*trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not accepting a claim is not the same as making the counterclaim, unless specifically stated. But of course I'm an idiot with a username that some people can't get right.

Who would that be?

[Amarok]

Yup i love to see that too . I would love to see someone with an injury that utterly destroys the brain(like their head smashed to pulp ) and mutilates the body beyond any functionality(being burned to a crisp ) (both need to be present ) And then jumps from his slab or table is fully able to talk and cognate and dance around . 

Another atheist "dogma" purple monkeys don't fly out Rik ass . The evidence is a lack of evidence of said event .

[Cyberman]

Not accepting a claim is not the same as making the counterclaim, unless specifically stated. But of course I'm an idiot with a username that some people can't get right.

Who would that be?

I couldn't possibly comment, but suffice to say the person concerned never thought about it.

[Simon Moon]

Hi, all

I used to frequent these forums just over two years ago when I was a staunch atheist myself - I used to post anti-religion memes on Facebook, thought Richard Dawkins was super cool, laughed at the *obviously* intellectually inferior religious fools (because the only measure of one's intelligence is whether they refute a god and submit themselves to the great and glorious concept of ~rationalism~ - right?), and generally, I acted like a very proper atheist.

The only way to not be a 'very proper atheist', is to believe in a god.

The other stuff you mention has nothing to do with atheism. That might have been you, just being a bit of a dick.

But amidst all of my unwavering sense self-assurance and intellectualism, I now see in hindsight that I failed to ask myself one very important question - what makes me so sure of my beliefs?

The only thing I have an 'unwavering sense self-assurance and intellectualism' about concerning the existence of gods is, that no theist ever, has met their burden of proof. I have never claimed that I am absolutely certain that no gods exist.

You seem to have the usual misconception, that atheism is the positive claim that gods don't exist.

I pose the above question to you today because I want you to consider this deeply. I now cringe at my past self, how arrogant and facetious I acted towards a topic which I, and every single one of you reading this post, have absolutely no certainty of. We are all clueless. We can guess, yes - we can ponder and theorise what the answer could be. But ultimately the answers we all come up with are nothing short of personal opinion or hope. Spouting out statements full of 100% assurance, as I see so many atheists do, like "There is no afterlife - deal with it" or "God doesn't exist - now enjoy life" demonstrate an almost - dare I say - religious sense of certainty?

Again, there is no need, nor are the vast majority of atheists 100% certain that no gods or an afterlife exist.

Atheism can simply be stated as, not being convinced that gods exist. Full stop. There is no requirement to make the counter-positive claim, that no gods exist.

So, so far, all your bluster seems to be based on positions that most atheists do not hold. Even Dawkins does not state that he is absolutely certain that gods don't exist.

This brings me to my next point: whether you are willing to see this or not (and I too remember wincing years ago when people said this but I now see their reasoning) - atheism follows almost all of the characteristics of an organised religion. It provides you with a sense of certitude, like you have figured out the universe; it gives you a community to belong to; there are bishop-like figures, think Dawkins, Krauss, etc etc., you make statements which you don't know are true for sure. - and finally: non-believers should be ridiculed because their views are *obviously* wrong and yours are completely, unquestionably correct - right?

So much wrong in one paragraph.

Again, atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of gods. There are no dogma, tenets, scripture, authority figures. In no way does, nor can atheism have the characteristics of an organised religion. Remember, atheism is simply not being convinced that gods exist.

All of the public atheists that you mention have said things that I disagree with.

If Dawkins or Krauss became theists tomorrow, unless they could support their beliefs with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, I'd go on with my life with not much thought.

Beyond this, I wish to understand the following: why is such visceral contempt held towards the idea of daring to have some hope that this universe may have a greater meaning beyond this one? Did you ever consider the person who has just lost their home, or their family, whose life is completely empty and whose only consolation is the hope that maybe there is a loving god out there who cares for them? Their opinion is no less valid than yours, and most of these people hold no ill will towards anyone. They choose (and I can completely understand why) to be optimistic and hopeful in what can be a sad and confusing world rather than desperately trying - quite strangely - to promote the idea of a universe devoid of any greater meaning at all. I ask you to please consider this the next time you laugh at such people.

I have no contempt, just wonder how people can believe things without good evidence and valid and sound logic to support their god beliefs.

The thing is, I only care if these things are true, or likely to be true. You seem to be advocating for people to believe things if it makes them feel good, or hopeful.

Don't you care if your beliefs are true?

Finally, to wrap up this post, I want to make one more point: if you are to fully embrace the cold harshness of rationalism and scientific reasoning as a guide for your philosophical views, you must see that in doing this you also accept that in nature there are no concepts of good or bad - the only guide you can get from it is to take what you can get and maximise your own happiness. No justice, no reward for good, or judgement for bad. Just do as you please. This is what rationalism looks like in practice - not ideal for a cohesive society.

You are forgetting that we are social animals, with evolved senses of altruism, reciprocity, kin selection, etc, that lead to having moral and ethical motivations.

I agree, that there is no cosmic justice system, we create our own, based on well being. You do know, that secular societies tend to more moral and ethical than religious ones, right?

I'm not sure about you, but given that our views on the world are personal choice due to our lack of knowledge about it all, I'd take a creed which at its core promotes love, justice, and selflessness towards others over a world view that's equally unprovable but is rooted in nothing more than a cold, every-man-for-himself cesspit.

All of what you mention above is perfectly compatible with atheism. Have you even heard of "secular humanism"?

Atheism does not equate to a cold, every-man-for-himself cesspit. All one has to do is check out the most atheist societies on the planet. Sweden (almost 80% atheist), Finland, Denmark, just to name a few, have lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, lower infant mortality, etc, than the vast majority of mostly religious countries.

[Catholic_Lady]

PZ has left the forums.

[Little Rik]

1) Observations my foot.  
As far as anyone spout a claim that lack evidence then such a claim enter the corral of dogmas.  
2)  Don t forget the old saying that atheists love to repeat so much time after time which goes............the one who make the claim is the one who must produce evidence.  

Atheists make these claims all the time so they are the one who must produce evidence not me.

Show me a report of the afterlife by a dead person.
Not an NDE... an actual dead person.
Near death is not death, you know?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such report. Given that, why would we assume an afterlife to exist, beyond wishful thinking?

You're making the claim that the afterlife exists. You produce evidence for it.
I'm saying I don't believe your claim. Why should I believe it?

---

Not an NDE?
I hope you realise that by saying this you automatically say that doctors that declare a person dead are not fit to be doctors, do you?

Can you please show me your credentials that you know more than doctors?
Thanks.

[pocaracas]

Show me a report of the afterlife by a dead person.
Not an NDE... an actual dead person.
Near death is not death, you know?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such report. Given that, why would we assume an afterlife to exist, beyond wishful thinking?

You're making the claim that the afterlife exists. You produce evidence for it.
I'm saying I don't believe your claim. Why should I believe it?

---

Not an NDE?  
I hope you realise that by saying this you automatically say that doctors that declare a person dead are not fit to be doctors, do you?  

Can you please show me your credentials that you know more than doctors?  
Thanks.

PhD in technological physics, expertise in Tomography on nuclear fusion devices.
Anything short of measuring electrical brain activity can't determine brain death. Lack of pulse for more than a few minutes is a good hint, but not definite.

You show me the EEG of those people that doctors declared dead.... but turned out to come back. The EEG during the whole event.
Or show me the criteria used by those same doctors to determine the person's death state, case-by-case. Go ahead. Don't just be gullible and accept the "doctor said he's dead, so he's dead" unthinking reason.

[Little Rik]

---

Not an NDE?  
I hope you realise that by saying this you automatically say that doctors that declare a person dead are not fit to be doctors, do you?  

Can you please show me your credentials that you know more than doctors?  
Thanks.

PhD in technological physics, expertise in Tomography on nuclear fusion devices.
Anything short of measuring electrical brain activity can't determine brain death. Lack of pulse for more than a few minutes is a good hint, but not definite.

You show me the EEG of those people that doctors declared dead.... but turned out to come back. The EEG during the whole event.
Or show me the criteria used by those same doctors to determine the person's death state, case-by-case. Go ahead. Don't just be gullible and accept the "doctor said he's dead, so he's dead" unthinking reason.

---

It is obvious that the EEG in those people had to be flat for sometime for the doctors to declare the bloke dead and as far as the bloke is physically dead only the consciousness can put together an out of body experience.

Is a pity that you haven’t read some of those experiences where real people, real accidents, real death, real places and real doctors went through those experiences.
Even stubborn and thick atheists changed their mind once they went through an NDE.

[pocaracas]

Why the hell do you reply to posts like this?!

This is the log that we have for this post: Yesterday, 23:39 (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 23:54 by Little Rik.)

I was awake when you first replied... with nothing more than a quote of what I wrote.
And, apparently, 15 minutes later, you added your actual reply.

I've seen you do this over and over again. Why?!!
It was dumb luck on your part that I remembered to check this thread, even though it had no new replies since the last time I came by, close to my 23:45.
To tell you the truth, I was expecting you to do this, as I've been noticing that you often do this sort of thing.

PhD in technological physics, expertise in Tomography on nuclear fusion devices.
Anything short of measuring electrical brain activity can't determine brain death. Lack of pulse for more than a few minutes is a good hint, but not definite.

You show me the EEG of those people that doctors declared dead.... but turned out to come back. The EEG during the whole event.
Or show me the criteria used by those same doctors to determine the person's death state, case-by-case. Go ahead. Don't just be gullible and accept the "doctor said he's dead, so he's dead" unthinking reason.

---

It is obvious that the EEG in those people had to be flat for sometime for the doctors to declare the bloke dead and as far as the bloke is physically dead only the consciousness can put together an out of body experience.  

Is a pity that you haven’t read some of those experiences where real people, real accidents, real death, real places and real doctors went through those experiences.  
Even stubborn and thick atheists changed their mind once they went through an NDE.

If the EEG went flat, then present me with the reports by the doctors where they attest to the flatness of the EEG.

Saying that it's obvious, to me, is meaningless.
Doctors often produce a quick diagnosis based on the common case, the average person. And more often than they'd like to admit, those end up wrong.
For example: You go to an ER with a fever and a running nose, and you're dismissed with a flu. Some pills to lower your fever and help with any pain should be enough to get you back to normal... but then.... 3 days later... the fever is still there, you still feel rotten... well, you feel worse. Turns out, you have pneumonia, or TB, or a number of other possibilities that start out with a simple fever. And, for 3 whole days, you sit on a "flu diagnosis" by a fully certified doctor that turns out to be wrong.
Sure, more than 95% of the people who present themselves to ERs with a fever do have some variant of the flu.... but the other 5% get treated the same, because it's not worth spending the resources needed to discern the actual cause of the fever.

I'm willing to bet that most of the cases in those NDE cases you like so much, the doctors simply felt no pulse for some time and declared the person dead. Felt... with their own fingers... a very fallible diagnostic mechanism.
Given that, I'd like to know about the EEGs.

[Cyberman]

Why the hell do you reply to posts like this?!

So that he can cream his little frilly knickers over the ebil atheists not being able to refute his earth-shattering logic? I'm just spitballing, but I bet I'm not far off.