RE: What is your favourite positive argument for atheism/unbelief?
April 21, 2017 at 3:04 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2017 at 3:18 am by Mystical.)
(April 16, 2017 at 10:18 am)Brian37 Wrote:
But we are still finite, and while certainly unique as individuals, we really are nothing more than our brains in motion, very unique fingerprints sure, but still nothing more than physical mass and fuel in motion.
I can't stop but to think that the universe is infinite, along with the timeline that we are living within. Thus since we have existed at one point, we will always exist. Just like if Doctor Who took his time machine to the moment I married my husband, it's always going to be there. That moment, me and him, in it. I find that quite romantic, actually. ^*^
Little Rik Wrote:Enjoy Brian and keep on believing that humans are finite.
Unfortunately the gates of the corral of dogmas are still closed for you.
Oh? What gates of dogmas are you free from, based upon your beliefs? Other than obvious arrogance and the self indulgent flagellance coming out of your mouth constantly? Seriously. I'm curious what you think that that equates to?
With regards to the subject matter, the main difference between you and Brian here is that he doesn't believe in something without a viable reason, whilst you do believe in things (like NDEs being proof for afterlife) against all proofs and information that say otherwise, without any real definite reason to do so.
..You do understand that that means that you are perceiving an unconfirmable reality, outside that of fellow observers who jointly experience a shared, confirmable reality that contradicts yours, correct?
I'm quite confident that having been around here for so long, you have had plenty of people explain your logical fallacies to you step by painstaking step ten times over. At this point I think I might posit to them that you are indeed, either unwilling or unable to learn and that you are thusly either wilfully ignorant or brain injured, or both.
Ltitle Rik Wrote:(April 17, 2017 at 1:46 am)AceBoogie Wrote: I enjoy the argument that if there is a god, it is almost certainly not the god of the Bible or Quran. The inconsistencies, contradictions, logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies contained in most holy books are reason enough for us to begin to realize that if there is an intelligent creator, it is almost certainly not one depicted by any group of humans, no matter how holy or sacred they claim themselves or their doctrines to be.
And even then, why god? Where does the idea of god come from? Out of thin air? No. It is quite clearly a psychological projection that came from humans who knew almost nothing about how the world, sun, stars and moon work. We still don't know everything, but we now have science to help us understand the world around us. All they had before was some psychological manifestation of themselves to look to for an explanation. I know my fellow AFers who identify themselves as Christians love these types of bullet point arguments, as they use them all the time. It goes like this...
1. I am a sentient being living on this earth
2. I have the ability to create and design things
3. I have no knowledge of how we as humans arrived here on Earth, I also have no knowledge of how the Earth and all that composes it came to be
4. There must be a sentient being like me that put everything and all of us here
It makes sense to me that "god," even for modern day theists, is just some subconscious manifestation of some higher version of "you." Like a psychological archetype. This is especially interesting to consider when you put it in the context of people claiming to have experiences where they "feel god." And uninformed humans have just been riding with this idea for centuries.
So even if there is any argument for a deist god, it simply comes from lack of knowledge of the origins of Earth and/or the Universe.
Well, well Ace.
You seem to know about the origins of the universe.
Please go ahead and tell us about these origins.
And please tell us also which one came first.
The matter, the water, the light-energy, the air or the space.
Tell me lil Rick, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
On our planet we now know the answer to that question. The first eggs were those that were of the descendents of chickens. IE: Dinosaurs, and their ancestors predating them that came out of the ocean. Therefore I know and can say confidently without having to jump through firey hoops, that the egg came before the chicken.
Meanwhile.. your threshold for what is proof is 'poof'.
Scientists didn't guess, about this. They know. With physical, tangible conclusive evidence which has been replicated and confirmed across the globe by colleagues in the study of archaeology, biology, chemistry, geology, etcetera.
Jörmungandr was explaining to you that your projected afterlife is just that--the after life , thus you can't quote live experiences as proof for afterlife existence since the brain is still alive during (near death) experiences. Ffs how hard is that?! Then you back peddle and throw the burden of proof on us, to prove that the brain is capable of.. what, exactly? Providing vivid imagery during a time in its life processes that the synapses are firing at lightning speed? Okay, done.
Nature Wrote:In this study, the neuroscientists distinguish four distinct stages of brain death. Cardiac arrest stage 1 (CAS1) reflects the time (~4 seconds) between the last regular heartbeat and the loss of a oxygenated blood pulse (i.e. clinical death). The next stage (CAS2) lasts about 6 seconds, and ends with a burst in low-frequency brain waves (so-called 'delta blip'). The third death stage, CAS3, lasts approximately 20 seconds at which point there is no more evidence of meaningful brain activity at the final stage, CAS4.Quote:
These stages seem to reflect an organized series of distinct brain states, rather than a gradual fade out of brain activity. First, we see a sudden transition from the anaesthetised state with an increase in fast brain waves. It is as if the brain is suddenly shaken from the effects of anaesthesia at the moment of death. Next, brain activity settles into a period of slower brain waves during CAS2. Perhaps most surprisingly, recordings are then dominated in CAS3 by brain waves more commonly associated with normal wakefulness during life (so-called gamma activity). In further analyses, the researchers also show that this ‘afterlife' brain activity is also highly coordinated across brain areas and different wavelengths. These are the neural hallmarks of high-level cognitive activity. In sum, these data suggests that long after clinical death, the brain enters a brief state of heightened activity that is normally associated with wakeful consciousness.
Heightened awareness just after death
Interestingly, the authors even suggest that the level of activity observed during the final active death stage (CAS3) not only resembles the waking state, but might even reflect a heightened state of conscious awareness similar to the "highly lucid and realer-than-real mental experiences reported by near-death survivors". This is a pretty bold claim that critically depends on their quantification of 'consciousness'. They argue that in the final stage of brain death there is actually more evidence for consciousness-related activity than during normal wakeful consciousness.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/bra...l_surge_in
![[Image: model-showing-cross-section-through-an-o...BXTKDW.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=c8.alamy.com%2Fcomp%2FBXTKDW%2Fmodel-showing-cross-section-through-an-oviraptor-dinosaur-egg-BXTKDW.jpg)
![[Image: 1_2.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.nature.com%2Fscitable%2Fcontent%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2F105743981%2F1_2.png)
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
