Why I'm an atheist

[Moloch]

Everyone has a different path to take in life. In the later posts of the Atheism and Health thread I explained my path and the logic that led me to reject atheism as false. I wish you good fortune on your journey.

How exactly do you reject atheism as false?

Atheism does not posit any claims... it can be neither true nor false...

Atheism, in its most simple form is, "I don't believe you, show me some better evidence"... How can that be false?

[BADecker]

Everyone has a different path to take in life. In the later posts of the Atheism and Health thread I explained my path and the logic that led me to reject atheism as false. I wish you good fortune on your journey.

How exactly do you reject atheism as false?

Atheism does not posit any claims... it can be neither true nor false...

Atheism, in its most simple form is, "I don't believe you, show me some better evidence"... How can that be false?

There you go. Claiming that atheism doesn't make any claims. Do other atheists do this?

[Trading]

Some made comments on the creator or on the way from which nothing can be converted on something.

Well, I wrote a post about the recent theory that defends that the Universe came from nothing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14388816#msg14388816

The theory explains how the "physical stuff" was created, but doesn't explain what is the origin of the source of this stuff: the quantum fields that create something from nothing.

So the honest answer is: I don't know what is its source, but ignorance isn't a reason to believe in a god. We'll get to it, but probably to find new questions to ask.

Anyway, you also don't explain what was the source of your god. If you say everything has a beginning that must apply also to god.

No use to write to me about esoteric or metaphysic theories with no empirical evidence. That is pure imagination in motion.

I'm in the reality business. You know, that thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing on it.

Also the thing that can kill you if you ignore it.

[Trading]

On homosexuality, on my experience, people that have the need to trash gays are usually individuals with doubts about their own sexuality. They need to trash gays in order to say to everyone "I'm not gay".

On a strategic approach, male gays don't compete with us, on the contrary, they remove competitors, why should I dislike them?

Since male gays like men, I can agree that they have bad taste. But straight women also have bad taste, they also like men. And I'm very happy with their taste, so it's better avoid debating tastes.

The bible condemnation of homosexuality (as usually, with the death penalty, what else could it be?) is immoral. We shouldn't condemn activities that don't harm other people.

Who cares if something is "normal" or not? The point is if it harms other people or not.

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a gay. But let them do what they want between them.

[BADecker]

Some made comments on the creator or on the way from which nothing can be converted on something.

Well, I wrote a post about the recent theory that defends that the Universe came from nothing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14388816#msg14388816

The theory explains how the "physical stuff" was created, but doesn't explain what is the origin of the source of this stuff: the quantum fields that create something from nothing.

So the honest answer is: I don't know what is its source, but ignorance isn't a reason to believe in a god. We'll get to it, but probably to find new questions to ask.

Anyway, you also don't explain what was the source of your god. If you say everything has a beginning that must apply also to god.

No use to write to me about esoteric or metaphysic theories with no empirical evidence. That is pure imagination in motion.

I'm in the reality business. You know, that thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing on it.

Also the thing that can kill you if you ignore it.

The scientifically understood facts of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy, when combined, prove that God exists. Science doesn't tell us very much about God. The religions do that.

[Trading]

Here is the mistake in the thinking of Spanish writer, Miguel de Unamuno. Few people understand how deeply our souls and spirits are embedded within the core existence of the universe. Spanish writer, Miguel de Unamuno was among those who don't understand.

The core existence of the universe includes the dimensions, the parallel universes, the intelligence of the universe, and all time. In addition, there are probably many more things that are included that people haven't yet found out about.

The point? The destruction of the universe and the attached souls is a far greater happening than people understand. There is no such thing as simple death. There are only two points about the hereafter. Either, be removed from this universe and do not die, or go down with the collapse and dissolution of all space and time, to which your soul and essence is connected at its core.

You look like a nice person, BADecker; your nick doesn't make you justice.

However, most of the time I think we write in different languages, because I can't understand what you are saying. Not because of your English, but because of what you write.

Yes, Unamuno is wrong, his fear of nothingness made him religious. But he deserves a much better argument than yours. You simple don't give any ground for your allegation that "our souls and spirits are embedded within the core existence of the universe".

Anyway, you are talking about things I don't believe on. It seems you even think we have a soul and a spirit. I can't see any evidence to either of the two, but just to a brain with mental capacities and a conscience.

Even if I can't agree with what you say anyway, I see a basic logical contradiction between your statement the "soul and essence is connected at its core" and your allegation that they can "be removed from this universe and do not die".

But there is no use in answering me. We wouldn't be able to agree even on the rules of reason.

[qwik2learn]

Some made comments on the creator or on the way from which nothing can be converted on something.

Well, I wrote a post about the recent theory that defends that the Universe came from nothing here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14388816#msg14388816

A summary of your "defense" of that hypothesis is quoted here:

Since nothing is unstable, soon or later, nothing will convert itself in something.

...the "nothing" from which the stuff emerges isn't really nothing...

So, this theory still forces us to ask from where the quantum fields came and why they obey to some specific laws.

You started off this thread with "everything seems to force [you] to conclude that you were nothing for an eternity and are going to be nothing again for another", but now you have basically claimed that "we are still forced to ask where everything came from, and why there are any laws to begin with". So for clarity let me combine your two claims together into one contradiction:
"Life comes from nothing and returns to nothing, but we don't know where everything came from nor how it got here."
If you are so certain that life comes from nothing, why don't you have any idea about how life actually got here?

Obviously, the hypothesis of Krauss and others does not have any explanatory power--his "nothing" is not true annihilation, his "nothingness" cannot be the true source of creation. You failed at defending the idea that the Universe comes from nothing; you even admitted that Krauss was a spectacular failure in his defense of this idea on philosophical (i.e. logical) grounds. Your post does not defend Krauss, it only brings his errors to the attention of everyone in this thread.
No one can defend the absurd idea that awareness comes from nothing.
I strongly advise that you point out your logical error in your OP. NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING.

So the honest answer is: I don't know what is its source, but ignorance isn't a reason to believe in a god. We'll get to it, but probably to find new questions to ask.

Are you actually saying that you WILL get to the answer on how something emerged from nothing??

Anyway, you also don't explain what was the source of your god. If you say everything has a beginning that must apply also to god.

To explain everything is impossible: not realizing this fact produces inhibition.

According to you, the most likely scenario is that "We simpl[y] emerged on a random universe with laws that allowed for this to happen".

Actually, simple mechanism can’t yield the brain, and there is plenty of evidence that proves this. Quoting Hammeroff:

First, equating neurons with ‘bits’ is an insult to neurons. Single cell organisms like paramecium swim about nimbly, find food and mates, avoid obstacles and predators, learn and remember (when sucked into a capillary tube they escape faster each time), and have sex with a partner (Figure 2). They do so using hair-like sensors and motorized oars called cilia, comprised of protein polymers called microtubules (identical to those within brain neurons). Nobody knows whether paramecium is conscious, but it does perform ‘easy problem’ behaviors. How many bits (or ‘ops’, operations per second) would AI take to simulate a paramecium? If a unicellular organism is so clever, would neurons be so....simple-minded?

Second, while waiting for neuronal maps of mammalian brains to implement in silicon, some AI researchers have simulated the entire, already-mapped nervous system (302 neurons) of the tiny worm C elegans. Like paramecium, we don’t know if they’re conscious, but C elegans clearly exhibits ‘easy problem’ behaviors, e.g. moving in response to stimuli. But even artificial C elegans just sits there, with no functional behavior. AI can’t simulate the ‘easy problems’ in simple brains. Something is missing.

Third, memory is ascribed to synaptic connections within neuronal networks, such that given inputs cause particular activity patterns and outputs. But synaptic proteins are transient, re-cycled over hours to days, and yet memories can last lifetimes. Memory must be stored at a deeper level inside neurons, e.g. microtubules (which disassemble in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients).

Fourth and final is the ‘hard problem’. Unable to account for awareness, feelings and qualia through computation, prominent neuroscientists Christof Koch, Giulio Tononi and others have resorted to ‘panpsychism’, the notion that consciousness is a property of matter. British physicist Sir Roger Penrose suggests the rudiments of consciousness occur in fine scale quantum events in the very structure of the universe (Chalmers’ ‘psycho-physical bridge’). In panpsychism, or the more refined Penrose approach, consciousness or its precursors would have existed in the universe all along, or at least when life on earth began. And if that’s true, primitive conscious feelings, e.g. pleasure, could have been the ‘spark of life’, a fitness function toward which life formed and evolved to optimize pleasure, to ‘feel good’.

Do some careful reading to get a true understanding; it also helps if you understand Orch OR:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/is-your-brain-really-a-co_b_7756700.html

No use to write to me about esoteric or metaphysic theories with no empirical evidence. That is pure imagination in motion.

Please excuse me, but could you please repeat where it is that you found empirical evidence or a logical defense for this claim of yours:
"you were nothing for an eternity and are going to be nothing again for another." ?

I'm in the reality business. You know, that thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing on it.

Why should we believe your claim that "nothing" is the true beginning and end of the reality business? Krauss failed to defend his theory of a universe from nothing because even ancient philosophers knew that "nothing comes from nothing". The claim that "nothing comes from nothing" is so intuitively true that you do not need a proof to see it; human intuition is all that is required to realize that your awareness came from something. Your claim that awareness came from eternal nothing is equivalent to the claim of "something coming from nothing", so therefore it is absurd on its face. In fact, everything seems to force you to conclude that awareness did NOT come from eternal nothing.

Also the thing that can kill you if you ignore it.

I believe that something like that was mentioned in the Atheism and Health thread.
Also: Absurdities and contradictions can be deadly if you ignore them. Your claim that awareness came from eternal nothing appears to me to be pure imagination in motion; I eagerly wait for your empirical and philosophical defense of this claim, but please do not tell me that you have defended Krauss' idea when the truth is that it is logically absurd and not backed by any evidence whatsoever.

[qwik2learn]

Is even absurd because it seems that every time the brain blacks out the "soul" immediately goes out and don't have any recollection of that period, without any relevant exceptions.

I guess it must be a coincidence.

Actually, there are many relevant exceptions; you should firstly be aware that the research of Thonnard, et al. shows that memories during near-death experiences (NDE) are AT LEAST AS REAL as valid memories. The brain cannot function (i.e. have perceptions, form memories, etc.) until blood flow is restored, so a cardiac arrest patient with no brain function cannot possibly have perceptions (or even hallucinate) during that time before blood flow is restored, and yet this is what happened in numerous case studies, e.g. AWARE, Pam Reynolds, etc.

As another example, in the Eisenbeiss case, it seems that the only pragmatic way to avoid the conclusion of life after death is for the skeptic to claim fraud as the primary explanation. Is there any 100% reliable evidence indicating that the Eisenbeiss case is an example of fraud?  Is there any piece of reliable evidence that a skeptic can cite in favor of the fraud hypothesis? If not, then the fraud hypothesis is asserted without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence; conclusion: the Eisenbeiss case is not the result of fraud, and therefore it is most easily explained as a genuine example of after-death communication.

The Eisenbeiss case is one of the top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

[Moloch]

Is even absurd because it seems that every time the brain blacks out the "soul" immediately goes out and don't have any recollection of that period, without any relevant exceptions.

I guess it must be a coincidence.

...memories during near-death experiences (NDE) are AT LEAST AS REAL as valid memories...

Ummm no... that is incorrect

Science has shown that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination...

NDE can be produced using a magnetic field focused on the temporal lobe of your brain...

In a religious person, they see a while light, their family, "feel loved", etc...  In a non-religious person, they have all sorts of experiences, like alien abductions and anything their mind believes is real... this however does not make it legitimate by any means... quite the opposite

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Is there any 100% reliable evidence indicating that the Eisenbeiss case is an example of fraud?

Yes, all psychics are fraudulent... 100% of them... every psychic, to the man, is a con-artist... it is not real

If you do not believe me... go look up the James Randi foundation... they have a challenge, offering $1,000,000 if you can provide such evidence under scientific conditions... in over 50 years, nobody has even come close

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

Refusals to be tested

On Larry King Live, March 6, 2001, Larry King asked psychic Sylvia Browne if she would take the challenge and she agreed. Randi appeared with Browne again on Larry King Live on September 3, 2001 and she again accepted the challenge. However, she refused to be tested and Randi kept a clock on his website recording the number of weeks that have passed since Sylvia accepted the challenge without following through. Eventually the clock was replaced with text stating that "over 5 years" had passed

[qwik2learn]

Is even absurd because it seems that every time the brain blacks out the "soul" immediately goes out and don't have any recollection of that period, without any relevant exceptions.

I guess it must be a coincidence.

...memories during near-death experiences (NDE) are AT LEAST AS REAL as valid memories...

Ummm no... that is incorrect

Science has shown that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination...

You have only presented rhetorical opinions but have not met your burden of proof. Science has proved that NDE is a hallucination? How so?

Scientific attempts to subdivide and explain the individual elements of what is clearly a complex syndrome of related phenomena indicate that scientists are resigned to the fact that their efforts to date at developing a more comprehensive explanation have largely failed. They seem to be reduced to explaining a complex system by examining a small portion of the data available and filtering out or ignoring the rest. Such an approach is not promising but it seems to have been accepted as the only research methodology available to them.

Science is a way of interpreting the results of an experiment, such as the one carried out by Thonnard, et al:

Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories, we here compared phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events. Results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).

I provided evidence that these memories are at least as real as valid memories. Where is the evidence that these memories are all hallucinations? Oh, by the way, "We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions"!

anything their mind believes is real... this however does not make it legitimate by any means... quite the opposite

An NDE is not "anything goes" or "make believe"; actually, NDE memories are "at least as real" as valid memories.
Because NDEs have many common core elements, this suggests that they are spiritual voyages outside of the body.

[qwik2learn]

Yes, all psychics are fraudulent... 100% of them... every psychic, to the man, is a con-artist... it is not real

If you do not believe me... go look up the James Randi foundation... they have a challenge, offering $1,000,000 if you can provide such evidence under scientific conditions... in over 50 years, nobody has even come close

Actually, Randi's prize is not a scientific way to investigate paranormal phenomena.
For one, applicants are legitimately afraid the prize is some sort of worthless trick.
Why are you trying to pass this off as science? If I do not believe you, I should be able to validate your claim myself; you should not need an authority (JREF) to back up your scientific evidence. Please, I provided evidence that these memories are at least as real as valid memories. Where is the evidence that these memories are all hallucinations?

See:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/randis-unwinnable-prize-million-dollar.html

[Moloch]

Yes, all psychics are fraudulent... 100% of them... every psychic, to the man, is a con-artist... it is not real

If you do not believe me... go look up the James Randi foundation... they have a challenge, offering $1,000,000 if you can provide such evidence under scientific conditions... in over 50 years, nobody has even come close

Actually, Randi's prize is not a scientific way to investigate paranormal phenomena.
For one, applicants are legitimately afraid the prize is some sort of worthless trick.
Why are you trying to pass this off as science? If I do not believe you, I should be able to validate your claim myself; you should not need an authority (JREF) to back up your scientific evidence. Please, I provided evidence that these memories are at least as real as valid memories. Where is the evidence that these memories are all hallucinations?

See:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/randis-unwinnable-prize-million-dollar.html

That's ridiculous

James Randi is legitimate and would absolutely give out the prize if any paranormal claim was legit

Feel free to watch his videos... he has debunked 100% of applicants who didn't chicken out like Sylvia Brown (she did some research and realized it would be detrimental to her career to be debunked like he has done to many other frauds)

James Randi debunks Maureen Flynn (psychic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSSPto8rvvs

James Randi Debunks Peter Popoff Faith Healer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

James Randi exposes James Hydrick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I

James Randi Debunks an Astrologer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r70HsEvNRck

James Randi demonstrates how to fake psychic powers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQBljC5RIo


James Randi - Secrets of the Psychics Documentary (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFAvH8m8aI


As for being worth their time... ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!11!!one!

Do you not realize how much fame and fortune they would have if they had scientific proof that they were the only legitimate psychic on the planet?!?!?

[qwik2learn]

Ummm no... that is incorrect

Science has shown that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination...

You have only presented rhetorical opinions but have not met your burden of proof.

I provided evidence that these memories are at least as real as valid memories.

Where is the evidence that these memories are all hallucinations?

Please check out the Thonnard paper and tell me about your evidence in detail. Thanks!

[Moloch]

Ummm no... that is incorrect

Science has shown that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination...

You have only presented rhetorical opinions but have not met your burden of proof.

I provided evidence that these memories are at least as real as valid memories.

Where is the evidence that these memories are all hallucinations?

You provided nothing but a story about 2 guys in a conspiracy to fool people... your article even mentions that these 2 assholes were friends for years before they pulled this scam (yes, I actually read links when people post them... unlike you, I prefer to be informed on all sides of every argument)

I provided scientific evidence on how to induce a NDE, and overwhelming evidence that all psychics are fraudulent

[qwik2learn]

Ummm no... that is incorrect

Science has shown that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination...

You have only presented rhetorical opinions but have not met your burden of proof.

I provided evidence that these memories are at least as real as valid memories.

Where is the evidence that these memories are all hallucinations?

You provided nothing but a story about 2 guys in a conspiracy to fool people

You claimed that NDE are nothing more than a hallucination, but that hypothesis has been scientifically refuted.

Quote from Thonnard's paper:

Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories, we here compared phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events. Results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).


You claimed that you provided evidence on "inducing an NDE", but you are a speaking falsely because what they induced was an OBE which is NOT an NDE (in this case) and this evidence doesn't get you any closer to proving that these memories are illusions!
"We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions"!

You claimed that Eisenbiess knew the medium Rollans, but this explanation is not sufficient to explain the data apparently acquired from the dead personality himself, and it is problematic because it proposes an elaborate conspiracy where the two liars would have to do extensive research and painstaking labor for nearly a decade without any expected or actual reward; by itself, this fact does not provide any evidence of fraud. Professor Eisenbeiss is a trustworthy scholar, so what evidence can reliably implicate him in a scheme like this? I think that you have not provided any serious evidence for your proposed conspiracy.

[Moloch]

Please check out the Thonnard paper and tell me about your evidence in detail. Thanks!

I'm not going to waste all day debunking this nonsense for you... use google... search for "(my claim) debunked", and read what the opposition has to say about it... it's that simple

PS. You did not provide a link, and when I google "Thonnard paper", I see nothing relevant

[organofcorti]

Quote from Thonnard's paper:

Can you repost the link to that paper? Which journal was it in?

[qwik2learn]

Please check out the Thonnard paper and tell me about your evidence in detail. Thanks!

I'm not going to waste all day debunking this nonsense for you... use google... search for "(my claim) debunked", and read what the opposition has to say about it... it's that simple

PS. You did not provide a link, and when I google "Thonnard paper", I see nothing relevant

You might try searching the quote from the paper...

Since reports of NDEs are proposed to be imagined events, and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories, we here compared phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events. Results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057620

[Moloch]

Please check out the Thonnard paper and tell me about your evidence in detail. Thanks!

I'm not going to waste all day debunking this nonsense for you... use google... search for "(my claim) debunked", and read what the opposition has to say about it... it's that simple

PS. You did not provide a link, and when I google "Thonnard paper", I see nothing relevant

You might try searching the quote from the paper...

I posted a response before I saw any such quote... not sure why that post didn't load for me


The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory...

You can watch a man wear a helmet with his eyes closed for a few minutes... then listen to him tell a story about how some alien came into the room, abducted him onto a spaceship... where he was anally probed, then returned to the room...  That shit did not happen!  You can watch the video and see it did not happen the way he remembers it!


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Scientific_explanation

P Z Myers similarly suggested that false memories may be generated as the brain tries to make sense of a time when consciousness did not exist.  Further wishful thinking may generate experiences confirming what a subject wants to believe and brain damage may prevent a subject recognising that the experience was a dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

In psychiatry, Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications", and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence

[qwik2learn]

P Z Myers similarly suggested that false memories may be generated as the brain tries to make sense of a time when consciousness did not exist.  Further wishful thinking may generate experiences confirming what a subject wants to believe and brain damage may prevent a subject recognising that the experience was a dream.

What evidence shows that the brain is generating false memories?
Thonnard's results are a strong indication that NDE memories are at least as real as valid memories.
I have provided Thonnard's paper as evidence that they are true memories; you repeatedly fail to address it.
Both you and P Z Myers claimed that NDE are nothing more than an illusion, but that hypothesis has been scientifically refuted.

Since reports of NDEs are claimed by Moloch to be imagined events and since memories of imagined events have, on average, fewer phenomenological characteristics than real events memories [empirical data], why won't Moloch test the validity of his hypothesis and compare the phenomenological characteristics of NDEs reports with memories of imagined and real events? Thonnard did just that and his results showed that, in NDE memories group, NDE memories have more characteristics than memories of imagined and real events (p<0.02).