Atheism is absurd

[Illyrius]

First of all, to make things completely clear I am not talking over here about believing in some sort of continuance of the soul, I am adressing only a point of view that there is absolutely nothing after death.

I find such a point of view absurd. And you?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Spirit Ninja]

Science has trouble proving something DOESN'T exist or isn't possible.  

I do see an atheist's side of things from the way they look at it.  That's not to say that I agree with them though.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

First of all, to make things completely clear I am not talking over here about believing in some sort of continuance of the soul, I am adressing only a point of view that there is absolutely nothing after death.

I find such a point of view absurd. And you?

As I have not seen any evidence for an afterlife, I find that the most likely explanition is that there isn't one. How is it absurd to believe in the most likely scenario ?

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

As I have not seen any evidence for an afterlife, I find that the most likely explanition is that there isn't one. How is it absurd to believe in the most likely scenario ?

Do you have any evidence that there isn't any? Why do you think that the most likely explanation is that there isn't one?

[eight bits]

Huxleyan agnostic here.

Quote

I find such a point of view absurd. And you?

No. If I did, then I'd be a theist of some sort. I don't find either of the categorical answers to the Question of God absurd.

If only QoG were that easy.

BTW, thanks for opening the thread, and doing it on S v. S.

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

BTW, thanks for opening the thread, and doing it on S v. S.

Welcome.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

Do you have any evidence that there isn't any?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something exists. 

If I claimed that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, I think you would agree that it was my job to prove that assertion. Why should it be different with a soul ?

1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

Why do you think that the most likely explanation is that there isn't one?

Because we don't know one exists. People have tried to prove it for hundreds of years, yet no one have done it yet. The simplest reason for the inability to see, measure or explain a soul is that there isn't one. 

Do you have a way to prove that a soul exists ?

[Illyrius]

5 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something exists. 

If that is the only argument, that I just have to say I don't have any proof whatsoever. But that doesn't change my attitude towards atheism.If there would be any proof we would all be immortal, but nope. No proof.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

If that is the only argument, that I just have to say I don't have any proof whatsoever. But that doesn't change my attitude towards atheism.If there would be any proof we would all be immortal, but nope. No proof.

So basically you are saying that I'm absurd because I don't believe in something that you can't prove.

Please take a moment to think about what I just wrote.

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So basically you are saying that I'm absurd because I don't believe in something that you can't prove.

To be more precise, I think that your worldview is absurd, not you.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

To be more precise, I think that your worldview is absurd not you.

If not believing in something that is unprovable is absurd, then yes I guess my world view is absurd. 

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

If not believing in something that is unprovable is absurd, then yes I guess my world view is absurd. 

Not really a point. If you belive it or not is up to you. What I am really interested in is the following;

Do you find any form of belief irrational and harmful? Or perhaps a better question; What is your attitude about belief as such?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[ShadowSot]

It's absurd to believe in something for which no proof or evidence can be substantiated. 

 Until reasonable proof can be demonstrated, it's more reasonable to hold to the null hypotheses until such time as evidence can be produced. 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Do you have any evidence that there isn't any? Why do you think that the most likely explanation is that there isn't one?

Do you have any evidence that there isn't a hippopotamus in my garden? Would it, therefore, be the most likely explanation that there is one?

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Do you have any evidence that there isn't a hippopotamus in my garden?

Do you have any evidence there is not any fly in your garden?

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

Not really a point. If you belive it or not is up to you. What I am really interested in is the following;

Do you find any form of belief irrational and harmful?

It sort of depends on the belief doesn't it? Belief in the afterlife doesn't necessarily cause harm, except in stances where a parent kills their child so they can reach heaven, or suicide bombers, or simple restriction of otherwise harmless behaviors to achieve some sort of desired after life.

Some cultures believed that it was required that slaves and spouses followed their owner into the afterlife. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Not really a point. If you belive it or not is up to you. What I am really interested in is the following;

Do you find any form of belief irrational and harmful?

I was about to write a comment on this, but then I saw ShadowSots post and I don't think I can improve on that.

2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

It's absurd to believe in something for which no proof or evidence can be substantiated. 

 Until reasonable proof can be demonstrated, it's more reasonable to hold to the null hypotheses until such time as evidence can be produced. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Do you have any evidence there is not any fly in your garden?

Waspie_Dwarf can go into the garden and look if there is a fly.

Can you do the same thing about a soul ?

[+Liquid Gardens]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

First of all, to make things completely clear I am not talking over here about believing in some sort of continuance of the soul, I am adressing only a point of view that there is absolutely nothing after death.

I find such a point of view absurd. And you?

Thanks also for setting the topic up here, I'm less comfortable posting on SR&B since I'm not sure where the line is drawn on too much debate.

First I'd throw out that technically atheists can believe in some kind, especially non-soul-related, of 'afterlife' since it's not the same thing as not believing in gods (recognizing the large overlap of course).  Thinking about various 'sciencey' articles I read sometimes about multi-verses or parallel universes, I wonder what an 'afterlife' really means in such a scenario.  Those kind of ideas suggest to me that, if true, I'm not sure I understand time at all even though my brain wants to, maybe has to, impose a sequence on things, even if it doesn't apply.  If after I die I live this same life again, is it a continuance if it occurs over again at the same time period, early 21st Century?  Do I need to remember this specific go-through of this life in order for it to count as an afterlife?

More to your point though, I usually translate 'absurd' as somewhere between 'outright illogical' and 'offends the sensibilities', so fairly strongly.  Do you find the notion that we get one life absurd, or that it is absurd to go through life with the point of view that there is nothing after death?  I'm not sure what is absurd about the idea itself, I don't know what basis we have for thinking the opposite, that there is some continuation.  I think you're not talking about 'some sort' of continuance of the soul because of the religious connotations of 'soul', I assume you are referring though to the continuance of something 'soul-like'?

[Illyrius]

6 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Until reasonable proof can be demonstrated, it's more reasonable to hold to the null hypotheses until such time as evidence can be produced. 

I would challenge this with the following analogy. We know for example that flies tend to be in the garden sometimes if not most of the time. And let's say that you can't access your garden. Is it likely that although you don't have any proof there are probably some flies flying in your garden and enjoying their flight?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[LV-426]

6 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Do you have any evidence that there isn't a hippopotamus in my garden? Would it, therefore, be the most likely explanation that there is one?

I'd say it is.

Things get strange once you get south of Birmingham in this country

[ShadowSot]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

I would challenge this with the following analogy. We know for example that flies tend to be in the garden sometimes. And let's say that you can't access your garden. Is it likely that although you don't have any proof there are probably some flies flying in your garden and enjoying their flight?

Your analogy is flawed. We have examples of flies, and we have examples of gardens. 

 We do not have examples of life after death. 

I can show you a fly, and I can show you a garden. 

 You can not demonstrate anything over life after death. 

More, both flies and gardens follow natural laws we have well established. It isn't unreasonable to expect either of them. 

 But consciouses have not been demonstrated to exist without the needed energy and hormones to produce them. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

I would challenge this with the following analogy. We know for example that flies tend to be in the garden sometimes. And let's say that you can't access your garden. Is it likely that although you don't have any proof there are probably some flies flying in your garden and enjoying their flight?

Even if you can't access the garden you can still make an educated guess that there are flies in the garden, simply because you know that there usually are flies in the garden.  

Anyway it doesn't really seem like a fair analogy if you get to impose restriction on his ability to prove something. We aren't doing that to you.

[ShadowSot]

8 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Even if you can't access the garden you can still make an educated guess that there are flies in the garden, simply because you know that there usually are flies in the garden.  

Anyway it doesn't really seem like a fair analogy if you get to impose restriction on his ability to prove something. We aren't doing that to you.

He's taken two things that can be demonstrated to exist, flies and gardens, and is comparing them to two things that have not been demonstrated. Souls and the afterlife. 

It's flawed from the get. 

 

[Illyrius]

11 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Your analogy is flawed. We have examples of flies, and we have examples of gardens. 

It's not about examples.

It is about logic.

If you have a garden, and you know there are always some flies in it, let's say you lose an access to that garden, and no one can acess it. Then somebody asks you "prove me that there are flies in your garden". You would know that they are most likely there, but you couldn't prove it.