Thread: What's good about atheistic or materialistic beliefs?

Originally Posted by gc

Ok, a unicorn can be anything that you don't believe in. Now, can you concretely define God?

Well you've vaguely defined a unicorn once again.

Yes I can concretely define God, I defined God as that which is unborn, unmade, smaller than the smallest particle, the origin the innumerable universes, the highest enjoyment, personal, the truth in itself, within all things

The evidence is all around us. The fact that I am alive proves that life exists. In another thread which I linked to I showed why life (and the entire universe) must not have existed forever. Therefore we have gone from non-living to living - abiogenesis. Of course, if someone can give me a convincing argument why life does not exist, or why life has always existed, I am open to changing my mind.

Let's say you come home and there is no snow on the ground. You go inside, pull down the shades (so you can't see outside) and wait a few hours. You then go outside and there is snow on the ground, but it's not currently snowing. Even without any more information than that, you'd be pretty certain that it must have snowed while you were inside, right? You didn't actually see it snow, so where's the evidence? The evidence is the fact that there was no snow and now there is snow.

Well you continue proving that you understand nothing about science or logic. Showing that life must not have always existed does nothing to show that abiogenesis is true. This is just circular reasoning, you're concluding abiogenesis is true by already assuming abiogenesis is true

"Abiogenesis is true because I am alive, and I can only be alive because abiogenesis true"

Just circular reasoning

Now you're saying we need to prove abiogenesis false for you not to believe abiogenesis, what if I were to say until you disprove God, God must exist?

In other words you've lost the debate, and admit you require ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof to believe abiogenesis

Therefore we can conclude the real reason you don't believe in God has absolutely nothing to do with proof or evidence

Atheists always ruin and defeat their own arguments

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by VitalOne

If you don't believe in an afterlife, then you also cannot believe in free will, the two things are in contradiction.

I think this statement is a logical nonsense, but please explain, if you will, how my judgement on this might be wrong...

Well I already explained this about a million times, even in the OP and throughout this thread, I guess some people are fond of ignoring things and selectively reading only what they desire

The scientific reason as to why there is no afterlife is because consciousness is made up of electrochemical reactions in the brain, after death the electrochemical reactions cease, therefore consciousness must also cease, since consciousness IS electrochemical reactions, therefore there is no consciousness after death because consciousness IS electrochemical reactions

The scientific reason as to why free will cannot exist is because since consciousness is made up of electrochemical reactions, everything you say, do , and think is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain that you have absolutely zero control over. If you believe we can control these electrical reactions, then that's equivalent to believing in superhuman power, that you can break the laws of physics with your consciousness.

Both the non-existence of free will and an afterlife rests upon the same belief - consciousness being made up of electrochemical reactions

So questioning whether or not consciousness is electrochemical reactions also questions whether or not an afterlife exists

Not correct.

Both afterlife and free will are philosophical issues, and science can only provide supporting evidence or otherwise. There is nothing logically that provides an entailment between the two and therefore I repeat myself - your statement is a logical nonsense.

If you have a logical position that you wish to claim on this one, I am all ears.

Wrong

Free will is within the realm of empirical testability and therefore no longer a philosophical question

Using your reasoning everything is a philosophical issue, I guess atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...are philosophical issues

In either case it wouldn't matter if was philosophical or not, it still requires MORE faith to believe in free will vs. God

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made. The reason it's directly connected is because it's directly connected to the question of what consciousness is, and you've done nothing to refute this statement I made

Free will and an afterlife are both directly connected to what consciousness is made up of, I don't know how you can deny this

Do you believe in an afterlife or free will?

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Free will is within the realm of empirical testability and therefore no longer a philosophical question

Using your reasoning everything is a philosophical issue, I guess atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...are philosophical issues

In either case it wouldn't matter if was philosophical or not, it still requires MORE faith to believe in free will vs. God

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made. The reason it's directly connected is because it's directly connected to the question of what consciousness is, and you've done nothing to refute this statement I made

Free will and an afterlife are both directly connected to what consciousness is made up of, I don't know how you can deny this

Do you believe in an afterlife or free will?

Alright, first of all, consciousness and thought are different. Consciousness is not "made up" of anything. It is a state of existence that anything alive and aware is in. Thought, on the other hand, can very well be electrochemical reactions and still be controllable, or manipulable, where consciousness is not. Consciousness and Soul are not interchangeable. Neither is Free Will and Soul. The two ideas are completely independent of eachother and inconsequential to atheism.

Fail.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

The vegetarian analogy fails because it is not a lack of belief in eating meat. It is an active disbelief in the value of eating meat, furthered by tailoring one's diet around eating vegetables.

...its a choice that an individual makes to not believe.

Not necessarily. One may not-believe in gods or not-eat meat implicitly. Consider babies. Babies don't eat meat. The issue of deliberately rejecting meat doesn't come up. A child may be raised vegetarian, and simply develop the position as normal. A young adult raised so, in say a traditional Indian village, will eventually be exposed to meat-eating and think it just a weird exotic behaviour inconsistent with the vegetarian's established position. No choice to actively reject meat is needed here.

That's not to say a person raised on hamburgers who later rejects them is more vegetarian. Or less.

Again I suggest *cough* Yankie *cough* your personal relationship with atheism (and apparently vegetarianism) is value-added by your cultural environment and perhaps individual identity. That's understandable. Try to understand that most atheists are not like you. We didn't choose to reject gods. If we affirm the position philosophically it is basically a formality after the established fact of our atheism. We were raised atheist and we remain atheist. Most of us, worldwide.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

What are the consequences of Atheism?

Well, taking cue from the vegetarian/atheist child we note that young children implicitly believe whatever their parents believe. In my experience it is futile of parents to even try reserving personal beliefs from children, because children have an uncanny knack for extracting just what parents believe anyway, and most of that they internalize without a second thought. This also goes for values, tastes, habits of thought, biases, cognitive toolkit, in short: much of what we call the "character" of an individual.

So a first consequence of being raised atheist (the normal condition) is taking up the baggage of adult atheists, with inertia that is hard to break. That'll vary with culture, but the bulk of us I think learn materialist values. Ethics are explained in terms of mortal utility, yet human nature of our parents also must project hedonistic justifications... i.e. "your purpose, child, is to be happy."

Initially the atheist child implicitly views parents as "gods". They're absolute authorities, with magical powers even. Contrast the religious child who is given to believe in even higher more magical authority than parents. This higher authority (or meaning, purpose, etc. sometimes attributed as "father") will oversee the child through adulthood and in most religions even after death. For atheist children though, unless our parents are oppressive, we simply don't expect supreme authority in life. Everything is relative and assailable to reason. There are no external truths or laws. Or so we come to apprehend in growing independent of parents. We may later look for supreme laws and perhaps find them, but it's not in our nature to feel the world needs them.

When young adults philosophize, they're largely just rediscovering what they accepted on faith as children, or what as children they formulated in that peculiarly childlike matter-of-fact manner that defies sophisticated expression. Atheists and theists alike engage in this formal rediscovery of the "operating system". Apparently some theist-raised find sufficient logical contradictions and dissonance that they revise themselves as atheists. Here atheism is itself a consequence! Well, all power to ya.

Now I should address the free-spirit type of atheist, the ones who chose atheism in defiance of their upbringing. Why'd they do it? Well I see much evidence blurted on this forum. Our outspoken atheists variously associate atheism with logic, rationality, empiricism, scepticism, intelligence, freedom, science, sanity, and even superior genes or that agnostic weasel Dawkins. They generally agree atheism inconsistent with faith, absurdity, and mystery, to name a few. So they attach a lot of character to atheism, even as they argue it aloof from definition. Perhaps one consequence of this atheism is precisely that, as it's made up as we go along, for they are new to it, it merrily eludes consequences?

Direct questions I might ask: Do atheists feel more or less constrained than with theism? What does that mean to their lives? If it were conclusively shown that atheism imposes harsher conditions than religion, would they consider changing camps? If Germans under Hitler weren't logically bullied with physicalist arguments, North Koreans today sure are. How do we like that?

Anyway to answer "Consequences? What consequences?!" most directly to atheists here, I point to ethical license. Lacking an accountable code is consequential when we proceed to engage society. Sometimes people want to know what we believe in, if they should trust us, right? So at risk of sounding preachy, I suggest it ...uh, advantageous... for atheists to develop explicit & consistent ethics. Building ad hoc ethics as the fortunes of life compel is a foolish way; yet this is exactly how many atheists and quasi-believers operate.

More universal to atheists is the problem of mortality. As far as I know, every theist expects some kinda judgment of the soul after death. If the god doesn't grant continued existence in one form or another, it awards a meaning greater than Earthly existence. Atheists have none of that. Most of us expect only worms to rate our flavour, and the sketchy memories of a few loved ones, while they last.

A more positive consequence ...depending upon how we answer it... is that without a god to say what's good, we may decide that for ourselves. As far as I know, all gods worthy of worship have something to say about goodness. The ancient gods knew nothing of Doritos.

How's that, folks?

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Originally Posted by VitalOne

If you don't believe in an afterlife, then you also cannot believe in free will, the two things are in contradiction.

I think this statement is a logical nonsense, but please explain, if you will, how my judgement on this might be wrong...

Well I already explained this about a million times, even in the OP and throughout this thread, I guess some people are fond of ignoring things and selectively reading only what they desire

The scientific reason as to why there is no afterlife is because consciousness is made up of electrochemical reactions in the brain, after death the electrochemical reactions cease, therefore consciousness must also cease, since consciousness IS electrochemical reactions, therefore there is no consciousness after death because consciousness IS electrochemical reactions

The scientific reason as to why free will cannot exist is because since consciousness is made up of electrochemical reactions, everything you say, do , and think is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain that you have absolutely zero control over. If you believe we can control these electrical reactions, then that's equivalent to believing in superhuman power, that you can break the laws of physics with your consciousness.

Both the non-existence of free will and an afterlife rests upon the same belief - consciousness being made up of electrochemical reactions

So questioning whether or not consciousness is electrochemical reactions also questions whether or not an afterlife exists

Not correct.

Both afterlife and free will are philosophical issues, and science can only provide supporting evidence or otherwise. There is nothing logically that provides an entailment between the two and therefore I repeat myself - your statement is a logical nonsense.

If you have a logical position that you wish to claim on this one, I am all ears.

Wrong

Free will is within the realm of empirical testability and therefore no longer a philosophical question

Using your reasoning everything is a philosophical issue, I guess atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...are philosophical issues

In either case it wouldn't matter if was philosophical or not, it still requires MORE faith to believe in free will vs. God

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made. The reason it's directly connected is because it's directly connected to the question of what consciousness is, and you've done nothing to refute this statement I made

Free will and an afterlife are both directly connected to what consciousness is made up of, I don't know how you can deny this

Do you believe in an afterlife or free will?

Free will is not an empirical question because over 2000 years ago philosophers already demonstrated that the 'strong' (ie religious) form of free will is logically incoherent. The only form of free will worth talking about is the compatibilist form, and its use to to ensure, if possible, that moral responsibility can be taken by agents for their actions. It is entirely within the realm of philosophy.

Consciousness itself has three different lines of enquiry - through psychology, through neurobiology, and through philosophy. It is hoped that together we might make progress on the famous "hard problem" of consciousness, but we do not yet know whether or not we will.

The afterlife is primarily a philosophicl issue simply because the claimants for it are claiming that something not empirically testable nevertheless occurs.

There is nothing in logic or philosophy that prevents anybody from taking any of these positions:

1. There is an afterlife but there is no free will

2. There is an afterlife and there is free will

3. There is no afterlife but there is free will

4. There is no afterlife and there is no free will

An atheist like me goes for option 3 (bearing in mind I am speaking about the compatibilist notion of free will, bnot the christian/religious version).

A buddhist atheist may go for option 2 instead.

Most christians too would go for option 2, even though there are some sects that choose option 1.

Finally, some people do indeed choose option 4 as they see no point in the compatibilist position.

Again free will and the afterlife do not entail each other and, no, while there are interesting philosophical discussions to be had about quarks, hadrons, black holes etc, those entities are well described by physics in any case. You are confusing human matters and issues - free will, consciousness, the soul, the afterlife etc - which are definitely in the realm of philosophy, with scientific matters about which philosophy may comment, but which is not its main focus.

Originally Posted by Pong

Anyway to answer "Consequences? What consequences?!" most directly to atheists here, I point to ethical license. Lacking an accountable code is consequential when we proceed to engage society.

The above quote is core to your entire approach to this issue, but it is a premise which is deeply flawed.

It is non-sequitur to suggest that there is no accountable code due only to a lack of acceptance of one particular brand of human woo. The fact that I reject a fairy tale does not necessitate that I have no accountable code. Your assertion is rubbish on its face.

I do have a code, as to do others who reject the theist mythologies. The code is rooted in our evolution as pack animals... as beings which exist in troops, and the code is a function of our society, not a function of our thoughts about mortality and cosmic judgment.

Yes, we all worry about judgment to some degree and our behaviors are impacted accordingly, but that judgment comes from our peers and fellow humans who help us to survive in this world, not from our deities which some imagine to be beyond it.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

What are the consequences of Atheism?

Well, taking cue from the vegetarian/atheist child we note that young children implicitly believe whatever their parents believe. In my experience it is futile of parents to even try reserving personal beliefs from children, because children have an uncanny knack for extracting just what parents believe anyway, and most of that they internalize without a second thought. This also goes for values, tastes, habits of thought, biases, cognitive toolkit, in short: much of what we call the "character" of an individual.

So a first consequence of being raised atheist (the normal condition) is taking up the baggage of adult atheists, with inertia that is hard to break. That'll vary with culture, but the bulk of us I think learn materialist values. Ethics are explained in terms of mortal utility, yet human nature of our parents also must project hedonistic justifications... i.e. "your purpose, child, is to be happy."

Initially the atheist child implicitly views parents as "gods". They're absolute authorities, with magical powers even. Contrast the religious child who is given to believe in even higher more magical authority than parents. This higher authority (or meaning, purpose, etc. sometimes attributed as "father") will oversee the child through adulthood and in most religions even after death. For atheist children though, unless our parents are oppressive, we simply don't expect supreme authority in life. Everything is relative and assailable to reason. There are no external truths or laws. Or so we come to apprehend in growing independent of parents. We may later look for supreme laws and perhaps find them, but it's not in our nature to feel the world needs them.

When young adults philosophize, they're largely just rediscovering what they accepted on faith as children, or what as children they formulated in that peculiarly childlike matter-of-fact manner that defies sophisticated expression. Atheists and theists alike engage in this formal rediscovery of the "operating system". Apparently some theist-raised find sufficient logical contradictions and dissonance that they revise themselves as atheists. Here atheism is itself a consequence! Well, all power to ya.

Now I should address the free-spirit type of atheist, the ones who chose atheism in defiance of their upbringing. Why'd they do it? Well I see much evidence blurted on this forum. Our outspoken atheists variously associate atheism with logic, rationality, empiricism, scepticism, intelligence, freedom, science, sanity, and even superior genes or that agnostic weasel Dawkins. They generally agree atheism inconsistent with faith, absurdity, and mystery, to name a few. So they attach a lot of character to atheism, even as they argue it aloof from definition. Perhaps one consequence of this atheism is precisely that, as it's made up as we go along, for they are new to it, it merrily eludes consequences?

Direct questions I might ask: Do atheists feel more or less constrained than with theism? What does that mean to their lives? If it were conclusively shown that atheism imposes harsher conditions than religion, would they consider changing camps? If Germans under Hitler weren't logically bullied with physicalist arguments, North Koreans today sure are. How do we like that?

Anyway to answer "Consequences? What consequences?!" most directly to atheists here, I point to ethical license. Lacking an accountable code is consequential when we proceed to engage society. Sometimes people want to know what we believe in, if they should trust us, right? So at risk of sounding preachy, I suggest it ...uh, advantageous... for atheists to develop explicit & consistent ethics. Building ad hoc ethics as the fortunes of life compel is a foolish way; yet this is exactly how many atheists and quasi-believers operate.

More universal to atheists is the problem of mortality. As far as I know, every theist expects some kinda judgment of the soul after death. If the god doesn't grant continued existence in one form or another, it awards a meaning greater than Earthly existence. Atheists have none of that. Most of us expect only worms to rate our flavour, and the sketchy memories of a few loved ones, while they last.

A more positive consequence ...depending upon how we answer it... is that without a god to say what's good, we may decide that for ourselves. As far as I know, all gods worthy of worship have something to say about goodness. The ancient gods knew nothing of Doritos.

How's that, folks?

Wait... Was that a big bunch of speculatory quasi-psychological analysis? And, I'll highlight my favorite bit and make my response color coded.

This is a consequence of birth and development. Not atheism.

This is speculation and anecdotal, not evidence, and certainly not objective

Now, here we actually have meat, and it's too bad that this meat supports mine and inow's views. There are no absolutes, and everything is relative. Yes, there is nothing that is standard in atheists' morals. Atheism is a consequence, not a cause. Thanks for the agreement.

Atheism is a correlative thing, not a consequential thing. Often things go hand in hand, but one does not cause the other. My point was this, as was inow's. The two "outspoken atheists" you've been arguing with in this very thread.

whoa whoa whoa, this is entirely speculation and consequential of society, not atheism. It's societal grouping that does this, not the choice to not believe in a god. Sorry, again your argument fails

And on a side note, every atheist makes a choice when posed the question "do you believe in a god?" And, if that specific person is a rational person, they will explore their choice and actually become the very same "type of atheist" as me. one who challenged the status quo, and found that it wasn't worth the thought. I came to my decision through what I guess would be called soul searching. I challenged religion, and it failed me. So, I lost all faith, and went the route of not believing in anything without concrete evidence. Make of that what you will, but its free thinking that brought me to atheism. It was my rational, logical side that disregarded religion. Correlation, not causation.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Free will is within the realm of empirical testability and therefore no longer a philosophical question

Using your reasoning everything is a philosophical issue, I guess atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...are philosophical issues

In either case it wouldn't matter if was philosophical or not, it still requires MORE faith to believe in free will vs. God

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made. The reason it's directly connected is because it's directly connected to the question of what consciousness is, and you've done nothing to refute this statement I made

Free will and an afterlife are both directly connected to what consciousness is made up of, I don't know how you can deny this

Do you believe in an afterlife or free will?

Alright, first of all, consciousness and thought are different. Consciousness is not "made up" of anything. It is a state of existence that anything alive and aware is in. Thought, on the other hand, can very well be electrochemical reactions and still be controllable, or manipulable, where consciousness is not. Consciousness and Soul are not interchangeable. Neither is Free Will and Soul. The two ideas are completely independent of eachother and inconsequential to atheism.

Fail.

Sorry but you're wrong

Consciousness is not made up of anything? Well that's a great faith-based belief

Consciousness means "awareness of experience" and thoughts are part of your consciousness

The two ideas are entirely connected to each other, free will and an afterlife are both DIRECTLY connected to the question of what consciousness is, how can you deny this?

Where did you get those foolish ideas that consciousness is not made up of anything? I guess I can say a mountain isn't made up of anything

Originally Posted by VitalOne

I guess I can say a mountain isn't made up of anything

And, in addition to being mistaken in the way you've framed your argument against Arcane_Mathematician, you'd be mistaken when saying that, too.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior

Not correct.

Both afterlife and free will are philosophical issues, and science can only provide supporting evidence or otherwise. There is nothing logically that provides an entailment between the two and therefore I repeat myself - your statement is a logical nonsense.

How do you distinguish a philosophical issue vs a scientific issue?

Are atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, gravity, etc...philosophical issues also?

All you've done is repeatedly say it's a philosophical issue without explaining why

Free will is not an empirical question because over 2000 years ago philosophers already demonstrated that the 'strong' (ie religious) form of free will is logically incoherent. The only form of free will worth talking about is the compatibilist form, and its use to to ensure, if possible, that moral responsibility can be taken by agents for their actions. It is entirely within the realm of philosophy.

- Benjamin Libet's experiment
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimuli Experiment
- Observing that neurons make decisions (neural correlate)
- Observing that drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness

These observations and experiments all put free will into an empirical question, just the same as questioning whether or not bacteria or a TV has free will

You've done nothing to show it's outside of empirical testability (like say God or multiple universes)

Consciousness itself has three different lines of enquiry - through psychology, through neurobiology, and through philosophy. It is hoped that together we might make progress on the famous "hard problem" of consciousness, but we do not yet know whether or not we will.

Right, and neuro-psychology, neurology, neuroscience, and psychology all have lots of evidence pointing towards the direct non-existence of free will

Again, why is this a philosophical issue and not a scientific issue?

The afterlife is primarily a philosophicl issue simply because the claimants for it are claiming that something not empirically testable nevertheless occurs.

Well this is true of an afterlife, but not of free will, but the question of what consciousness is directly connects free will and an afterlife

Therefore it requires more faith to believe in free will vs believing in an afterlife or God

There is nothing in logic or philosophy that prevents anybody from taking any of these positions:

1. There is an afterlife but there is no free will

This one is true

2. There is an afterlife and there is free will

This one is true

3. There is no afterlife but there is free will

This one is false, free will requires consciousness to be beyond the brain, thereby indicating an afterlife (consciousness after death)

Otherwise if you believe consciousness ends after death, you should also believe that free will is non-existent

If consciousness ends after death because the physical brain is the mind then this both indicates the non-existence of free will and afterlife

4. There is no afterlife and there is no free will

This one is also true

An atheist like me goes for option 3 (bearing in mind I am speaking about the compatibilist notion of free will, bnot the christian/religious version).

Well then you would have to admit that your beliefs require MORE faith than believing in God or an afterlife

And you also face the contradiction of if consciousness ends after death because consciousness is composed of electrochemical reactions, then how can free will exist if every decision is made by electrochemical reactions?

So congratulations, you've proven that faith and evidence has nothing to do with your disbelief in God, thereby ruining every argument to connected to faith and evidence

And you also face the contradiction of if consciousness ends after death because consciousness is material, then how can free will exist?

Finally, some people do indeed choose option 4 as they see no point in the compatibilist position.

Well this is the only position based off evidence

If evidence is really the reason you don't believe in God or an afterlife, what is the reason you've chosen the faith-based path of "option 3"?

Again free will and the afterlife do not entail each other and, no, while there are interesting philosophical discussions to be had about quarks, hadrons, black holes etc, those entities are well described by physics in any case. You are confusing human matters and issues - free will, consciousness, the soul, the afterlife etc - which are definitely in the realm of philosophy, with scientific matters about which philosophy may comment, but which is not its main focus.

This entire time you've done nothing to refute any statement I made

Instead you just dodge around everything I said

Both free will and an afterlife are directly connected to the question of what consciousness

And if consciousness is composed of electrochemical reactions, this both indicates the non-existence of free will and an afterlife

How can you believe that free will exists but an afterlife does not, if you believe consciousness ends after death?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by VitalOne

I guess I can say a mountain isn't made up of anything

And, in addition to being mistaken in the way you've framed your argument against Arcane_Mathematician, you'd be mistaken when saying that, too.

Please explain how I'm supposedly "mistaken" instead of just repeatedly saying so

If you don't know what consciousness is, how can you know if free will or an afterlife exists? Are you denying that what consciousness is , is directly connected to both an afterlife and free will?

None of these atheists has done anything to refute anything I said, instead they use knee-jerk emotions, throw ad hominems, and change the subject

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Right, and neuro-psychology, neurology, neuroscience, and psychology all have lots of evidence pointing towards the direct non-existence of free will

I challenge you to cite a single one.


As for you being refuted, I will let you know that it's because your logic is so broken that you're arguments are not even good enough to be classified as wrong. That's not an ad hominem. That's a statement of fact.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Right, and neuro-psychology, neurology, neuroscience, and psychology all have lots of evidence pointing towards the direct non-existence of free will[/quote
I challenge you to cite a single one.

I already did

- Benjamin Libet's experiment
- Magnetic stimuli experiment
- Neural correlate explanation (showing that neurons make decisions, not any "free will")
- Drugs and chemical reactions altering consciousness

Let's see what Rudulfo Llinas, who is like the Einstein or Newton of neuroscience says:

"Some people believe we are something beyond neurons, but of course we are not. We are just the sum total of the activity of neurons. We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not." - Rudulfo Llinas, MD, PhD

Let's see what motor physiologist Mark Hallett says:
"My position is that free will is only a perception—our interpretation of how we experience our actions in the world. No evidence can be found for the common view that it is a function of our brains that causes behavior" - Mark Hallett, MD

Here's a paper from the Stanford School of Medicine on the physiology of will - http://bioethics.stanford.edu/conference/hallett.pdf

Originally Posted by inow

As for you being refuted, I will let you know that it's because your logic is so broken that you're arguments are not even good enough to be classified as wrong. That's not an ad hominem. That's a statement of fact.

Ha, you realize that you can't refute any statement I made so instead of refuting anything I said you think you just claim my "logic so broken" to trick and deceive people into thinking you've refuted any statement I made

What a clever trick, instead of refuting an argument just say "your logic is so broken..." but never show how it's broken

This entire time all of my statements remain unrefuted

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Free will is within the realm of empirical testability and therefore no longer a philosophical question

Using your reasoning everything is a philosophical issue, I guess atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...are philosophical issues

In either case it wouldn't matter if was philosophical or not, it still requires MORE faith to believe in free will vs. God

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made. The reason it's directly connected is because it's directly connected to the question of what consciousness is, and you've done nothing to refute this statement I made

Free will and an afterlife are both directly connected to what consciousness is made up of, I don't know how you can deny this

Do you believe in an afterlife or free will?

Alright, first of all, consciousness and thought are different. Consciousness is not "made up" of anything. It is a state of existence that anything alive and aware is in. Thought, on the other hand, can very well be electrochemical reactions and still be controllable, or manipulable, where consciousness is not. Consciousness and Soul are not interchangeable. Neither is Free Will and Soul. The two ideas are completely independent of eachother and inconsequential to atheism.

Fail.

Sorry but you're wrong

Consciousness is not made up of anything? Well that's a great faith-based belief

Consciousness means "awareness of experience" and thoughts are part of your consciousness

The two ideas are entirely connected to each other, free will and an afterlife are both DIRECTLY connected to the question of what consciousness is, how can you deny this?

Where did you get those foolish ideas that consciousness is not made up of anything? I guess I can say a mountain isn't made up of anything

okay. Consciousness is awareness of experience. What is awareness "made up" of? Can you pinpoint what "awareness" is? Is it an electrochemical reaction? Or is it a condition?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Free will is within the realm of empirical testability and therefore no longer a philosophical question

Using your reasoning everything is a philosophical issue, I guess atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...are philosophical issues

In either case it wouldn't matter if was philosophical or not, it still requires MORE faith to believe in free will vs. God

And you've done absolutely nothing to refute any statement I made. The reason it's directly connected is because it's directly connected to the question of what consciousness is, and you've done nothing to refute this statement I made

Free will and an afterlife are both directly connected to what consciousness is made up of, I don't know how you can deny this

Do you believe in an afterlife or free will?

Alright, first of all, consciousness and thought are different. Consciousness is not "made up" of anything. It is a state of existence that anything alive and aware is in. Thought, on the other hand, can very well be electrochemical reactions and still be controllable, or manipulable, where consciousness is not. Consciousness and Soul are not interchangeable. Neither is Free Will and Soul. The two ideas are completely independent of eachother and inconsequential to atheism.

Fail.

Sorry but you're wrong

Consciousness is not made up of anything? Well that's a great faith-based belief

Consciousness means "awareness of experience" and thoughts are part of your consciousness

The two ideas are entirely connected to each other, free will and an afterlife are both DIRECTLY connected to the question of what consciousness is, how can you deny this?

Where did you get those foolish ideas that consciousness is not made up of anything? I guess I can say a mountain isn't made up of anything

okay. Consciousness is awareness of experience. What is awareness "made up" of? Can you pinpoint what "awareness" is? Is it an electrochemical reaction? Or is it a condition?

Well if you believe that the brain = mind, the mind would be physical, consciousness would be made up of electrochemical reactions

What do you mean by pinpoint what awareness is? Drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness, like if someone gets drunk their consciousness changes, alcohol releases chemicals in the brain that changes consciousness, this is evidence that consciousness is either made up of electrochemical reactions or some how directly connected to electrochemical reactions

Originally Posted by inow

I do have a code. The code is rooted in our evolution as pack animals...

Basically correct. I'm more a cat person but whatever.

Originally Posted by inow

It is non-sequitur to suggest that there is no accountable code due only to a lack of acceptance of one particular brand of human woo. The fact that I reject a fairy tale does not necessitate that I have no accountable code.

Not quite. One may develop a perfectly rational code with no woo in it. A machine or sociopath would do so. However the pack as you call it requires woo, and for good reasons. For one, it polls the integrity of a person. If one sample is found good, we guess the whole person is in good order. For another, we need to catch out the impostors. What better test than arbitrary woo of which "If you have to ask, you'll never know." Surely you've seen this in other species. Works for humans too. This is what makes us accountable to others. So rejecting or lacking a common woo does make one less accountable. You should just know we have many woos in place.

Alternately, you mentioned game theory... understand how one becomes accountable in a "game". Rational behaviour isn't good enough, and for reasons you can figure out we must require more... that is: woo.

Another way to explain:

Why are those guys in your avatar displaying woo essentially wagging their tails? What's the utility of these silly rituals? LOL at the costumes, I mock the fantasy act, I'll bet they practice magical hand signs and speak in tongues.

Now. How should you "as a pack animal" judge one who rejects and attacks the group woo because it's useless and nonsensical in his mind? Betrays a fundamental lack of compatibility with the group, doesn't it?

So what would you propose instead, inow? I've many times suggested atheists might better conduct ourselves as a group, and engage society constructively. You can't deny your national atheists are falling behind. And you insist on undermining and ridiculing your own society. How is this helping?

BTW any reason you didn't answer the logical questions I listed, or show the error in them?

***

@Arcane. Rather than disentangle your responses, I'll try and round up your statements:


Atheism is the choice to reject theism. One becomes an atheist only by actively, rationally, rejecting theism.

After choosing atheism, a rational person will explore that choice and actually become:

the very same "type of atheist" as me. one who challenged the status quo, and found that it wasn't worth the thought. I came to my decision through what I guess would be called soul searching. I challenged religion, and it failed me. So, I lost all faith, and went the route of not believing in anything without concrete evidence. Make of that what you will, but its free thinking that brought me to atheism. It was my rational, logical side that disregarded religion. Correlation, not causation.

Atheism is a correlative thing, not a consequential thing. Any perceived correlations among atheists are independent of atheism.

The choice to not believe in a god does not cause anything. There are no standard atheist morals. Atheists do not develop in any particular way due to their atheism.

Atheism is a consequence, not a cause. It is a consequence of rational thinking, the exact opposite of religious thinking.


1) This is an undistorted picture defining atheism, applicable to all atheists?

2) Since I've been raised atheist and remain atheist, have never felt a need to reject religion (rather it intrigues me), and let's face it: I'm not the most rational tool in this drawer... how does your description of atheism apply to me?

I feel you guys are making things overly complicated.

Believing what you want to be true (Wishfull thinking) doesent make it true.

An atheist rejects theism because there is no proof in the slightest of any divine entity.

The foundation of religion is lies, uncertainity and ignorance. Religion has allready damaged the world physically and mentally to the point it can never make up for its pitifull existence.

If humans used logic, reasoning and simple common sense from the start we wouldve been ages ahead in technology and a step closer to unveiling the secrets of the universe.

Originally Posted by Pong

@Arcane. Rather than disentangle your responses, I'll try and round up your statements:


Atheism is the choice to reject theism. One becomes an atheist only by actively, rationally, rejecting theism.

After choosing atheism, a rational person will explore that choice and actually become:

the very same "type of atheist" as me. one who challenged the status quo, and found that it wasn't worth the thought. I came to my decision through what I guess would be called soul searching. I challenged religion, and it failed me. So, I lost all faith, and went the route of not believing in anything without concrete evidence. Make of that what you will, but its free thinking that brought me to atheism. It was my rational, logical side that disregarded religion. Correlation, not causation.

Atheism is a correlative thing, not a consequential thing. Any perceived correlations among atheists are independent of atheism.

The choice to not believe in a god does not cause anything. There are no standard atheist morals. Atheists do not develop in any particular way due to their atheism.

Atheism is a consequence, not a cause. It is a consequence of rational thinking, the exact opposite of religious thinking.


1) This is an undistorted picture defining atheism, applicable to all atheists?

2) Since I've been raised atheist and remain atheist, have never felt a need to reject religion (rather it intrigues me), and let's face it: I'm not the most rational tool in this drawer... how does your description of atheism apply to me?

I like the colorful name.

1) It's an undistorted view for the most common situation that causes either atheism or devout theism, depending on how the person comes to their conclusion. It takes reason and logic, or a deluded world view to become an atheist, and likewise a very rational person can just as easily become a theist this way, provided the information they have and the views they have swing that way.

2) I doubt you've ever been in a situation where you've had a challenge on your moral system, personally, to the point where you had to assess your world view. So, I don't think you've ever been in the situation I described.

So inow, Arcane_Mathematician, and also I think Raziell maintain that the status of atheism depends on active, conscious rejection of theism. Without theism there can be no atheism. It's like a yin-yang relationship? Perhaps by focusing real hard against religions one cultivates atheism?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

1) It's an undistorted view for the most common situation that causes either atheism or devout theism, depending on how the person comes to their conclusion. It takes reason and logic, or a deluded world view to become an atheist, and likewise a very rational person can just as easily become a theist this way, provided the information they have and the views they have swing that way.

2) I doubt you've ever been in a situation where you've had a challenge on your moral system, personally, to the point where you had to assess your world view. So, I don't think you've ever been in the situation I described.

1) It takes reason and logic, or a deluded world view to become an atheist
That's new. Gee I wonder who gave you that idea?

2) That plus "I lost all faith" sounds like breakage. An atheist is the result of a broken theist?

Now unless you're accusing me of deluded world view, the way this adds up suggests I'm not a real atheist in your opinion. This because I wasn't "born again" as an atheist. You've thoroughly hammered this point that atheism only occurs when a person rejects belief.

So not only are implicit (ignorant) atheists invalid, indifferent atheists are probably out too. This cancels most of the world's so-called atheist population. It certainly invalidates China, where several generations now we've been raising what we thought were good atheist citizens, effectively ignorant of religion. It invalidates the second and third generation atheists of countries like Norway or Japan, since their atheistic families shielded them from any serious option to reject belief. Pong would be in that position. Neither is Pong's 8-year-old boy an atheist, for same lack of theism to reject (does Santa count?). Where have all the atheists gone?

There's hope yet. In America we find atheists - new, real atheists - sprouting from the fertile religious soil.

I'm just tired of dealing with your continued ignorance on this topic, Pong. The fact that I only choose to engage you on certain topics is more a sign that I've got better things to do than anything else.

You continue to treat atheism as a source of worldview, but again... it's no more a source of worldview than is my rejection of astrology. That's as simple as I can make things. If you continue to disagree, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Raziell

I feel you guys are making things overly complicated.

Believing what you want to be true (Wishfull thinking) doesent make it true.

An atheist rejects theism because there is no proof in the slightest of any divine entity.

If proof is the real reason you don't believe then you should also not believe in abiogenesis, free will, the string theory, multiple universes, and anything else unproven, right?

The foundation of religion is lies, uncertainity and ignorance. Religion has allready damaged the world physically and mentally to the point it can never make up for its pitifull existence.

If humans used logic, reasoning and simple common sense from the start we wouldve been ages ahead in technology and a step closer to unveiling the secrets of the universe.

Nah, it's the opposite

Highly religious Theists invented the scientific method and founded classical physics and the quantum theory

Technology and science started growing much slower when atheists took science over, we stopped finding cures after atheists took science over, nearly all progress in science started moving much slower

When there were more theist scientists technology and science were growing much faster

Atheists have been holding back science and technology for years with their non-existent level of creativity and imagination

If everyone was an atheist we'd still be living in caves with no technology, everyone might have just gone home and committed suicide

These sweeping broad statements you've been making about atheists are of bad taste, lack evidence, and are against forum rules:

2(b) No hateful remarks about race, sex, religion, sexual orientation and the like; this includes use of the word 'gay' as a negative word. Pointing out faulty points in one's logic is okay. But try not to connect it to personal traits. Moderators may warn when they feel it is inappropriate or directing the thread in a negative way.

Consider this your last warning on this matter.

JX

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Technology and science started growing much slower when atheists took science over, we stopped finding cures after atheists took science over, nearly all progress in science started moving much slower

Again, please provide evidence for these statements.

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Originally Posted by Raziell

I feel you guys are making things overly complicated.

Believing what you want to be true (Wishfull thinking) doesent make it true.

An atheist rejects theism because there is no proof in the slightest of any divine entity.

If proof is the real reason you don't believe then you should also not believe in abiogenesis, free will, the string theory, multiple universes, and anything else unproven, right?

VitalOne... if you believe in something not because you want the truth but because you wish to believe something is true, then that is a meaningless choise made purely out of ones ego. An illusion of power that "if i think something is true than it must be so"

On your question i believe:

Abiogenesis is possible: logically true untill proven wrong.
Free will exist: Logically false (Im a determinist) untill proven wrong.
String theory: Not enough information to possess an opinion.
Multiple universes outside our own: logically true until proven wrong.
Multiple universes as in paralell universes: False until proven wrong.

I know this is kinda offtopic but i was wondering what religious beliefs you have yourself vitalOne and why you oppose atheism (If that is really the case)

The first step towards truth is to eliminate your own motives for wanting something to be true/false and watch the world as an observer.

The problem VitalOne is this... are you willing to risk your entire life on the gamble that there is a god? Because if there isnt one and all of humanity thought like that there would never be progress and we might never find the answers.

Hell - not knowing all the questions of the universe "Why is it life" "Why are we here" "where and what is the meaning" "is there more" is KILLING me just as much as anyone. The sad truth is that the only realistic way to get these answers at this point is trough technological advance.

I guess im an atheist because i want these answers nomatter how long it will take and nomatter how painfull the journey will be. Id trade my life in an instant for this knowledge just to know for 1 second. There simply is ZERO evidence a god exist at this point and i dont think the human species can afford to be wrong.

Im holding "atheist" values to heart because i want our descendants to one day know the answers to the many questions of the universe, not to sit on a rock delusional and lost in darkness dreaming of something that will never come to pass.

Originally Posted by Jacques.X

Originally Posted by VitalOne

Technology and science started growing much slower when atheists took science over, we stopped finding cures after atheists took science over, nearly all progress in science started moving much slower

Again, please provide evidence for these statements.

I find it funny that when atheists provide no evidence for their claims that criticize theists, no editing is done, just put a sign on the forum "we prevent any criticism of atheism and atheistic beliefs"

What's the reason that when he claimed that science and technology would be ahead if there was no religion, you didn't edit it and ask for evidence?

These atheists will try anything to prevent anyone from challenging their beliefs that they want to leave protected and unquestioned. They always take the victim stance when someone criticizes atheists in the same manner they criticize theists.

The evidence is history

Faraday - highly religious, discovered electromagnetism which changed technology and science forever, understanding electromagnetism changed technology more than anything ever in history

1880s - people riding on horses, lighting candles, during this time
1920s - airplanes, radios, light bulbs, cars, dishwashers, cash registers, contact lenses, etc.. now exist

That's a 40 year span when there were more theists scientists, things that previously never existed came into existence

1970s - gas cars, TVs and primitive forms of computers and the internet exist
2010 - Improved form of TVs, cars, computers and the internet exists

That's a 40 year span when there were much less theist scientists

We can clearly see that atheists are directly responsible for slowing down the growth of technology and science with their non-existent level of creativity and imagination

All they can do is mimic and copy, improve things that already exist, they're great at parroting and mimicking things they've heard, but they have no ability to actually think independently of what they've heard.

Thoughts that challenge an atheist's personal incredulity are thought of as fantasy and imagination to atheists, nonsense, fiction, senseless, so they avoid those thoughts or don't have those thoughts at all.

Originally Posted by inow

I'm just tired of dealing with your continued ignorance on this topic, Pong.

I see how correcting one who is consistently wrong, must take a lot of effort.

Originally Posted by Raziell

VitalOne... if you believe in something not because you want the truth but because you wish to believe something is true, then that is a meaningless choise made purely out of ones ego.

I have no "wishes" as to what I want the truth to be, I don't know why you think this

I only make direct observations with my mind

An illusion of power that "if i think something is true than it must be so"

I agree which is why you live in denial, you really don't want to be a theist

On your question i believe:

Abiogenesis is possible: logically true untill proven wrong.
Free will exist: Logically false (Im a determinist) untill proven wrong.

This is both an argument from ignorance

String theory: Not enough information to possess an opinion.

This one is logical

Multiple universes outside our own: logically true until proven wrong.
Multiple universes as in paralell universes: False until proven wrong.

These are both an argument from ignorance

I know this is kinda offtopic but i was wondering what religious beliefs you have yourself vitalOne and why you oppose atheism (If that is really the case)

My beliefs are kind of complicated, but there is no beneficial feature in atheism or atheistic beliefs as this thread shows

The first step towards truth is to eliminate your own motives for wanting something to be true/false and watch the world as an observer.

I agree, can you do this?

The problem VitalOne is this... are you willing to risk your entire life on the gamble that there is a god? Because if there isnt one and all of humanity thought like that there would never be progress and we might never find the answers.

A gamble? Are you willing to risk your entire life on the gamble that there isn't?

Hell - not knowing all the questions of the universe "Why is it life" "Why are we here" "where and what is the meaning" "is there more" is KILLING me just as much as anyone. The sad truth is that the only realistic way to get these answers at this point is trough technological advance.

I know the answers to these questions, do you?

I guess im an atheist because i want these answers nomatter how long it will take and nomatter how painfull the journey will be. Id trade my life in an instant for this knowledge just to know for 1 second. There simply is ZERO evidence a god exist at this point and i dont think the human species can afford to be wrong.

No, then you would be an agnostic

You are atheist because you've been fooled

There's also zero evidence for multiple universes, string theory, gravitons, or anything else empirically untestable

Atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, etc...were all unproven during the time period when they were empirically untestable and there was no SHRED of evidence

Im holding "atheist" values to heart because i want our descendants to one day know the answers to the many questions of the universe, not to sit on a rock delusional and lost in darkness dreaming of something that will never come to pass.

It seems like you're doing just that - sitting on a rock delusional and lost in darkness

Stop living in fantasy land and wake up to the truth

Originally Posted by VitalOne

If proof is the real reason you don't believe then you should also not believe in abiogenesis, free will, the string theory, multiple universes, and anything else unproven, right?

Oh, oh, so not true. As my dearly beloved John Lennon would say:

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?"

And I agree. Can you argue with this?

Originally Posted by JennLonhon

Originally Posted by VitalOne

If proof is the real reason you don't believe then you should also not believe in abiogenesis, free will, the string theory, multiple universes, and anything else unproven, right?

Oh, oh, so not true. As my dearly beloved John Lennon would say:

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?"

And I agree. Can you argue with this?

I dont think so.. it can be true if we think in other aspect.. just you yourself think then i tell..! :wink:

Originally Posted by John Lennon

I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?

That is almost scientific. The (scientifically) proper attitude is to believe anything is plausible until it's disproved. And if it could be disproved but survives all trials, then we fully believe it.

So the proper attitude does think fairies, the myths, dragons plausible.

And BTW we have evidence now that (Chinese) dragon "myths" stem from ancient fossil finds. Apparently the ancient Chinese encountered enormous reptile skeletons, gawked at them and remembered them, and even retained the "dragon bones" as relics for thousands of years. In hindsight, the notion that in all our time on Earth humans never once saw a dino skeleton until 1800's England is highly presumptuous.

Personally, I'm all for simply calling dinosaurs by their non-latin common name: dragons.

Originally Posted by VitalOne

I know this is kinda offtopic but i was wondering what religious beliefs you have yourself vitalOne and why you oppose atheism (If that is really the case)

My beliefs are kind of complicated, but there is no beneficial feature in atheism or atheistic beliefs as this thread shows

Hell - not knowing all the questions of the universe "Why is it life" "Why are we here" "where and what is the meaning" "is there more" is KILLING me just as much as anyone. The sad truth is that the only realistic way to get these answers at this point is trough
technological advance.

I know the answers to these questions, do you?

1) Seeking the truth based on evidence has no benefits eh? right.
2) You know the answers to the questions of the universe? That is by far the most arrogant and delusional answer i think i have ever heared in my lifespan if you are actually serious.


You claim me ignorant yet lets look up the definition:

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. The state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

I believe in what has real evidence, i dont disbelieve anything untill disproven. Yet you believe in something that has 0% evidence. According to this you are ignorant and i am not. Do you claim this is wrong? Or do you not understand your own language?

I see you got banned for trolling which makes sense, as you make none.

---VitalOne.

---I’ve printed off and have read through (to page 8 ) this discussion, so even though I will be repeating some posts, I still have to speak my mind on the topics.
---To bring some confusion to this discussion, I want you to note that I am not an atheist, a theist or any combination/variation existing between the two*.

---First off, I am going to bring to your attention something you might not be thinking about concerning atheism and how theistic beliefs about the individual described as ‘God’ connect:

No religious people have multiple reasons not to do evil, and can refrain from evil because of their beliefs

Where as atheists have to refrain evil DESPITE their beliefs, not because of their atheistic beliefs

It is possible to do good despite being an atheist, but not because of being an atheist

---Whether or not an atheist’s beliefs are true or not shouldn’t matter, because the things that are a part of a theist’s existence are the same for an atheist. If a theist is inherently ‘good’ then so is an atheist and their beliefs don’t matter, in the end, for or against their doing evil. Doesn’t the old saying go something like, “It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or not, because God believes in you.”

---On to the OP.

I find no beneficial feature in atheism, atheistic beliefs, or materialistic beliefs.

---Those things have the same benefits as theism ( in any variation), which is that they are one chosen/believed best way (of many things/ways in an individual’s existence) to import a purpose/meaning to the individual’s existence.

They all seem to be self-defeating and hopeless.

---So why hasn’t every individual within existence, no matter their beliefs or lack thereof, committed suicide/ceased to exist?

Life is meaningless

---Yes and no. Life is completely meaningless without any context/interaction, but because anything alive is ‘life’ and means something to whatever its context is/whatever interacts with that living thing it has meaning, so you have the result that life is meaningful.
---Another way of looking at life having meaning is that every individual’s life is meaningless, but no-one wants to be/worth or feel like nothing, so each individual’s existence is spent trying to prove that there is something more to their existence then nothing.
---Any logical atheist can understand this, so saying that someone not believing in ‘god’ thinks that life is meaningless is just making a guess.

Everyone's feelings, thoughts, emotions, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrochemical reactions the product of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection

---At the base level, those things are nothing more then changing patterns of energy. Which is as meaningless and as meaningful as anything else within existence.

Morality is the product of meaningless natural selection, has no other purpose

---It has the purpose, already shown to you, to allow for survival within a group of similar or differing individuals.

Faith or belief without evidence is irrational and bad

---Faith, belief, hope, trust, a hypothesis, a guess or any other symbol (used/created to show the same concept) are needed by every individual to exist within linear time. An atheist doesn’t necessarily believe that those things are bad or irrational, but I do agree that most don’t agree and vehemently argue against such things being a part of their lives/choices.

The reason there is no afterlife is because consciousness is made up of electrochemical reactions, after death the electrical activity in the brain ceases, so consciousness must also cease, since consciousness IS electrical activity

---I agree that consciousness is energy based, not necessarily electrical, and complete objectively subjective logic shows that while consciousness may cease to continue as we know it after ‘death', it does not necessarily mean that it stops completely. Science has shown entanglement and shows that the concept we describe as ‘memory’ (mineral/animal/plant/energy based) is observable in many variations as continuous. So from that (for that level of perception), it arises that there is a form of afterlife for the atheist as well as the theist.

The belief that consciousness is made up of electrochemical reactions automatically negates free will as well, since all your decisions would be the results of electrochemical reactions you have zero control over, so no afterlife = no free will

---Choice/free will is, apparently, ‘God’ given, from a theist’s point of view and personal beliefs don’t matter in that regard, so how you believe can’t negate free will.
---Objectively, free will and fate are both a controlling part of every individual’s existence and are shown EVERY time a choice occurs. No superhuman powers to change the laws of physics (since they are included within the laws of physics) or the existence (or lack of) an afterlife required to prove or disprove free will.
---Believing or not that there is or isn't an afterlife has nothing to do with there or not there being free will.

---Oops, I just noticed the banning. Oh well.

*God exists, doesn’t exist, is both at the same time, is neither of them, is all of the previously shown and none of this sentence.

In a materialist world, everything can be quantified; not coincidentally, everything can be quantified in our world. It is an axiom that nothing defies logic, because logic accounts for all possibilities and thus anything that logic did not account for would not be a possibility; all behaviours and objects can be modelled. It is not a matter of what is good about it a materialist world, it is simply the way things are. Besides, in a world where everything can be modelled using our rational minds, we can predict and manipulate our surroundings - it makes for a much better world than anything your right cerebral hemisphere would like to live in.

-hello everyone, I enjoy reading this forum and I will be quick on this one: as long as the science of mathematics predicts "the infinite" , religion predicts the ultimate GOD

-is just the same principle that applies in both concepts, only the image is different.

-what I find divine is looking at virtual images that reproduce the creation of stars that shape a cruel "hell" and then end up with earth like planets that shape the conscience of dreams.

try my page and see my ideas on my blog

[link removed] : interact with us a bit more before self-promoting. Quid pro quo, please. -SkinWalker

Originally Posted by croftandi

-hello everyone, I enjoy reading this forum and I will be quick on this one: as long as the science of mathematics predicts "the infinite" , religion predicts the ultimate GOD

-is just the same principle that applies in both concepts, only the image is different.

-what I find divine is looking at virtual images that reproduce the creation of stars that shape a cruel "hell" and then end up with earth like planets that shape the conscience of dreams.

try my page and see my ideas on my blog

Necropost that was followed by self-solicitation of your own website. A troll is a troll, and this one's GOT to go... Pronto.

sorry, I didn't want to upset you, I just wanted to share knowledge, please forggive me.

"What's good about atheistic or materialistic beliefs?"
Well, take it this way: you shift vision into a world of imagination in which you have more questions than you had in this world and you end up 100% self aware of the power of pure creation. That's when you understand that you can create through the "link" of conscience, just as in this world it is a quantum conscience. A religious person that only believe in something withouth trying to understand, will be only a "hypnotized follower" and a puppet with no self conscience.

So there is a similar image with the image of our life here, but in "heavens" you will find "people" going to church and "people" making science with purified mind and no fizical work. Remember that the power of knowledge is The Question.

And please excuse my english if I make mistakes, I am Romania.