Why I'm an atheist

[JesusHadAegis]

you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.

You mean author, not authiest.     

Well despite that spelling i he actually has point. Most atheist know more about god than some of those religious people. I was raised and went to a catholic school and most of the elder people in our church despise people by just looking at there clothes and walking. some of them judge by appearance and by speaking and thats some of the things i hate about them. But there are many youth camps for churches and i think thats a good activity for kids to learn stuffs.

[1714490529]

1714490529

[Moloch]

Q: How do you titillate an ocelot?



A: Oscillate it's tit a lot

[BADecker]

you are an authiest because you do not believe in any religion. i think you do not have to call yourself an authiest because you should first believe in any religion then apply it to your practical life then you should choose that you are an authiest or not.

You mean author, not authiest.     

Well despite that spelling i he actually has point. Most atheist know more about god than some of those religious people. I was raised and went to a catholic school and most of the elder people in our church despise people by just looking at there clothes and walking. some of them judge by appearance and by speaking and thats some of the things i hate about them. But there are many youth camps for churches and i think thats a good activity for kids to learn stuffs.

People judge each other no matter where they are. Walk down a busy street in Frisco (San Francisco) sometime, and look at all the weird people, and try to not judge some of them. Or in a busy
Walmart where the gals come in, in their pajamas or less.

The point of the Catholic Church is not to focus on the way church members judge. It is to focus on a relationship with God, the salvation of Jesus, and living a good life. Focusing on the way church-goers judge other church-goers makes you one of the judges. Your reason for being in the Church was thwarted as soon as you started judging.

Am I judging you? Some, perhaps. But it is by your own words, and we are not in Church. People make judgments about everything they see in life, and many of the judgments are subconscious.

[Trading]

Actually, I was once a committed atheist!

I guess you changed your ideas and concluded that your beliefs (by coincidence, of course, similar to the Samsara on religious Hinduism that probably you learned in your infancy) are scientifically proven based only on those "aware studies".

I already wrote more than once that, at most, those studies are anecdotal cases (scientific evidence must respect reproducibility: it must be able to be replicable by others) "supporting" the conclusion that the brain can register a few basic sensations even after 40 seconds without blood.

I also wrote that nothingness is simple being non-existent. If you think you have evidence you existed before being conceived, your science is very different than the one that is made by scientists.

[gimmyhead]

Godemichet. he's the god.

[Moloch]

Godemichet. he's the god.

Godemichet?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godemichet

[BADecker]

Actually, I was once a committed atheist!

I guess you changed your ideas and concluded that your beliefs (by coincidence, of course, similar to the Samsara on religious Hinduism that probably you learned in your infancy) are scientifically proven based only on those "aware studies".

I already wrote more than once that, at most, those studies are anecdotal cases (scientific evidence must respect reproducibility: it must be able to be replicable by others) "supporting" the conclusion that the brain can register a few basic sensations even after 40 seconds without blood.

I also wrote that nothingness is simple being non-existent. If you think you have evidence you existed before being conceived, your science is very different than the one that is made by scientists.

Regarding the question about if we existed before we existed...

The Bible talks about God knowing us before we existed. But, it talks about it more or less like God was making plans. There is nowhere in the Bible that says that we existed before we existed. But there is nowhere that explicitly says we did not. And there are hints that we might have, in some strange way.

God is powerful and full of understanding and knowledge way beyond anything we can conceive of. The fact of cause and effect in all the universe through all time that we are aware of, shows us that God firmly had the plan in mind for our existence. In the greatness that is the mind of God, we might essentially have existed even though we did not in any way that we understand it.

This is a question that is essentially beyond our capability of finding the answer for.

Regarding nothingness, there are several passages in the New Testament that say that nothing is impossible with God. These passages generally are understood to mean that God can do anything. My point is, in the presence of God, perhaps nothingness is something that does not exist. Again, we are talking about something that is beyond our understanding, and perhaps beyond the dimensions of this universe regarding understandability.

[qwik2learn]

Actually, I was once a committed atheist!

I guess you changed your ideas and concluded that your beliefs (by coincidence, of course, similar to the Samsara on religious Hinduism that probably you learned in your infancy) are scientifically proven based only on those "aware studies".

I read many studies and had my own experiences, and since I could not deny my own experience I decided to accept the truth of my reality.

I was not raised a Hindu, but I did watch the film "Krishna: History or Myth" and thoroughly enjoyed being informed about the truth thereof. See below.

I already wrote more than once that, at most, those studies are anecdotal cases (scientific evidence must respect reproducibility: it must be able to be replicable by others) "supporting" the conclusion that the brain can register a few basic sensations even after 40 seconds without blood.

In fact there are multiple documented cases involving anoxia and veridical perception after 40 seconds; AWARE is only a prospective study but AWARE is not the first successful attempt to gather evidence of veridical perception during a period of brain non-function.

You call it "basic sensations", but by all accounts these sensations and memories are impossible without brain function, so at least you can admit that to have a functioning mind without a functioning brain is absolutely unheard of in materialism and in fact refutes materialism. I do not think that it is a small matter. Neuroscience does not leave room for the phenomena of mind without brain function. Brain function ceases after "40 seconds". This patient had true perceptions during such a period and recalled them. The study is easy to replicate and AWARE2 is a follow-up study that is already in the works, so how is it that this demonstration of mind without brain cannot be replicated?

I also wrote that nothingness is simple being non-existent. If you think you have evidence you existed before being conceived, your science is very different than the one that is made by scientists.

Scientists in the West are currently still utilizing the old model of philosophical materialism, but it is logically unsound and in fact many eminent researchers recognize that this model has been discredited. Source: https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Furthermore, the evidence of NDE also discredits materialism and it was doing so even in ancient Greek times (see: Mythos of Er):

An "actual death experience" happens after "40 seconds" in some persons, and the perceptions during that period have been documented on multiple occasions, not just in AWARE; this class of phenomena is called veridical perception; I found a good writeup on the spiritual development site blog:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html

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.

Come on man... flying horses are not real

Flying horses are make-believe fairy tales, just like the rest of the qur'an, just like the bible, just like the bhagavad gita

Actually, the people of India never had any doubts about the historicity of Krishna until the colonial invaders projected Krishna as a mythical figure cooked up by wonderful stories. Planetary configurations mentioned in the ancient scriptures pertaining to major events and personages connected, help us date events that happened around these personages, centuries and millenia ago.

While Divinity is a matter of faith, historicity is a matter of existence.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalNJ4luBws
Text: http://www.artoflivingsecrets.com/krishna-history-or-myth/

[qwik2learn]

Waiting for the OP to start to talk down the evidence like all the other skeptics try to do:

He didn’t identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that’s not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television."[130][131]

This rationalization is not impressive AT ALL.
Is this not obviously presupposing the conclusion? How can the other specific details of this case be explained? The many elements of NDE and the totality of the evidence are ignored in favor of a convenient ad-hoc hypothesis with no evidence to back it. It seems like the skeptical explanation is always lacking in explanatory power when the entire situation is accounted for, just like is described in other cases of this class and other cases I mentioned in this thread. The totality of the evidence is more impressive than you realize... at least OP declares himself willing to speak with me about the nitty gritty, as for you I don't believe you would examine the various cases in sufficient detail, you would probably just rely on secondary sources like skepdic or wikipedia or the JREF.

If these experiences are anecdotal cases then we would not expect the perceptions to be verifiable and shared.

Sociologist Dr. Allan Kellehear states that some scientific theories are often presented as the most logical, factual, objective, credible, and progressive possibilities, as opposed to the allegedly subjective, superstitious, abnormal, or dysfunctional views of mystics. The rhetorical opinions of some NDE theories are presented as if they were scientific (Kellehear, 1996, 120). Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.

[minhkhoa]

I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!

[BADecker]

I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!

You sound like every other religious nut, with his own religious point of view.   

[Moloch]

I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!

This is basically my version of Pascal's Wager

If 1000 religions claim to be the one-and-only true religion... and they are all contradictory in such a way that only one of them could possibly be true... any given religion has at most a 0.1% chance of being correct and a minimum of 99.9% chance that it is wrong... (they could all be wrong, 100%... but at most, 0.1% of them could be correct)

I could not possibly believe in all the 1000 contradictory religions, so the obvious bet is none... I bet none of them are correct... and I win at least 99.9% of the time

Humans do not have enough time in their life to properly research all 1000 religions... so the choice is made while ignorant of most/all religions... only an idiot of a god would design such a scenario... so god either does not exist, or is a complete moron... your choice

If I... some random internet dude... can outsmart your god... your god is bullshit

[qwik2learn]

Humans do not have enough time in their life to properly research all 1000 religions...

Why would you need to do that? You can just watch this documentary and then discuss it with yours truly:

Come on man... flying horses are not real

Flying horses are make-believe fairy tales, just like the rest of the qur'an, just like the bible, just like the bhagavad gita

Actually, the people of India never had any doubts about the historicity of Krishna until the colonial invaders projected Krishna as a mythical figure cooked up by wonderful stories. Planetary configurations mentioned in the ancient scriptures pertaining to major events and personages connected, help us date events that happened around these personages, centuries and millenia ago.

While Divinity is a matter of faith, historicity is a matter of existence.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalNJ4luBws
Text: http://www.artoflivingsecrets.com/krishna-history-or-myth/

[BADecker]

I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!

This is basically my version of Pascal's Wager

If 1000 religions claim to be the one-and-only true religion... and they are all contradictory in such a way that only one of them could possibly be true... any given religion has at most a 0.1% chance of being correct and a minimum of 99.9% chance that it is wrong... (they could all be wrong, 100%... but at most, 0.1% of them could be correct)

I could not possibly believe in all the 1000 contradictory religions, so the obvious bet is none... I bet none of them are correct... and I win at least 99.9% of the time

Humans do not have enough time in their life to properly research all 1000 religions... so the choice is made while ignorant of most/all religions... only an idiot of a god would design such a scenario... so god either does not exist, or is a complete moron... your choice

If I... some random internet dude... can outsmart your god... your god is bullshit

This doesn't matter for you. Why not? Because atheism certainly isn't the correct religion, but you stay there anyway. So, how in the world can you ever expect to have time to find the correct religion when you stick with one that you know is wrong?

[Moloch]

I'm an atheist because every religion I have observed thinks that theirs is the one-and-only true portal to salvation which means that none of them are!

This is basically my version of Pascal's Wager

If 1000 religions claim to be the one-and-only true religion... and they are all contradictory in such a way that only one of them could possibly be true... any given religion has at most a 0.1% chance of being correct and a minimum of 99.9% chance that it is wrong... (they could all be wrong, 100%... but at most, 0.1% of them could be correct)

I could not possibly believe in all the 1000 contradictory religions, so the obvious bet is none... I bet none of them are correct... and I win at least 99.9% of the time

Humans do not have enough time in their life to properly research all 1000 religions... so the choice is made while ignorant of most/all religions... only an idiot of a god would design such a scenario... so god either does not exist, or is a complete moron... your choice

If I... some random internet dude... can outsmart your god... your god is bullshit

This doesn't matter for you. Why not? Because atheism certainly isn't the correct religion, but you stay there anyway. So, how in the world can you ever expect to have time to find the correct religion when you stick with one that you know is wrong?

Unlike you, I have done my due diligence in searching for the correct religion... I spent 20 years researching every religion on the planet... they are all wrong in too many ways to list

Atheism is not a religion... in the same way that bald is not a hairstyle... and abstinence is not a sexual position... these are the lack thereof... very different, very simple, yet you cannot comprehend

The reason you fail to understand these very simple concepts is because religion has blinded you to the truth of reality

[qwik2learn]

The reason you fail to understand these very simple concepts is because religion has blinded you to the truth of reality

Speak for yourself! You never replied to the truth of the history of the Bhagavad Gita! Reality has a past (history) and you choose to deny it wholesale!

You balk at examining 1000 religions yet you NEVER DARE to examine this ONE, even though I posted a VIDEO that you can just sit back and absorb.

I posted it April 13th and I still await your educated reply, yet you still sit here and tell us you have done your "due diligence"? How can that be?

[Moloch]

The reason you fail to understand these very simple concepts is because religion has blinded you to the truth of reality

Speak for yourself! You never replied to the truth of the history of the Bhagavad Gita! Reality has a past (history) and you choose to deny it wholesale!

You balk at examining 1000 religions yet you NEVER DARE to examine this ONE, even though I posted a VIDEO that you can just sit back and absorb.

I posted it April 13th and I still await your educated reply, yet you still sit here and tell us you have done your "due diligence"? How can that be?

I've read much of the Bhagavad Gita, it's as much bullshit as the rest of them... Hindu's aren't any better at inventing gods than other religions

The only decent 'religious' book I read was the Tao Te Ching

I suppose the Kabbala was decent... some interesting stories and thought experiments in The Zohar, but it's not real... none of it is real...

[qwik2learn]

It's not about secret knowledge, the topic is history and it has been recorded:

The story of Krishna is deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of India and the people of this land revere Him as a Divinity. The colonial hangover has however left a doubt on the historicity of this highly adored Divinity.
...
Not only from Archaeo-astronomy, but also from a wholistic analysis of data across various disciplines, today we can conclude that Lord Krishna was born in 3112 BCE... India’s most beloved Divinity was indeed also a historical figure who had walked this planet about 5000 years ago.

The people of India never had any doubts about the historicity of Krishna until the colonial invaders projected Krishna as a mythical figure cooked up by wonderful stories.

Atheists presented similar attacks against the historicity of Jesus but THESE ATTACKS ALL FAILED.

While Divinity is a matter of faith, historicity is a matter of existence.

[Moloch]

It's not about secret knowledge, the topic is history and it has been recorded:

It's certainly not a history book... it's not factual

Like most "history" of the day, it's full of magic and fairy tales... this is evident even in the case of real life people whom we know existed... When historians wrote about the battles of Caesar, they added magical stuff similar to what you find in the Mahabharata or the bible... while some of it might be based on a real event, it's not even close to the real history... everything has been embellished with a magical quality... most of the events were just stories passed down by word of mouth, and you should know how that changes a story every time its told...

It's just a collection of stories, nothing more... it's not history or fact... most likely none of it ever happened

It's similar to Jesus... the man most likely never even existed... its quite obvious to any serious historian that the story of Jesus is inaccurate on several major historical facts... like who was the emperor of Rome during the time of Christ... the bible got this wrong... the stories about Jesus are also a conglomeration of various myths and sayings which had been floating around the middle-east for centuries...

It's simply a collection of stories... that's all Jesus is

That's all Krishna is too... a collection of fairy tales... it's not real

[qwik2learn]

the stories about Jesus are also a conglomeration of various myths and sayings which had been floating around the middle-east for centuries...

This claim of yours was thoroughly debunked in the alternative media shortly after the same claim was made in the film Zeitgeist, and another wave of debunking followed after other atheist films like Religulous. In fact, this claim has been thoroughly debunked and to say otherwise means you did not do enough reading, you just believed the claim.

In fact, there is a historical reference in the BG to an astronomical alignment that actually took place. That part is history, so you cannot say it is a story because THAT IS NOT REALITY. Reality has a past.

What about spiritual/religious books written within the last 2 centuries? Are you going to evaluate those?