Atheism showing signs of religion. [Resolved-NO]

[jduff]

Of the Atheists I know they all share a common trait. The belief that when you die you just die. No afterlife, no anything. You are just dead. Now the reason I bring this up is a Atheist is basing that belief off of faith. There is no proof that when you die, you just die. Rather death is still scientifically a phenomena. The idea that a atheist uses a faith based belief(Which that assertion is) astounds me. From a scientific view, that is exactly what it is. A belief that is based on a phenomena. Which for all practical purposes would be the same as a religion. Basing a set belief on a phenomena. With no proof.

 

 

The other issue which contradicts that particular Atheistic belief. Is the Law of Energy. If applied to death. Death is not really death but rather a transfer of energy. Stating that our consciousness dies when the body dies is another faith based belief. As once again the atheist has no proof to back that statement up.

 

No offense to any Atheist here.Just a couple perplexing argument's towards some of the Atheistic views.

Edited September 22, 2013 by jduff

[ACG52]

 

 

There is no proof that when you die, you just die.

There is no evidence that there is anything beyond death, existence wise. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of there being nothing which contradicts observation of all life. When an organism dies, it no longer manifests any sign of continued existence.

 

It's the belief that consciousness continues after death which is a matter of faith, i.e. a belief based on no evidence.

 

 

 

Is the Law of Energy.

This is the kind of nonsense that religious believers come up with to try to assuage their feelings of intellectual inferiority.

Edited September 22, 2013 by ACG52

[pears]

Of the Atheists I know they all share a common trait. The belief that when you die you just die. No afterlife, no anything. You are just dead. Now the reason I bring this up is a Atheist is basing that belief off of faith. There is no proof that when you die, you just die. Rather death is still scientifically a phenomena. The idea that a atheist uses a faith based belief(Which that assertion is) astounds me. From a scientific view, that is exactly what it is. A belief that is based on a phenomena. Which for all practical purposes would be the same as a religion. Basing a set belief on a phenomena. With no proof.

 

I'm not sure you can call a lack of belief in something faith. That doesn't seem right to me.

[John Cuthber]

This is just a variation on the theme of

"Atheism is a religon!"

"Yeah, like bald is a hair colour"

 

But this has additional nonsense like "Death is not really death but ..."

[Moontanman]

The other issue which contradicts that particular Atheistic belief. Is the Law of Energy. If applied to death. Death is not really death but rather a transfer of energy. Stating that our consciousness dies when the body dies is another faith based belief. As once again the atheist has no proof to back that statement up.

 

 

The default position is always something that has no evidence doesn't exist, woo words that really mean nothing add nothing to your position.

 

Again the default position is nothing after death not something after death, we have every reason to think that there is nothing after death because there is no evidence of something after death, this is based on reality not hopes and wishes and woo words...

[jduff]

There is no evidence that there is anything beyond death, existence wise. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of there being nothing which contradicts observation of all life. When an organism dies, it no longer manifests any sign of continued existence.

 

1,It's the belief that consciousness continues after death which is a matter of faith, i.e. a belief based on no evidence.

 

2.This is the kind of nonsense that religious believers come up with to try to assuage their feelings of intellectual inferiority.

 

1.So why cant you state its phenomena. Unanswerable?As you have no evidence showing otherwise. Instead you come off with dross nonsense based on your own observable data. The reality is death is still phenomena.

 

2. Talk about making assertions without any factual basis. You first think that my input is based off of"religious believers" with no evidence showing such. Other than your assertion. Then you state by your assertion that you are superior by stating the opponent to the argument is intellectually inferior. Talk about a tinfoil hat!

 

Sorry fella, egotistical diatribe does not work. Your statements equal nothing but what it is. No debate, rather just opinion.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Phi for All
quote tag fixed

[pears]

This is the kind of nonsense that religious believers come up with to try to assuage their feelings of intellectual inferiority.

 

Rather a sweeping statement don't you think?

[Moontanman]

jduff, if you think there is life after death it's up to you to provide positive evidence of this life after death, it's not our job to prove there is no life after death..

Anything that can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence jduff...

[jduff]

Well interesting responses to say the least. The fact remains that the Law of Energy is a law. It will always contradict the belief that death is just death. So a question, does a gluon exist? A neutrino? Through observable evidence without technological help. One would reason they dont. But they do? Another interesting point. Is observable evidence. Based on ???

[Moontanman]

Well interesting responses to say the least. The fact remains that the Law of Energy is a law. It will always contradict the belief that death is just death. So a question, does a gluon exist? A neutrino? Through observable evidence without technological help. One would reason they dont. But they do? Another interesting point. Is observable evidence. Based on ???

 

 

Care to let us in on that law of energy you keep asserting? Some details of how it applies to life after death would be nice as well...

 

Observable evidence is based on.... yesssss! Evidence that can be observed, so far I see nothing to suggest i will survive the death of my brain... nothing, no mechanism, no indications, nothing but woo words dude...

[jduff]

 

 

Care to let us in on that law of energy you keep asserting? Some details of how it applies to life after death would be nice as well...

 

Observable evidence is based on.... yesssss! Evidence that can be observed, so far I see nothing to suggest i will survive the death of my brain... nothing, no mechanism, no indications, nothing but woo words dude...

 

Consider that everything that makes us up is the effect of energy. Which includes the formation of consciousness and thought. It can be logically applied that at death that same energy that makes us or for that matter everything that exists. Does not disappear, but rather as shown through the natural world changes state. This is using the evidence applied to the law of energy.

 

The idea, that upon death the energy which forms us disappears is frivolous. Like I stated earlier. By stating even with observable evidence that when we die we just die is incorrect. Rather death by all accounts considering the law of energy would be phenomena.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Phi for All
quote tags fixed

[John Cuthber]

"The fact remains that the Law of Energy is a law."

http://xkcd.com/285/

[Phi for All]

The fact remains that the Law of Energy is a law. It will always contradict the belief that death is just death.

 

But it doesn't contradict it at all. I'm assuming that you're saying energy can't be destroyed. Death isn't destroying any energy, no violations, no contradictions. And it really only applies to closed systems, which Earth is not, but that's beside the point here.

 

Don't equate faith with trust. They're both forms of belief but trust has TONS of observational evidence backing it up, where faith is pretty much the opposite, believing in spite of a lack of evidence.

 

That shouldn't take anything away from YOUR faith, though. I think even you will admit that the bodies left behind by Earth's creatures are dead. Whatever you want to believe happens to the "consciousness" we tend to place importance on is up to you, I guess. It really can't be supported by either side. But the atheistic claim that death is the end of life is NOT a faith-based belief. It's a trustworthy explanation based on what we can observe scientifically, just without the unsupported afterlife addendum.

[Moontanman]

Consider that everything that makes us up is the effect of energy. Which includes the formation of consciousness and thought. It can be logically applied that at death that same energy that makes us or for that matter everything that exists. Does not disappear, but rather as shown through the natural world changes state. This is using the evidence applied to the law of energy.

 

The idea, that upon death the energy which forms us disappears is frivolous. Like I stated earlier. By stating even with observable evidence that when we die we just die is incorrect. Rather death by all accounts considering the law of energy would be phenomena.

 

The energy of your mind doesn't just disappear, it radiates away as waste heat, why would you think other wise?

[jduff]

I see death as a phenomena. I think that is where me and a atheist differ. I dont see boundaries. But then again,you are reading from someone who doesnt believe in random nor everything is interconnected.

The energy of your mind doesn't just disappear, it radiates away as waste heat, why would you think other wise?

Waste heat is a observable effect of energy. Not the energy itself. Just as your body is the effect of energy. That does not change the state of energy. Which brings the next question to this wonderful debate. Is our consciousness energy? If so, then do we really die at death? Then you have a even better question. If our consciousness is not energy. What is the driving force that guides energy to the formation of thought? Hmmm..

[doG]

Of the Atheists I know they all share a common trait. The belief that when you die you just die. No afterlife, no anything. You are just dead.

What evidence is there of any kind to believe anything else? The whole ideology that there is any afterlife is one of man's imaginations and there is no reason to give it any consideration without supporting evidence. I freely concede that it is possible but the fact that i don't have any belief in such does not make it religious.

[Moontanman]

I see death as a phenomena. I think that is where me and a atheist differ. I dont see boundaries. But then again,you are reading from someone who doesnt believe in random nor everything is interconnected.

 

Waste heat is a observable effect of energy. Not the energy itself. Just as your body is the effect of energy. That does not change the state of energy. Which brings the next question to this wonderful debate. Is our consciousness energy? If so, then do we really die at death? Then you have a even better question. If our consciousness is not energy. What is the driving force that guides energy to the formation of thought? Hmmm..

Ok, can you provide some evidence of that rather non scientific view of energy? you are talking as though you think the mind is some kind of special energy, can you show us that? Our consciousness is an emergent property of the mind and has no existence outside the brain and is the result of reacting chemicals, this can be demonstrated by disrupting this mind with chemicals not to mention injury, in fact both chemicals and injury can turn you into a completely different person or take away your self completely while leaving your body intact...

[Phi for All]

Which brings the next question to this wonderful debate. Is our consciousness energy?

 

Does this mean we answered your first question adequately? I didn't hear a resolution on that from you. Are you still convinced your title is correct?

[jduff]

First, non scientific view of energy? What are you talking about. Using the Law of Energy in its fullest extent. And what do you meam special energy? All energy is the same. Regardless of the values you place upon it. Why do you think you are able to chat on the web. The energy that makes up this universe is the same constant. Please dont mix a effect as energy. As it is not. You are correct in the aspect of chemicals. But that is not just subjective to chemicals, age(time), space(actual location, always moving) is a variance as well. All those properties are effects of energy. As well as its own seperate data.

 

While it is good to study the effect of energy. You still have not explained the causal or better yet the determinate factors in the formation of thought and or consciousness. The fact remains, that consciousness and thought will change through the addition or absence of data. But the one part you are leaving out is it still remains intact. Regardless of environ thought still remains active. Which is the principle point of which this debate is about.

 

Does this mean we answered your first question adequately? I didn't hear a resolution on that from you. Are you still convinced your title is correct?

Sufficient I dont believe there is a resolution. As I still believe death is a phenomena. So will always have opposing views. Just perhaps, giving some argument to ponder on

Edited September 22, 2013 by jduff

[Moontanman]

First, non scientific view of energy? What are you talking about. Using the Law of Energy in its fullest extent. And what do you meam special energy? All energy is the same. Regardless of the values you place upon it. Why do you think you are able to chat on the web. The energy that makes up this universe is the same constant. Please dont mix a effect as energy. As it is not. You are correct in the aspect of chemicals. But that is not just subjective to chemicals, age(time), space(actual location, always moving) is a variance as well. All those properties are effects of energy. As well as its own seperate data.

I don't think we are both using the same definition of energy... When you die the complex matrices formed in our brains by chemicals breaks down, the energy stored there evaporates as waste heat and worm food...

 

While it is good to study the effect of energy. You still have not explained the causal or better yet the determinate factors in the formation of thought and or consciousness.

neither have you btw...

 

The fact remains, that consciousness and thought will change through the addition or absence of data. But the one part you are leaving out is it still remains intact. Regardless of environ thought still remains active. Which is the principle point of which this debate is about.

 

Sufficient

How can you assert that the mind remains intact after death?

[jduff]

I don't think we are both using the same definition of energy... When you die the complex matrices formed in our brains by chemicals breaks down, the energy stored there evaporates as waste heat and worm food... I think we are looking at energy from a different view. I dont just see energy from a after effect. What it has already done. But rather I like to view it from a variable of possibilities. While you have shown effects of energy. Energy does not evaporate. The Law of Energy states that it cannot be created nor destroyed. But is a constant. Taking that law as it is. Then waste heat and worm food is a effect. I believe the energy holding the mass together changes and is released to wherever it goes(Why I consider death a phenomena) As we really do not know where it goes. All we have left to view is what the energy released leaves behind.or changes. And even then the mass variance still retains some energy.

 

 

neither have you btw...

 

 

How can you assert that the mind remains intact after death? Mind means physical, physical is only relevant if a SOL particle retains mass(A neutrino for instance). Of which energy is made of and comprised of SOL particles. Which make the formation of mass. The issue that needs to be defined is consciousness a part of energy made up of SOL particles or is it based on mass. I view it as part of SOL particles. As energy is the one requirement for thought to even exist. So I do believe consciousness can be retained after death.

[ACG52]

 

Rather a sweeping statement don't you think?

 

 

 

Is the Law of Energy.

Nope, this is just that kind of nonsense.

[Moontanman]

 

I don't think we are both using the same definition of energy... When you die the complex matrices formed in our brains by chemicals breaks down, the energy stored there evaporates as waste heat and worm food... I think we are looking at energy from a different view. I dont just see energy from a after effect. What it has already done. But rather I like to view it from a variable of possibilities. While you have shown effects of energy. Energy does not evaporate. The Law of Energy states that it cannot be created nor destroyed. But is a constant. Taking that law as it is. Then waste heat and worm food is a effect. I believe the energy holding the mass together changes and is released to wherever it goes(Why I consider death a phenomena) As we really do not know where it goes. All we have left to view is what the energy released leaves behind.or changes. And even then the mass variance still retains some energy.

 

 

neither have you btw...

 

 

How can you assert that the mind remains intact after death? Mind means physical, physical is only relevant if a SOL particle retains mass(A neutrino for instance). Of which energy is made of and comprised of SOL particles. Which make the formation of mass. The issue that needs to be defined is consciousness a part of energy made up of SOL particles or is it based on mass. I view it as part of SOL particles. As energy is the one requirement for thought to even exist. So I do believe consciousness can be retained after death.

 

Is there any chance you could stop using word salad?

[jduff]

Is there any chance you could stop using word salad?

Sorry, my only day off and am quite tired. I will edit after each post.

[swansont]

I see death as a phenomena. I think that is where me and a atheist differ. I dont see boundaries. But then again,you are reading from someone who doesnt believe in random nor everything is interconnected.

 

Waste heat is a observable effect of energy. Not the energy itself.

 

You can't just make up any definition you wish to argue your points. Especially when you point this out well into the discussion.

 

Death is the cessation of life. Heat of any sort is *by definition* energy.