Atheism showing signs of religion. [Resolved-NO]

[jduff]

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.

Who is making up anything. The creation of heat comes in a variety of ways. The collision of particles is one form, friction another. But the energy was already there. The reality is you did not actually create any new energy. Just heat energy is the effect of energy that is already there!

[John Cuthber]

jduff,

I suggest you do a couple of things.

First wait till you are not so tired.

Second read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

then, make sure that you know what energy doesn't mean (and here's a hint- you have been getting it wrong throughout this thread) come back and tell us if you still think you have a point.

[lightburst]

You assume that consciousness is something that is beyond 'brain mechanics'; that consciousness is not manufactured by the brain.

 

You can play with high-level interpretations of scientific laws all you want, but the fact remains. You first have to prove that we are more than chemistry. Alternatively, capture that ethereal consciousness right after a person dies and transplant it and see if it sticks. Or just capture one at all.

[swansont]

Who is making up anything. The creation of heat comes in a variety of ways. The collision of particles is one form, friction another. But the energy was already there. The reality is you did not actually create any new energy. Just heat energy is the effect of energy that is already there!

 

You are. Heat is energy being transferred, meaning it's energy. Yes, heat comes from energy that's already there, but it's part of that energy, not some separate effect. If you have 10 Joules of energy and then have heat transfer of 2 Joules, you have 8 Joules left.

[Phi for All]

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

 

Death IS a phenomenon. Technically, ANYTHING that happens to us are phenomena. Science attempts to understand these phenomena using real life, natural explanations, arrived at by observation and experimentation. These explanations are not accepted on faith, they are judged to be the most trustworthy by how much evidence supports them.

 

I was asking you if you still think atheists are "showing signs of religion" by claiming that death ends life? Remember, you're the one who is making the assertion that an afterlife exists, and is still considered "life". Atheists are only observing what is actually, naturally happening when dead bodies are tested. In essence, they are saying that life AS WE KNOW IT ceases upon death. Anything more is not in evidence.

 

So there should be a resolution for you. Maybe not about the other stuff you're bringing up, but the question of whether or not atheists are showing signs of religion by believing you're dead when you die should have a different answer for you now, shouldn't it?

[jduff]

Phi, I understand Atheism a bit more now. I see where a Atheist gets the view point. My view point differs, I still see consciousness after death. Thank you for the observations.

 

You are. Heat is energy being transferred, meaning it's energy. Yes, heat comes from energy that's already there, but it's part of that energy, not some separate effect. If you have 10 Joules of energy and then have heat transfer of 2 Joules, you have 8 Joules left.

Actually, heat is a byproduct of SOL particles that collide.If the particles did not collide heat would not exist(Sun for example). So my statement stands. While heat is a form of physical energy, it is still a byproduct of particles colliding. This is in every instance. And those particles that collide have no mass or very little. So the energy that is them is ever present.

Even when you cannot physically see them.

 

This is my last post for the evening. I will try, not saying im able, to continue this conversation during the week. Oh, very nice to meet everyone here who has responded. Maybe later in a different area we can discuss a theory I am working on called Determinate Individualism. Some of the other posts outside this area clue in on it. But, would like to see some feedback on it.

[Moontanman]

Umm what is an SOL particle?

[swansont]

 

Actually, heat is a byproduct of SOL particles that collide.If the particles did not collide heat would not exist(Sun for example). So my statement stands. While heat is a form of physical energy, it is still a byproduct of particles colliding. This is in every instance. And those particles that collide have no mass or very little. So the energy that is them is ever present.

Even when you cannot physically see them.

 

 

Please, teach me more about physics. /sarcasm

Umm what is an SOL particle?

 

I assume it stands for speed of light, rather than sh** outta luck. Either way it's wrong.

[Ringer]

Consciousness is a mechanism of brain functions

brain functions require energy input

that energy is derived from our metabolism

when we die our metabolism stops

when we die our brain functions stop

when we die our consciousness stops

 

Using your assumption that consciousness is required for an afterlife we have to assume no afterlife exists when one dies.

[iNow]

"Atheism is a religon!"

"Yeah, like bald is a hair colour"

On another note, I've never collected stamps so my not-stamp-collecting is obviously best described as a hobby.

[Phi for All]

Phi, I understand Atheism a bit more now. I see where a Atheist gets the view point. My view point differs, I still see consciousness after death. Thank you for the observations.

 

That's twice now you've ducked my question.

 

I'm not talking about a POV.

 

I'm not talking about whether there is an afterlife for your consciousness.

 

You claimed the observation that death is the end of life is made by atheists on faith, like any religion. It's been shown that instead it's based solely on the evidence that nothing but death at the end of life is observed. It's the afterlife that's taken on faith. So, again, don't you think your title claim needs to be changed? Isn't it wrong?

[jduff]

Phi, I no longer have a edit option for the OP. I would be happy to change it..

[Phi for All]

Phi, I no longer have a edit option for the OP. I would be happy to change it..

 

Changing the OP would be confusing. Is it OK to change the title the way I have, for this particular instance? We've done this in the past.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion on consciousness/life after death has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79437-consciousness/

[Gees]

Hi Jduff;

 

Before responding to your post, I would like to discuss your title. Jumping from belief to religion is a big leap, and I don't think that it is a valid assumption in this case. Religion requires that there is a concept belief, but also requires rituals, events, and dogma, along with some kind of persona to believe in. So I don't think that Atheism qualifies as any kind of religion, and is more an anti-religion.

 

I will grant that many Atheists lean toward the Eastern religions, but that is mostly because they are more a philosophy than a religion, so this works for many of them--but does not make Atheism a religion.

 

 

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.

 

Here I agree with you. If people believe that there is no life after death, then they accept science's take that consciousness is the brain. If people believe that there is life after death, then they accept religion's take that consciousness is God. Neither of these beliefs are fact as there is no valid theory of consciousness that explains life or death.

 

G

[iNow]

It's a bit of a strawman and misrepresentation, really. It's not that atheists "believe" there is no life after death. It's that they see zero (none, zilch, nada) compelling evidence to suggest there is life after death and so treat the claim/assertion as moot and dismissible.

 

Atheists are not atheist by actively asserting there is zero chance for afterlife or zero chance of god(s) existing. It's just that they lack belief in the same way most theists themselves lack belief in the more than 99% of other god(s) laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. Atheists just happen to also include YOUR god in that set... they go one god farther.

 

That's not a belief or set of beliefs. That's a lack of belief. This is a pretty important difference and it's wrong of you to continue conflating them.

 

Bald is not a hair color. "Not collecting stamps" is not a hobby. Atheist literally means a-theist, or not-theist. That's all. The only thing they have in common is their lack of affirmative belief in god or gods, especially since the vast majority recognize they cannot claim with 100% certainty that god(s) does not exist. You also cannot say anything else about what they may believe merely on the basis of the atheist label. You cannot accurately suggest their nonbelief is an active belief in nonexistence, or that their finding claims of an afterlife uncompelling somehow equates to actively believing on the basis of faith that an afterlife does not exist.

 

You're arguing against nonsensical strawmen.

Edited October 20, 2013 by iNow

[Gees]

iNow;

 

Is your response in reference to my post or someone else?

 

G