Why I'm an atheist

[BADecker]

In our search for the truth, we will find that there is nothing new, there is nothing that is not already in us. However, we cannot see who we are and where we are until we go through the process. The process of searching for something outside of ourselves reveals the truth within ourselves.

Source: https://www.quora.com/What-did-T-S-Elliot-mean-when-he-wrote-We-must-not-cease-from-exploration-and-the-end-of-all-our-exploring-will-be-to-arrive-where-we-began-and-to-know-the-place-for-the-first-time

What exactly did you post this in relation to? Without context it could mean anything.

My posts are the context; I am leading this discussion to more fruitful ground, but first I need to clear up some things:

Back it up just a second, let me make sure I understand what you're saying -- you just post stuff apropos of nothing in particular, just stuff you find interesting?

Yes, it's true.
I post interesting things.
The subject is life, GOD, rebirth.
I am discussing with OP and others.
My posts in this thread are the context.
You have to read my posts to see the context.
If you don't read my posts, you will think there is no context.
All of my posts are relevant, this quote by Eliot happens to be broad and ambiguous.
If you fail to think about what I post then you will find it challenging to ask any fruitful questions.
I refuse to accept OP's authority that awareness ends at death; he could just as easily say that it ends when you fall asleep!
I find it puzzling that atheists like OP are stating that we did not exist; why can't they just ask the question "where did we come from?" like the rest of us? 

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

It is called cause and effect, and it is exemplified in Newton's 3rd Law.

[1714498985]

1714498985

[qwik2learn]

BADECKER:

For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don't care that what they are saying really doesn't make any sense.

Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy. There are, after all, all sorts of secular philosophies of life, none of which are religions.

Source:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/fl/Atheism-Myths-Is-Atheism-a-Religion.htm

ORGANOFCORTI:

When we inquire what is the meaning of the effects produced on our senses — when we ask how there come to be in our consciousness impressions of sounds, of colours, of tastes, and of those various attributes we ascribe to bodies, we are compelled to regard them as the effects of some cause. We may stop short in the belief that this cause is what we call matter. Or we may conclude, as some do, that matter is only a certain mode of manifestation of spirit, which is therefore the true cause. Or, regarding matter and spirit as proximate agencies, we may ascribe the changes wrought in our consciousness to immediate divine power. But be the cause we assign what it may, we are obliged to suppose some cause. And we are obliged not only to suppose some cause, but also a first cause. The matter, or spirit or other agent producing these impressions on us, must either be the first cause of them or not. If it is the first cause the conclusion is reached. If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause.

Source:
http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

[qwik2learn]

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?

In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science!
So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates).

[organofcorti]

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?

In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science!
So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates).

I'm not sure what to think -- I was asking you. Do you think that everything has to come from somewhere -- yes or no?

[qwik2learn]

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?

In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science!
So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates).

I'm not sure what to think -- I was asking you. Do you think that everything has to come from somewhere -- yes or no?

Why are you unsure? I already gave you multiple proofs that causality is a scientific law (bolded). Now what do you think about these proofs?
You don't realize that these questions were already answered by Herbert Spencer. All of science rests upon the principle that everything has a cause, and all experiments are conducted in an effort to learn more about the true cause (source). I strongly encourage you to read Spencer's First Principles.

[organofcorti]

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?

In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science!
So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates).

I'm not sure what to think -- I was asking you. Do you think that everything has to come from somewhere -- yes or no?

Why are you unsure? I already gave you multiple proofs that causality is a scientific law (bolded). Now what do you think about these proofs?
You don't realize that these questions were already answered by Herbert Spencer. All of science rests upon the principle that everything has a cause, and all experiments are conducted in an effort to learn more about the true cause (source). I strongly encourage you to read Spencer's First Principles.

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

[BADecker]

BADECKER:

For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don't care that what they are saying really doesn't make any sense.

Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy. There are, after all, all sorts of secular philosophies of life, none of which are religions.

Source:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/fl/Atheism-Myths-Is-Atheism-a-Religion.htm

Caught up in religion? That's exactly what the adamant atheist is.

If a person never thought about it, he might be an atheist without having a religion of atheism.

When there is science that proves God - or even if it doesn't, it comes very close - atheistic believers in science can't be atheists and not have a religion. Perhaps if there wasn't any evidence whatsoever for God, or if there happened to be only evidence that suggested God didn't exist, then atheism might not be a religion.

Just because someone says, "I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion... ," doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about, or that he isn't a liar.

Check the dictionary definition of "religion" at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. All atheism is, is a bunch of dreamers who want something so badly that they are unwilling to even recognize that it might be some other way. That in itself is part of what a religion can be and very often is.

By the evidence, atheism is a religion.

[BADecker]

Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere?

What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?

In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science!
So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates).

I'm not sure what to think -- I was asking you. Do you think that everything has to come from somewhere -- yes or no?

Why are you unsure? I already gave you multiple proofs that causality is a scientific law (bolded). Now what do you think about these proofs?
You don't realize that these questions were already answered by Herbert Spencer. All of science rests upon the principle that everything has a cause, and all experiments are conducted in an effort to learn more about the true cause (source). I strongly encourage you to read Spencer's First Principles.

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

The fact of wide-spread to universal entropy says that there had to be a beginning. If there weren't any beginning, entropy would have caused a space/time equilibrium long ago, and no complexity would exist at all.

Since there was a beginning, there was a beginning of cause and effect. The beginning of cause and effect was the Great First Cause. It Itself may or may not have had a cause of its own. But if it did, that kind of a cause would have been so far beyond the area where mankind can think that we wouldn't understand it at all. Why not? Consider a First Cause that is so great that It could move countless subatomic particles and waves to produce the universe of today through thousands of years of cause and effect activity. Such a thing is simply mind boggling, way beyond the mind of man.

[qwik2learn]

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

No, that is not his logic at all; you obviously did not read the text.  
Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!

[organofcorti]

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

No, that is not his logic at all; you obviously did not read the text.  
Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!

If anything is thinkable, then it is thinkable that things do not need to come from somewhere. You can't have it both ways - either you can use logical inference or you can't. If you aren't using logical inference then anything is thinkable.

[Lust]

Why am I an atheist?  im a atheist too

here are the reasons why.

1. is there any proof that god really exist ?

2. how in the world will they know his face and his real story

please no bad comments

[BADecker]

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

No, that is not his logic at all; you obviously did not read the text.  
Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!

If anything is thinkable, then it is thinkable that things do not need to come from somewhere. You can't have it both ways - either you can use logical inference or you can't. If you aren't using logical inference then anything is thinkable.

There are only two points that we know about this:
1. There are some things that we haven't determined if they have come form somewhere or not;
2. There are some things that we know have come from somewhere.

We haven't found anything that we know just existed, all by itself, without having been caused by something else. In fact, there are so many thing that we DO know have been caused by something else, that it is unlikely that the things we don't know about, simply, spontaneously existed.

The idea of something being outside of the universe is something we cannot comprehend. Everything is part of the universe or else it does not exist... at least that is what our understanding is. Why is our understanding like this? Because we are completely part of our universe.

However, because cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy show that the universe had a beginning, there must have been something outside the universe, and before it, to cause the beginning.

Whatever it was that caused the universe, is something that would have to be outside of universal laws. If it weren't, it would simply have been part of the universe. The only way for the universe to have caused itself would be through some form of spontaneous, uncaused action. We have no evidence of spontaneity happening anywhere. There should be at least some dregs of spontaneity around if there ever was such a thing. We haven't found any.

The whole thing boils down, again, to two points. There are tons and loads of cause and effect actions that have taken and are taking place, that we know about. There are some things that we don't know about. A third thing is that, although we can imagine and guess about spontaneous activity, we haven't been able to find any for sure.

[Trading]

OP would like to ignore the scientific studies/observations and totally side-step the issue of rebirth (cycles) and the TRUE meaning of this life.
OP says that we are prisoners here; if this is our prison then what exactly is the reason for us being here?
I doubt that all of this "prison" stuff just caused itself by way of simple mechanism; that is absurd! Simple mechanism cannot yield the brain; according to the latest scientific tests, simple mechanism cannot even yield a functioning worm brain! Something is missing from the simple mechanistic understanding of mind.

Unfortunately, OP refuses to engage with the four points of evidence that Hammeroff puts forward. OP fails to realize that even a prison is there for a purpose; there is no prisoner without a prison and likewise there is no prison without a prisoner! OP thinks that he will be "executed", but he has no reason for thinking that his awareness will perish; everything indicates that awareness is cyclical, but one who holds to the physicalist materialist dogma will not entertain any alternative ideas.

The world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Look at how OP brushes aside ALL relevant criticisms before even giving them a second thought; talk about closed-minded!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424793.msg14473782#msg14473782

I don't know everything, but I question the OP, and I think I know what I'm talking about!

By the way, OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true.   Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I already posted what I think about your "scientific studies".

At best, they could be anecdotal cases suggesting the surviving and limited function of the neurons for some time more even without blood flow. Only believers (that want to believe no matter what) see these cases as evidence of a "soul".

I can see that a zygote shows no evidence of being aware. The burden of proof is on anyone claiming that it is aware and was aware as a "soul" before coming into existence.

The same applies to a corps. I can see he is dead and not aware of anything. Anyone claiming that a dead person is still aware or that he has a "soul" has to fulfill the same burden of proof.

No believer has ever fulfilled it, so my "absurd" claims are based on the empirical evidence. Yours are the ones based on imagination, parental education and fear from death.

Matter is not the beginning. I already quoted a post about the theory "A universe from nothing" that shows that matter can (there is no concluding evidence, yet) be created from quantum fields (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14388816#msg14388816). But they still don't know what created these fields.

The fact that we can't explain exactly how matter became life (but we already know how life became aware, by adaptation to climate change: See Matt Grove. Change and variability in Plio-Pleistocene climates: modelling the hominin response. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2011; 38 (11): 3038 DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.002 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921115910.htm) isn't evidence for any "soul". Our ignorance will never be evidence for anything.

But we are very close to it. We are aware and we are made basically of the same atoms of non-aware things. So, we have the same exact nature. We need no soul to explain it.

Anyway, on the ultimate source of everything, believers can't do better than us. What was the source of your god?

By the way, it's absurd to say that for having a cause things will have also a meaning. It's confusing cause and goal. To say that a stone has a meaning has as much sense as saying we have a "soul": imaginary theories with no evidence.

[BADecker]

The stone that David used in his sling - you know, the one that killed Goliath - had a lot of meaning.

[Jasad]

the only people who can answer why are you atheis is your own self,i'm muslim and dont know or have an atheis friend,and i dont know why atheis decide to become atheis,is you or they born without religion or when you grow up and relize that you're atheis,i dont know.

[AzibLala007]

if you are atheist then it is your problem because you did not believe in any religion.
first you need to believe in any religion.
without believing you can not say you are an autheist.

[qwik2learn]

I already posted what I think about your "scientific studies".

At best, they could be anecdotal cases suggesting the surviving and limited function of the neurons for some time more even without blood flow.

Your estimate of the scientific study called AWARE is founded in ignorance, because
1) the AWARE study under discussion presents a documented case (a clinical patient) which suggests the hypothesis that consciousness persists without the possibility of brain function (this is the same as saying that the two are independent), and
2) such a case would be very easy to replicate, in fact AWARE 2 is in the works! Only two out of the 152 patients reported any visual experiences, and one of them described events that could be verified, but according to you even a verified visual experience is fictional if it suggests that mind and brain can function independently. You never even said that these studies would be more interesting or acceptable if there were more controls, more replications, more patients with OBEs, & etc.

Your statement suggests to the reader that brain function during this time-frame is possible without blood flow, but YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THAT! In fact, shock or the lack of perfusion of oxygen to the brain is very common in many medical situations but is not associated with NDE-like experience at all.

Even skeptic Chris French admitted that validating the formation of perception and memory during such a time-frame would suggest that consciousness is not being generated by the brain.

Only believers (that want to believe no matter what) see these cases as evidence of a "soul".

Like it or not, the case was validated by eyewitnesses, and it is not the first case of its kind; on the other hand, science has yet to find and similarly demonstrate a case of brain function under anoxia after a certain brief period of about 40 seconds. It is dishonest for you to ignore that you also have a burden of proof in this discussion; you accepted the materialist explanation thinking that it was scientific, now I am informing you that it is not based on any evidence. The materialist scientists have not provided any evidence of brain function as you are suggesting, so failing that possibility, what is your burden?

All scientists have to do is figure out how the brain tricks the individual into believing that something fake is real. Of course all this is an article of faith which is, in principle, not very different from the faith claims made by religious people. However, with these kinds of assumptions, is it any wonder why scientists are not considered objective explorers of the world? They lose their objectivity when they become materialists of the fundamentalist variety who cannot imagine seeing the world outside of this limited, pragmatic, physical frame of reference.

[JesusHadAegis]

if you are atheist then it is your problem because you did not believe in any religion.
first you need to believe in any religion.
without believing you can not say you are an autheist.

Yap either you hate it or you just dont appreciate what you are seeing or what you've heard. because its better to accept the reality than just to cling on some miracles and events that can only be witnessed by choosen people, or so it would seem.

[Trading]

I could write that most people prefer to live in a fairy tale than wake-up to reality.

But it isn't that. Most people don't really believe on the god tale or, at least, they have serious doubts.

They play it for social reasons (especially in countries where is a bad idea to say you are an atheist).

Also, they prefer to play it for safety reasons, just in case they are wrong and saint Peter (or another similar figure) is indeed waiting for them. At least, as long as the church doesn't demand too much from them.

For all purposes, almost all believers live this life like if it was the only one they are going to have. They are ready to sin for petty reasons, and then, at most, show some "contrition" to the priest or to "god" (but they will sin again soon for the same earthly reasons).

They aren't really ready to sacrifice nothing important for their believe. Clearly, they don't love their neighbor as themselves or are going to sell their goods (not even 5% of them; not even churches do that) and give them to the poor.

[qwik2learn]

By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause.

No, that is not his logic at all; you obviously did not read the text.  
Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!

If anything is thinkable, then it is thinkable that things do not need to come from somewhere.

I disagree. The principle that everything has a cause holds up all of science. You can't rationally think of qualia as having no cause and no origin. You say that you can think of things as having no origin. How so?

You can't have it both ways - either you can use logical inference or you can't. If you aren't using logical inference then anything is thinkable.

OK, so you are saying that anything is thinkable, including self-causation (which is absurd) and "no causation" (which is unscientific), so therefore YOU are NOT using logical inference. Correct?

I could write that most people prefer to live in a fairy tale than wake-up to reality.

How so, OP? I proposed that you look at the scientific evidence of awareness occurring after the cessation of brain function (suggesting that mind is capable of awareness independent from brain function, under some special circumstances). You refused. Therefore, you are one of those who prefers to live in a fairy tale. Right?