Why I'm an atheist

[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.

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?

When you write "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible" you're implying that things you support could exist, but humans cannot think of them. In the same way, just because you cannot think of a way in which this might happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

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?

If your analysis depends on things that we -- by definition -- cannot analyse, then your hypothesis in unfalsifiable and is not suitable for logical inference.

[1714481748]

1714481748

[1714481748]

1714481748

[1714481748]

1714481748

[qwik2learn]

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

Actually, less than a quarter (of USAmericans) identify as "nothing in particular", and this position is almost as popular as belief in reincarnation; what is interesting is the 30% of the share identifying as “nothing in particular” are also affirming that religion is either “very” or “somewhat” important to them. So 30% of those who don't have a religion, still have a somewhat serious faith (not serious doubt).
Also, 53% of those raised as religiously unaffiliated still identify as “nones” in adulthood. That means that the odds of maintaining your religious unaffiliation (and therefore your serious doubts) is about 50:50, which is not impressive.

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

There are many nations with people will openly disclose their opinions and the statistics from those nations indicate that you are wrong about most people having serious doubts about God. Since most USAmericans identify as Christians, that is prima facie evidence of their serious belief, NOT serious doubt. I think this argument is antiquated and it does not apply to the Western cultures; I could not think of one Western culture where I would be scared to declare myself an atheist; I actually became an atheist at a young age in a very insular religious community and I NEVER had any problems with openly declaring my lack of belief. Actually, one of my acquaintances did not even know what an atheist was, so I felt very good about educating the unaware. But in all reality, I can only offer my opinions in the hopes of educating and inspiring others so if you do not want to discuss them with me then I see no need to offer further.

For all purposes, almost all believers live this life like if it was the only one they are going to have.

Too true; few choose to look beyond the physical manifestations of this Earth. What a pity.

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).

We can all hope to learn from our mistakes; it is actually a very easy process.

"Learn to act correctly: everybody has shortcomings, believes in something wrong, and lives to carry out his mistakes. "--Kurt Gödel

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.

Clearly man must move towards perfection and loving his neighbor if man is to survive. There is no way that man's selfishness can long continue. It is accepted by many people that we are living through the end times described in many prophecies throughout the ages.

Have you ever thought that people are being brainwashed by the churches? Have you ever thought about WHO corrupted the entire original message of Christianity as it was then into something utterly alien? And have you ever thought about what true goodness would look like?

[qwik2learn]

When you write "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible" you're implying that things you support could exist, but humans cannot think of them. In the same way, just because you cannot think of a way in which this might happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

Actually, it is impossible for "something to come from nothing" (that's what you support), but this cannot be proven because "intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof."

If your analysis depends on things that we -- by definition -- cannot analyse, then your hypothesis in unfalsifiable and is not suitable for logical inference.

So it is with the hypothesis of "something from nothing" which you support--it is not suitable for logical inference because it is not falsifiable and is also repugnant to the intuition.

[organofcorti]

When you write "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible" you're implying that things you support could exist, but humans cannot think of them. In the same way, just because you cannot think of a way in which this might happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

Actually, it is impossible for "something to come from nothing" (that's what you support), but this cannot be proven because "intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof."

Intuition is that thing that often leads us astray. Intuition in mathematics, for example, is often wrong. If you're relying on unfalsifiable intuition, you're going to be lead astray by your own personal preferences.

If your analysis depends on things that we -- by definition -- cannot analyse, then your hypothesis in unfalsifiable and is not suitable for logical inference.

So it is with the hypothesis of "something from nothing" which you support--it is not suitable for logical inference because it is not falsifiable and is also repugnant to the intuition.

I don't support any particular notion. "Something from nothing" is simply a valid output of your previous statement that "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible". I'm pointing out that the method you're using to analyse your ideas also supports the antithesis of your ideas.

Once again -- any statement about the nature of the world that can cannot be falsified is not worth considering, and can contain contradictions within itself.

[gilangIDR]

choose a faith is a person's choice. one can not impose the will of others. and if you have been born like that so it was a destiny. everyone has a way of life and destiny, respectively.

[BADecker]

choose a faith is a person's choice. one can not impose the will of others. and if you have been born like that so it was a destiny. everyone has a way of life and destiny, respectively.

It is NOT a destiny. God leaves open a little part of every heart to accept Him or reject Him. Based on how a person feels about God, God controls the rest of the person's life.

[Moloch]

choose a faith is a person's choice. one can not impose the will of others. and if you have been born like that so it was a destiny. everyone has a way of life and destiny, respectively.

It is NOT a destiny. God leaves open a little part of every heart to accept Him or reject Him. Based on how a person feels about God, God controls the rest of the person's life.

Please follow your own advice:

It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.

Stop making bullshit claims without backing it up with evidence... if you have no evidence to support your opinion... why would anyone listen/care?

[BADecker]

choose a faith is a person's choice. one can not impose the will of others. and if you have been born like that so it was a destiny. everyone has a way of life and destiny, respectively.

It is NOT a destiny. God leaves open a little part of every heart to accept Him or reject Him. Based on how a person feels about God, God controls the rest of the person's life.

Please follow your own advice:

It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.

Stop making bullshit claims without backing it up with evidence... if you have no evidence to support your opinion... why would anyone listen/care?

Hey, man. I stopped making BS claims years ago. It's your turn now.   

[qwik2learn]

Once again -- any statement about the nature of the world that can cannot be falsified is not worth considering, and can contain contradictions within itself.

So let's consider OP's statement; is it worth considering?

Part of OP's claim can be falsified, another part cannot be falsified. OP claims that:
1) The evidence convincingly shows that you existed "as nothing" for an eternity.
2) You existed "as nothing" for an eternity, and
3) You will return to an existence "as nothing" for an eternity.

The first point has been falsified; OP is no longer responding to me because of the impressive evidence that I have presented since I started posting here. Simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, so OP's claim about "nothingness" is false. The rest of OP's claim is not worth considering. Instead, OP should consider using cycles as an explanation for awareness rather than promoting something that cannot be falsified.

   Sorry to tell you, but everything seems to force to conclude that you were nothing (you didn't exist as an aware person, so you were like dead before you were conceived) for an eternity and are going to be nothing again (you are going to die and stay dead) for another eternity.

   You are going to return to our natural state, our only real "permanent home", where we already spent an eternity, before being born: nothingness

[Moloch]

Open-Minded Man Grimly Realizes How Much Life He's Wasted Listening To Bullshit
http://www.theonion.com/article/open-minded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes--19273

During an unexpected moment of clarity Tuesday, open-minded man Blake Richman was suddenly struck by the grim realization that he's squandered a significant portion of his life listening to everyone's bullshit, the 38-year-old told reporters.

A visibly stunned and solemn Richman, who until this point regarded his willingness to hear out the opinions of others as a worthwhile quality, estimated that he's wasted nearly three and a half years of his existence being open to people's half-formed thoughts, asinine suggestions, and pointless, dumbfuck stories.

"Jesus Christ," said Richman, taking in the overwhelming volume of useless crap he's actively listened to over the years. "My whole life I've made a concerted effort to give people a fair shake and understand different points of view because I felt that everyone had something valuable to offer, but it turns out most of what they had to offer was complete bullshit."

"Seriously," Richman added, "what have I gained from treating everyone's opinion with respect? Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

According to Richman, it was just now hitting him how many hours of his life he's pissed away listening intently to nonsense about celebrity couples, how good or bad certain pens are, and why a particular sports team might have a chance this year. The husband and father of two said that every time he's felt at all put out or bored by a bullshit conversation—especially a speculative one about how bad allergy season was going to be—he should have just turned around, walked away, and gone rafting or rappelling or done any of the millions of other things he's always wanted to do but never thought he had time for.

At various points throughout the day, Richman could be heard muttering to himself that he couldn't believe he was almost 40 years old.

"Twenty minutes here, 10 minutes there. It all starts to add up," said Richman, who sat down and figured out that between stupid discussions about favorite baby names and reviews of restaurants in cities he'll never visit, he'd wasted 390 hours of his life. "And you know what the worst part is? It's my fault. Here I thought being considerate to others by always listening patiently to what they had to say was the right thing to do. Well, fuck me, right?"

According to Richman, he started thinking about how much time he's flushed down the toilet being an approachable person after a work meeting in which he let a coworker, David Martin, ramble on and on with an idea everyone knew was "total shit" the moment the man opened his mouth. Richman said that a single glance at the clock made him realize he had just spent 14 minutes of his finite time on earth not playing with his kids or being with his wife, but listening to garbage.

"It was like I stepped out of my body and saw myself actually listening to this man's worthless drivel—but it wasn't him who looked like a moron, it was me," Richman said. "I was nodding my head like an asshole and saying ridiculous things like, 'Right,' and, 'I see your point, Dave,' when I should have just said, 'Dave, your idea isn't good and you are wasting our time and you need to shut up right now.'"

By his estimates, Richman's receptiveness has resulted in 160 irreplaceable hours of listening to grossly uninformed political opinions, 300 hours of carefully hearing out both sides of pointless arguments, and at least a month of listening to his parents' bullshit about how important it is to be open-minded.

Eighty days have been wasted on the inane blather of his college friend Brian alone.

"All those hours I could have been relaxing, or reading all these great books, or getting into shape, or working on side projects that I'm really excited about," Richman said. "But instead I've been listening to overrated albums recommended to me by my asshole friends."

"Did you know that in my life I've listened to five days' worth of people talking about their furniture?" he added. "It's true. That's a trip to Europe right there."

While Richman has vowed to cease being open-minded to absolute horseshit, acquaintances reflected on his approachability.

"I love Blake," coworker David Martin said. "He's such a good listener. A lot of people are closed-minded and self-absorbed, but Blake always makes an effort to hear where I'm coming from. The world could use more people like him."

[qwik2learn]

How does the OP know that nature is indifferent to our individual existence? What makes him the authority? Has he experienced what he is talking about? And how can the OP possibly claim that something (awareness) came from eternal nothing?

If anyone is talking nonsense, it is the OP.

[Slow death]

I think most of the things written in the Bible are is fairy tales

And I agree with everything you said OP

Where is the eden garden?

Why until now no one has a concrete image of God or Jesus?

The egypt pests look like a fairy tale, God has his angels, Why until today God not just wars? He sent an angel that war would end soon, but we have never seen any angel until today

Why God not just with the devil?

Someone believes in noe ark story?

I believe in science .. all diseases were cured thanks to scientific knowledge of the human, we use computer and internet thanks to the knowledge of the human being

But religions reap mind of many people and believers go to the extreme to make war against each other killing thousands

Bible was written by people who wanted to take advantage over the others (my opinion)

[organofcorti]

When you write "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible" you're implying that things you support could exist, but humans cannot think of them. In the same way, just because you cannot think of a way in which this might happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

Actually, it is impossible for "something to come from nothing" (that's what you support), but this cannot be proven because "intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof."

Intuition is that thing that often leads us astray. Intuition in mathematics, for example, is often wrong. If you're relying on unfalsifiable intuition, you're going to be lead astray by your own personal preferences.

If your analysis depends on things that we -- by definition -- cannot analyse, then your hypothesis in unfalsifiable and is not suitable for logical inference.

So it is with the hypothesis of "something from nothing" which you support--it is not suitable for logical inference because it is not falsifiable and is also repugnant to the intuition.

I don't support any particular notion. "Something from nothing" is simply a valid output of your previous statement that "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible". I'm pointing out that the method you're using to analyse your ideas also supports the antithesis of your ideas.

Once again -- any statement about the nature of the world that can cannot be falsified is not worth considering, and can contain contradictions within itself.

So let's consider OP's statement; is it worth considering?

Part of OP's claim can be falsified, another part cannot be falsified. OP claims that:
1) The evidence convincingly shows that you existed "as nothing" for an eternity.
2) You existed "as nothing" for an eternity, and
3) You will return to an existence "as nothing" for an eternity.

The first point has been falsified; OP is no longer responding to me because of the impressive evidence that I have presented since I started posting here. Simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, so OP's claim about "nothingness" is false. The rest of OP's claim is not worth considering. Instead, OP should consider using cycles as an explanation for awareness rather than promoting something that cannot be falsified.

Why are you changing the subject? I'm discussing your claims, not those of the OP. I'm hoping that you'll realise that an unfalsifiable statement - one that in principle cannot be tested -- is pointless.

[qwik2learn]

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).
These points demolish OP's assertion that the brain came from "eternal nothing". In fact, these points of mine are part of a scientific consensus:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Louis Pasteur agreed:

(Quoted text from Wikiquote)

Louis Pasteur (27 December 1822 - 28 September 1895) French microbiologist, chemist, pioneer of the "Germ theory of disease", discoverer of molecular asymmetry and stereo-chemistry, and inventor of the process of Pasteurization.
Louis Pasteur believed as did many other scientists on this page that science led to the belief in God. He also did not believe that life arose naturally from matter. He thought it more likely that life existed first and matter arose from life. Pasteur said:
Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

...

Science brings men nearer to God.

...

I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?

[organofcorti]

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).
These points demolish OP's assertion that the brain came from "eternal nothing". In fact, these points of mine are part of a scientific consensus:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Louis Pasteur agreed:

(Quoted text from Wikiquote)

Louis Pasteur (27 December 1822 - 28 September 1895) French microbiologist, chemist, pioneer of the "Germ theory of disease", discoverer of molecular asymmetry and stereo-chemistry, and inventor of the process of Pasteurization.
Louis Pasteur believed as did many other scientists on this page that science led to the belief in God. He also did not believe that life arose naturally from matter. He thought it more likely that life existed first and matter arose from life. Pasteur said:
Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

...

Science brings men nearer to God.

...

I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

[BADecker]

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).
These points demolish OP's assertion that the brain came from "eternal nothing". In fact, these points of mine are part of a scientific consensus:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Louis Pasteur agreed:

(Quoted text from Wikiquote)

Louis Pasteur (27 December 1822 - 28 September 1895) French microbiologist, chemist, pioneer of the "Germ theory of disease", discoverer of molecular asymmetry and stereo-chemistry, and inventor of the process of Pasteurization.
Louis Pasteur believed as did many other scientists on this page that science led to the belief in God. He also did not believe that life arose naturally from matter. He thought it more likely that life existed first and matter arose from life. Pasteur said:
Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

...

Science brings men nearer to God.

...

I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

Here you are, changing the subject from whatever qwik2learn was talking about, to the subject of changing the subject.

[qwik2learn]

I'm discussing your claims, not those of the OP.

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).

I'm hoping that you'll realise that an unfalsifiable statement - one that in principle cannot be tested -- is pointless.

Well, my second claim can surely be tested and in fact has been tested; the results point squarely towards the validity of my first claim.

I am happy to discuss my claims in detail, starting with the main ones.  

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

Let's stick to my main claims for our conversation subject.

[organofcorti]

I'm discussing your claims, not those of the OP.

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).

I'm hoping that you'll realise that an unfalsifiable statement - one that in principle cannot be tested -- is pointless.

Well, my second claim can surely be tested and in fact has been tested; the results point squarely towards the validity of my first claim.

I am happy to discuss my claims in detail, starting with the main ones.  

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

Let's stick to my main claims for our conversation subject.

I was talking about the specific claims of yours that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" is a valid response to a question about the logic of Spencer's claims.

[qwik2learn]

I'm discussing your claims, not those of the OP.

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).

I'm hoping that you'll realise that an unfalsifiable statement - one that in principle cannot be tested -- is pointless.

Well, my second claim can surely be tested and in fact has been tested; the results point squarely towards the validity of my first claim.

I am happy to discuss my claims in detail, starting with the main ones.  

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

Let's stick to my main claims for our conversation subject.

I was talking about the specific claims of yours that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" is a valid response to a question about the logic of Spencer's claims.

Actually, Spencer specifically disagrees with my claim that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" in his essay First Principles and he explicitly lays out his logic. I suspect that you did not actually read the essay, so why should I explain his logic to you if you were not willing to read it from the horse's mouth?   Now that I think about it further, I am more inclined to agree with Spencer, so I am retracting this claim of mine.  

My main claims are based in evidence and they soundly refute the statements made in the OP, but it seems to me that you would prefer not to discuss them.

[organofcorti]

I'm discussing your claims, not those of the OP.

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).

I'm hoping that you'll realise that an unfalsifiable statement - one that in principle cannot be tested -- is pointless.

Well, my second claim can surely be tested and in fact has been tested; the results point squarely towards the validity of my first claim.

I am happy to discuss my claims in detail, starting with the main ones.  

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

Let's stick to my main claims for our conversation subject.

I was talking about the specific claims of yours that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" is a valid response to a question about the logic of Spencer's claims.

Actually, Spencer specifically disagrees with my claim that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" in his essay First Principles and he explicitly lays out his logic. I suspect that you did not actually read the essay, so why should I explain his logic to you if you were not willing to read it from the horse's mouth?   Now that I think about it further, I am more inclined to agree with Spencer, so I am retracting this claim of mine.  

My main claims are based in evidence and they soundly refute the statements made in the OP, but it seems to me that you would prefer not to discuss them.

I'm not discussing your claims. You think that your statement was a valid justification of a concept, and I attempted to show you that it wasn't.

This brings me back to my original point which was "how can there be a first cause if everything must have a cause?". This was the point to which you responded "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!", but I'd like to hear a better reasoned argument than that.