Why do Atheist believe we cease to exist at death?

a reply to: neoholographic

I now get the point you made.

I'm just making a guess here, but probably because they think our consciousness isn't something separate from our bodies. And obviously our bodies break down, decompose and turn back into soil.. so there for the consciousness goes with it.

Beyond that, I fail to see why it matters why someone thinks that. I mean I understand that you don't get their thinking, but how does that have any bearing on you and your beliefs?

I don't think all atheists think you are gone after death. Atheism just refers to theism. The stories about "god".

Many atheist are spiritual or can relate to panthiesm or even deism. Or hell pandeism.

I personally converted from atheism to pandeism from sciences and philosophy.

Basically I couldnt get around the anthropic principle so I couldn't be an " atheist " anymore.

Someone has to be a conscious observer for reality to exist or have any purpose.

If we are in a simulation well, who knows what happens or where or what we are.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: neoholographic

Again, there's no evidence that we cease to exist at death.

If that's true then can you show me evidence that Socrates exists??? In what way can you get evidence showing that Socrates exists?? Because we know he's dead already. So if he still exists, show me evidence of it.

Because if you can't, then the assumption is that he doesn't exist.

No, Socrates is dead but it's your ASSUMPTION that he doesn't exist. You're the one that equates death with ceasing to exist. There's not a shred of evidence to support such a thing. I keep hearing hyperbole and belief but when I ask for scientific evidence to support this I get a big nothing.

You're the one claiming death equates to ceasing to exist. You said if Socrate's still exists show me the evidence. You have to provide evidence that death means he ceases to exist. He's dead and that's part of the life-death cycle but you don't have a shred of evidence that death means you cease to exist.

Again, when you look at science, it can't say that Socrates has ceased to exist at death. In order to explain observed evidence Science has to appeal to a multiverse and different types of parallel universes. So this means Socrates never ceases to exist he's always alive somewhere.

This goes back to energy and information. That information is conserved and it's never destroyed. When you look at the growing evidence for a quantum mind, that's even more profound. This is because the information that makes me distinct from you exists at Planck scales and that information just spreads out through all of space at death. So while you're in the body a measurement occurs because you're entangled to a local reality that's just an illusion. When you die, you're no longer locally entangled and similar to the non physical wave function, the information about every thought or memory exists in the very fabric of space-time geometry.

Again I ask, WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT DEATH MEANS YOU CEASE TO EXIST?

a reply to: neoholographic

As numerous atheists quoted at me recently, 'atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief'.

Apparently, you & I have misidentified atheism as a system of belief, when it is clearly a persistent vegetative state.

originally posted by: BlueShaman
Just because atheists don't believe in God and religion doesn't mean they don't believe in spirituality. I'm an atheist and believe we are spiritual beings.

Just don't try to sell me the story that a talking snake once convinced Eve that an apple a day keeps the doctor away 'cause I ain't buying it.

"He who will stand for nothing, will fall for anything" - (attributed to Malcom X).

a reply to: neoholographic

If you define 'exist' as consciousness, there is all the scientific evidence in the world pointing to the fact we cease to exist when we die, not what you are asserting.

It is a scientific fact our brain is where our consciousness is housed. When we die and our brain rots, it's indisputable our consciousness ceases to exist. No laws of nature are violated by this process.

a reply to: neoholographic

The scientific evidence is in the dead body. No one has really come back from decomposition. Ever. That's conclusive science-well for most everyone else-except maybe you. (And "The Walking Dead" show).
Afterlife is only experienced in fairy tales.
But you can believe what you want-as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Spreading lies isn't nice-especially to children.

a reply to: neoholographic

It is obvious that our bodies die and are recycled by nature.

I suspect, though, that what you are talking about is our soul, our conscious psychological self.

The atheist may view this as a function of brain activity and so when the brain dies, the soul vanishes.

Some might suggest that there is evidence that our brain is not the seat of our person. Examples of people existing and being relatively normal with large parts of their brain either absent or damaged, demonstrate this.

But, returning to the topic of the post. There is no objective scientific evidence of the existence of our soul, even as a function of our brain. This is not because it doesn't exist, but because the processes of science are incapable of testing many truths.

Scientific method is an extremely limited tool, unable to determine things we all know to be true.

Atheists, particularly, overestimate the capabilities of science in their desire to avoid facing the fact that their belief is as irrational as any other.

a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Atheist believe we cease to exist at death

Exactly and sadly they will get their way.

originally posted by: Jdennis10
a reply to: neoholographic

I now get the point you made.

That's great!

a reply to: chr0naut

Well as you are a pretty scientific person with faith I think you know cosmology and philosophy do get pretty close to some things the atheists who are more "applied science" based have trouble with.

Its possible the brain could be getting its signal from elsewhere like wifi and we are just seeing the receiver. Our meatbags are the reciever.

a reply to: neoholographic

So we agree he's dead. That's a start.

It's also your assumption that he does exist. However, you're unable to show me any properties which he might have, including his location, if he's moving or not, if he's young or old, if he can speak, or interact with anything else, etc. You can't show he exists at all. Not one piece of evidence exists for his existence.

Now, if you want to redefine what it means to exist that's one thing. You might have a case there. But as of now, in this reality, something that is said to exist must include some measurable property of some kind to show it exists. If not, then it's a belief based on faith or based on imagination.

Just because all the energy and/or matter that makes up Socrates may still exist, doesn't mean Socrates exists. Because Socrates is more than some of his part. Just like splitting water into H2O doesn't mean you still have water, you don't, you have hydrogen and oxygen now but not water.

If you were just your parts then I could take away your leg and you wouldn't be you anymore.

If you want to say he exists you either have to prove it by establishing some property of existence to him or change what it means to exist.

Just because something did exist or could exist doesn't mean it does exist.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neoholographic

As numerous atheists quoted at me recently, 'atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief'.

Apparently, you & I have misidentified atheism as a system of belief, when it is clearly a persistent vegetative state.

It's an absence of belief in God or Gods. Not just belief.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neoholographic

As numerous atheists quoted at me recently, 'atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief'.

Apparently, you & I have misidentified atheism as a system of belief, when it is clearly a persistent vegetative state.

It's an absence of belief in God or Gods. Not just belief.

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".

a reply to: mOjOm

What?

This post makesno sense. You said:

But as of now, in this reality, something that is said to exist must include some measurable property of some kind to show it exists.

Socrates was alive so he exists. You're the one claiming when he died he ceased to exist but you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support this notion.

I'll ask again:

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

You keep talking about water but water never dies. We're finding it on other planets. This is because the information that gives us water exists independent of the physical manifestation of water. Information is conserved not destroyed.

You keep saying these things and I keep asking you for scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

a reply to: mOjOm

I appreciate your point of view and I think your pretty careful with words.

How do you as an atheist get past a necesary being or first cause, or the need for observation for reality?

Do you think its just out perception that there is no point without a conscious observer, is the anthropic principles (all its variations) inaccurate?

What about the concept of a simulation? Would that then be fine tuning and essentially a designer or designers?

I dont mean this as a challenge or any kind of contentious arguement just genuinely interested in other points of view.

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.

You're not so different either. You don't believe in thousands of Gods that others do. You just believe in one God. I've just gone one more step than you that's all.

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???

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???

Would it be possible to ise falsifiability? Empericism isnt the only form of science.