, but I simply said cosmology and metaphysics arent the same thing. metaphysics is not science, cosmology is)


question:

Can you prove there are no gods?

yes or no and why

You suggested this could be done. I am wondering how you can do this
edit on 19-10-2016 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I never suggested it could be done. You decided to make a strawman.

I can make an arguement that a prime mover, or necesary observer/being makes logical sense.

Can you prove super strings are real?

And no you said cosmology was basic astronomy and did not include philosphy it was only observation.

What is so contested about the double slot test? There is not a hot debate at all. Particles can also act as a waveform of pribability. But they dont exist in a location without being observed. That is not co tested at all.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
You are confusing "atheists" with "materialists."

Plenty of Atheists and Agnostics are perfectly willing to accept that an afterlife is reality, and that we are eternal beings experiencing physical life on this planet. No "god" required. It just is what it is.

Afterlife as a fact is far apart from religious collegiality.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join