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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: neoholographic

I died twice in life and you do not cease to exist. Your energy form (spirit) or consciousness goes on. Everything in the universe, in existence is connected through this field of energy. It is an amazing experience and ended any apprehension of death of the physical body. I learned new things in death that I had not known in this existence in this body. It was kind of like being in a dark room with a fish tank full of life and no light either. Then the light in the tank clicks on and you are instantly aware of everything in the tank. That was the way the universe was. I became aware of everything. I also connected to a universal consciousness that was like receiving terabytes of information every second. It was overwhelming and you couldn't analyze it. Like you said, you can neither create nor destroy energy. The physical body is history.


Just as I've "known" (suspected, intuited) all of my current life.
Thank you, and please, do point us to your stories.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


If Reincarnation is true then why don't you have any knowledge of who you were in the past???

Who said you don't? There is a reason that newborns and babies dream, that they don't speak. That we all FORGET what it was like to be a fetus and newborn and toddler.......


If you were someone else then that wasn't you know so at some point that old you ceased to exist in place of the new you.

No.

In between is classroom/seminar time. You take it easy, confer with your ethereal posse. You think, and review, and marinate in your newly learned lessons. Eventually, if you still haven't achieved the level you've decided all along to attain, you come back. You try again. The new lessons are already on the syllabus. You just don't get to see it after you've returned.

Old souls. Wisdom. Sages. "Messiahs."



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think people get confused about atheism and its hard and soft forms so to speak.

In my opinion a strong atheist should almost be another word. Simce it does actually have a belief in god. The belief is it/he/she doesnt exist.

Before I "converted" to pandiesm/panthiesm I was always asked "how can you believe god doesnt exist". I was always trying to explain most atheists besides the loudmouths dont have any beliefs about god. They just mainly object to the folkstories and super natural aspects that god interacts with people.

If I say I am a panthiest (sort of) people just scratch there head.
edit on 19-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Essentially people say we cease to exist because they are using a form of an arguement of ignorance.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I still maintain that there is no "belief in god" necessary to be aware that life continues after our physical death.

It is impertinent to even entertain the idea, let alone to anthropomorphize said 'entity.' Buddha himself (Siddhartha Gautama) said it was inappropriate to even try to come up with a description.

Language does not give us free reign. There are things that are indescribable with any words we know. Like, looking into the eyes of your child for the first time. Or experiencing a sublime moment or witnessing a view that is beyond description.
That is why artists exist.

We try to articulate through products that are tangible what is not easily described with our own vocabularies. For example, recently I ran my fingers along a lush ostrich plume, and the only word I could think of was "invisible." It was so soft it was invisible.



Our souls are eternal. We're all in this together, inextricably. No one is going to be sequestered to heaven or hell. There is no "judge" waiting for us except for our ethereal guides, which are not "gods."

Yes, there is a "Supreme Oneness" to which we all belong.
Just like the microbes in my gut are part of me, we humans on Earth are part of "God."


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



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I can agree.

I think cosmologicaly there are some decent arguements that something would have to exist outside the system and program the prime particle.

But for flying men or what not there can be some falsifiability to make a pretty decent claim against that. Not air tight.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Luthier is right, you don't understand how science works.

The information on the CD is conserved because quantum information can never be destroyed. This was the whole crux of the black hole debates between Hawking and Susskind. Hawking came up with a brilliant theory but then he said information was lost and this was at odds with quantum theory. Susskind and others eventually won that debate. Susskind describes information as distinctions bettwen things. What makes that song on the CD distinct from other songs is never lost.

Every thought and experience is information that makes you distinct from me and these distinctions are never lost.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I agree with you. People come from all sorts of cultures and belief systems. If you are one that never came into contact with religion, etc. would that mean you also don't live eternally? Not at all imho. I do believe that religions even as far back as Egyptians are all trying to explain there is the afterlife. Of course once man gets involved all sorts of things are conjured up. Hence the multitude of spiritual or religious beliefs.

One interesting with me is when I was very small 4 y.o. maybe I had major psycjic and telepathic abilities where I would tell my parents of places, buildings, etc. and how they looked inside and who was in there and it would be accurate. I would answer questions they were thinking, who was on the phone when it rang, etc. I lost those abilities the older I got. I believe that is due to lack of excercising them and your other 5 senses being overwhelmed with the noise of this plane of existence i.e. vision, hearing, touch, etc.

I also remember appearing before 12 what I called elders probably 50 times as a small child. They had long white or grey beards and hair and wore white robes. They were teaching me something, but all I recall now is the technology in what today I believe was a spacecraft of some sort only because of a star map I saw and technology we didn;t have in those days. I am also an electronic tech so I am aware of what we had then. Those encounters also passed as I got older.

As far as reincarnation, I suppose it is possible, but people I have talked to over the years that had similar experiences all remember being themselves the whole time. If you have eternal life, you could literally live many lives if you so chose to do so. I have a vivid memory of fighting and dying in Vietnam. However, I am not sure where that memory comes from and so I don;t make the jump to reincarnation. I have this feeling that in many cases that we are incubating our spirit to learn and know a lot of basic things like right and wrong, etc in order to be born into an eternal life at death of the physical body. Again, a lot of what I have come to believe has been put together overr my life. That and the things I experienced when I was clinically dead I try not to mix together. The experience was to me factual. What I thought afterwards was just trying to understand it through what we have available in this existence.

And for people that want proof, it will only be given in death. I could never take you there without dying and you certainly aren't going to be bringing a camera with you or any scientific instruments. When people want proof they should know they are asking for an impossibility in order to not have to face such a reality. The only way I could prove it to anyone is kill them. I find it funny that while the people that don't believe in the afterlife or eternal life no matter how many forms it takes and ask for proof, are the same ones that say you die and nothing else exists, even in opposition to physical laws of energy, are also making that statement that they also can't prove.

I sometimes talk about the sixth sense. For example when you are walking down the street at night and all of a sudden the hair on the back of your neck stands up and fear comes over you. It wasn't anything you saw or heard that caused this to happen, but you picked up something through your spirit. Two of our other senses are basically sensors that pick up certain frequencies of sound or light. Our 5 senses are part of this physical reality where our spirit is part of the unseen reality.

Anyway, people will believe whatever it is they believe. However, when you die you will find out the truth. I just hope that you can handle what you deny exists when the time comes. Our physical body is alive because of our the electrical entity I call our spirit. The body almost immediately begins decomposition when the animating spirit leaves that physical body. If you ever had a chance to see people die you can tell the moment the spirit leaves the body. There was a doctor that weighed the human body when it died and there was a loss of weight.



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


First you need to provide evidence that something ceases to exist.


I just did. The evidence is right in front of you - a dead body. No longer functioning and starting to decay. If you can be alive without a living body, then why have a body? If you can think independently of a brain, then why have a brain?

You need to provide evidence that this is possible, and explain why nature has bothered to give you a body in the first place if it is not absolutely essential for your existence as a living being.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

I still maintain that there is no "belief in god" necessary to be aware that life continues after our physical death.

Yes, there is a "Supreme Oneness" to which we all belong.
Just like the microbes in my gut are part of me, we humans on Earth are part of "God."



I thought that "belief in god" isn't necessary. If so why say that we are part of that unnecessary thing???



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So are you saying that information is the same as existence???

I think you need to define what you say "existence" is supposed to be.

Because I don't think we're all using the same meaning of that word. To say something exists outside this reality might be true or it might not be true and since it's outside this reality we'll never know. So to say that it is true you then need to show that there is an "outside" and that existence is possible there which you can't do.

Would you say that the little guys you shoot at on video games "Exist" too??? If so, is it the same "existence" which you'd say actual human beings have, like the one's playing that game???



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

meaning everything, I suppose you could call everything any name you want. I don't think of "God" as a character with personal volition.

God is not necessary; everything exists.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Again, you don't understand science and you haven't refuted anything I have said or presented any science to support any of your claims.

You said:

To say something exists outside this reality might be true or it might not be true and since it's outside this reality we'll never know.

Outside of what reality? What in the world are you talking about?

Your perception of reality isn't the reality that exists objectively and Scientist have known this since Einstein. Most Scientist think the "reality" that we perceive is an illusion and science willreveal the true nature of reality through the laws of physics.

Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. Here's some quotes from Heisenberg:

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg


Science has reached the conclusion because of the observed evidence that "reality" is something more than just our perceptions and they have to go "outside" of our local perception of reality in order to try and find out the true nature of reality.

So you have loop quantum gravity, gravity branes leaking into Tev branes, string theory, simulated universe, holographic universe, universe inside a black hole, black holes as holograms, universe is a quantum computer and more.

So when you say outside of this reality what do you mean?

What do you mean define existence? This chair in fron't of me exist, my computer exists, the car riding down the street exists. Everything that exists isn't self aware or self conscious although some people like Lanza and Biocentricism and Amit Goswami will disagree and say all that exists is the perception that something exists.

The point is, there's no evidence that we cease to exist at death. Even Tegmark is trying to explain consciousness as another state of matter. Are self awareness will never cease to exist because our self awareness is a configuration of information that exists in the very fabric of spacetime itself on planck scales.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

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 evidence, and much of it. The question is in the interpretation about what the evidence means.


There is no rational argument for deities.


Wikipedia lists at least eight rational arguments..


Therefore, it is assumed there are no deities.

The only evidence here is evidence of absense.


An absence of evidence as a basis for for the assumption that something does not exist is not logic.

Having no evidence of purple bannanas does not mean that purple bannanas do not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of Ice-9 does not mean that Ice-9 does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of the Higgs Boson does not mean that the Higgs Boson does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of God does not mean that God does not, or cannot, exist.


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.


All existence is indicative of something. The number of possible theories as to how things might exist, let alone have the form they do, is quite limited. Definitely the non-existence of a deity does not answer any particular basic questions.


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.


The ridiculous examples really help?

Sometimes, it's not who you know, it's what you know.




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Not all Atheists lack spirituality, but for the many that do they seem to see death as final. They are tired of the many outlandish claims made by organised religion and choose to believe the extreme opposite as an unconscious act of rebellion. Their distaste for religious beliefs are so strong that to entertain any type of spirituality goes against their very being.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is evidence, and much of it. The question is in the interpretation about what the evidence means.

there is no evidence of deities. There may be some evidence for general paranormal things like "ghosts" and such which is under investigation as to what it is constantly...being debunked, falsified, etc, in order to understand.


Wikipedia lists at least eight rational arguments..

I guess your view of rational and mine are different. christians trying to come up with philosophical pleas isn't rational discussions, and my skimming of that page is mostly just sticking god into any current unknown.


An absence of evidence as a basis for for the assumption that something does not exist is not logic.

Having no evidence of purple bannanas does not mean that purple bannanas do not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of Ice-9 does not mean that Ice-9 does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of the Higgs Boson does not mean that the Higgs Boson does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of God does not mean that God does not, or cannot, exist.

No, of course not. the age old saying, absense of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absense
but until such a time as evidence does come up, it is assumed not part of something to consider.
There is no evidence of space monkeys flying ships made of butter to grease up the galaxy...I mean, there may be just that, but until there is evidence showing such things, then its not really meant to be entertained as something real outside of just a random hypothesis without backing.
If 10 people said they seen said space monkey butter craft one day, but had no evidence, it would be...sort of interesting but still not really something you can put into the realm of real given how absurd the claim is.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence type thing.



All existence is indicative of something.

That is your view based on a sense of self importance.
it is indicative of chemical reactions, outside of that, there is only speculation


The ridiculous examples really help?

They do. in those ridiculous examples, replace any of the weird things said with the term "God"...it fits perfectly and may show that it is ridiculous to discuss a deity without any reasonable evidence.

now thats my thoughts.

On a personal note, I highly suspect there is a lot more going on in this universe than we are aware of. I am right on the edge of calling myself a "believer"...in..something. too many "paranormal" experiences directly witnessed and also by other people I trust to dismiss all things as just insanity, stupidity, etc.
But when I am discussing "God", I am always pointing at the religious books definition of it. As far as some sort of greater organized multi-dimensional "Source"....maybe. would be interesting to find out. I like the concept, but as it stands, the religious discussions of deities is just basically a sky bully



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is evidence, and much of it. The question is in the interpretation about what the evidence means.

there is no evidence of deities.


Are you expecting physical evidence for things beyond physicality?

Think of things, like number concepts, they don't appear as an image on an X-ray. Neither can quarks or any other subatomic particle appear on a photograph. That is because X-rays and photographs cannot record those things.

Also, physical evidence degrades over time, so an absence of physical evidence should not be unexpected, even if it existed at some time.

All observational tools we have, have limitations as to what they can record.


There may be some evidence for general paranormal things like "ghosts" and such which is under investigation as to what it is constantly...being debunked, falsified, etc, in order to understand.


Wikipedia lists at least eight rational arguments..

I guess your view of rational and mine are different. christians trying to come up with philosophical pleas isn't rational discussions, and my skimming of that page is mostly just sticking god into any current unknown.


The Wikipedia page is one of general philosophy and, as such, it includes argument both for, and against, theism. I believe it to be quite balanced and reflective of the case that we really have not established one argument as triumphant over another.

That you percieve the majority of the philosophers mentioned were of Christian belief, might be an indication of the relative strength of the arguments, or that you skimmed the page rather superficially.



An absence of evidence as a basis for for the assumption that something does not exist is not logic.

Having no evidence of purple bannanas does not mean that purple bannanas do not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of Ice-9 does not mean that Ice-9 does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of the Higgs Boson does not mean that the Higgs Boson does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of God does not mean that God does not, or cannot, exist.
No, of course not. the age old saying, absense of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absense but until such a time as evidence does come up, it is assumed not part of something to consider.


Since you assume that an absence of evidence leads to an assumption of non-existence, and then you go on to repeat the old "absence of evidence..." quote, which directly contradicts that, I am not 100% clear on which line of reasoning you are following.


There is no evidence of space monkeys flying ships made of butter to grease up the galaxy...I mean, there may be just that, but until there is evidence showing such things, then its not really meant to be entertained as something real outside of just a random hypothesis without backing.
If 10 people said they seen said space monkey butter craft one day, but had no evidence, it would be...sort of interesting but still not really something you can put into the realm of real given how absurd the claim is.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence type thing.


Surely all claims (including extrordinary ones) are proven by ANY evidence. Evidence is either evidence, or it isn't evidence. You don't need a 'special' evidence just because a particular person may have a skeptical contrary belief.

A far more useful quote is: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”



All existence is indicative of something.

That is your view based on a sense of self importance.
it is indicative of chemical reactions, outside of that, there is only speculation


So the only thing that has any importance in your conception of the universe is chemistry? It would seem a rather limited worldview.

Why not opthamology, too?



in those ridiculous examples, replace any of the weird things said with the term "God"...it fits perfectly and may show that it is ridiculous to discuss a deity without any reasonable evidence.


Then, try replacing any of the weird things said with the term "nasal custard"...it fits perfectly and may show that it is ridiculous to discuss absence of a deity based upon an absence of reasonable evidence. Nah, still ridiculous.


Actually, if you replace "unicorn"with "God" you get the sentence "God are just horses with a horn", which is really poor grammar.




now thats my thoughts.

On a personal note, I highly suspect there is a lot more going on in this universe than we are aware of. I am right on the edge of calling myself a "believer"...in..something. too many "paranormal" experiences directly witnessed and also by other people I trust to dismiss all things as just insanity, stupidity, etc.
But when I am discussing "God", I am always pointing at the religious books definition of it. As far as some sort of greater organized multi-dimensional "Source"....maybe. would be interesting to find out. I like the concept, but as it stands, the religious discussions of deities is just basically a sky bully


I would respectfully suggest that you think that God is a "sky bully" because your personal ideas of religious concepts are not well informed.

edit on 21/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
Because people have been so caught up in the material world that they fail to see that they are more than just a material body, they fail to see that they are also a spirit that is eternal.


This is so true sadly not so many people realize what they truly are. The fact the the material work is prevalent does this.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Are you expecting physical evidence for things beyond physicality?

If there is no possibility of evidence given, then why consider it?
There is possibility of evidence for ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, etc..and whenever discussing these things, we discuss the evidence. When people discuss deities, they discuss feelings, scripture that is meant to be "divinely inspired", etc. The biggest idea for evidence of deities (in monotheism / abrahamic religions) is Jesus if you are a christian..thats it...and that is basically stories that are very suspect as to the authenticity of..and even then if its found the jesus of the bible did exist and everything is 100% dead on as to what happened..water to wine and raising from the dead, it still doesn't prove any deity..just proves a person with abnormal abilities claimed some stuff that even he was unable to give evidence for.

A bit like a record breaking runner saying he attributed his speed to zeus...is he right, or is it just a biological abnormality and his delusions because of it? could be a mix, but we only can study the biological part.


Think of things, like number concepts, they don't appear as an image on an X-ray. Neither can quarks or any other subatomic particle appear on a photograph. That is because X-rays and photographs cannot record those things.


ok, this will be the last bit I address as I think this should clear it all up.

The universe is math. we make the math fit, we learn more of reality. this is how we figure things out overall, be it how many planets there are circling the sun, how weather system works, etc..it all fits and when it fits, it becomes part of our understanding of reality. That is why a quark is considered a legitiment particle to discuss and hypothesis about, because the math supports it, its not just an extra thing that serves no purpose, it is a functional requirement for the structure of our reality..we just have no way to directly manipulate it yet.

Deities on the other hand are not necessary. Long ago, deities controlled the clouds and rain, the earth fertility, the stars, etc..but as we grew in science, we seen this is not the case.
We have most big things figured out, and the math is supporting some final big questions and simply need to further test to prove right...and nowhere in there is a requirement for some all knowing all powerful deity...its just not necessary.

Cosmology, astrology, evolutionary biology, chemistry, physics (norm and quantum) are the end results. God was the word put in there when our understandings of these areas were minimal..but we dont need gods anymore, we are advanced enough not to need the middle man filter...and certainly not a god described in any of the modern religions..what is that beings function anyhow? How does that being described hold relevance on our reality...is it in charge of gravity or something? what is its point?

God is a emperor in a land of anarchists (anarchists being not the people, but the roles..the things to rule over..sciences like astronomy, etc)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Knight384

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
Because people have been so caught up in the material world that they fail to see that they are more than just a material body, they fail to see that they are also a spirit that is eternal.


This is so true sadly not so many people realize what they truly are. The fact the the material work is prevalent does this.

Whereas you manifested the computer to type that sentence through your Chi...because you are different and more woke than the rest, right?
...




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join