Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illyrius

Atheism is absurd

2,818 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ShadowSot

So this was just a circular way of saying, if there is nothing else I'd have no meaning in my life, therefore you're wrong. 

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, Mr. Argon said:

Yes. I think so.

Me too. 

To me thinking that life ends at about 80 years and that's it is the same thing as contemplating suicide.

Ever been at that place? I have. 

And I can tell you that there's an incredible tension that builds up to an immense pressure in the mind that essentially screams

DO NOT DO THIS

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

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 ?

You're correct that the 'burden of proof' is on the person who makes a truth claim, however to assume that materialism (which is what this topic appears to be mostly about rather than atheism specifically) is the default position is dogmatic and wrong.

Materialism asserts that consciousness is generated by the material brain without having the slightest idea of what consciousness even is. Most materialist scientist will be up front in telling you this. The idea that consciousness is generated by the material brain is a truth claim that requires evidence to back it up. Therefore, the 'burden of proof' also lies with the person making this claim as well.

The only default position here is agnosticism, as is the case with every truth claim. You don't get a free pass to fall back onto materialism as if it were the default position in science, because it's not.

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

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 ?

'Proof' is a relative term in and of itself, whereas objective evidence is not. Therefore I prefer to simply say that there is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of the soul.

It's frustrating, and I've already repeated myself on here numerous times on this issue, and so I don't care to go into it in-depth over and over again. So I'll just give you the lowdown in a nutshell.

All evidence requires interpretation, interpretation that is most often influenced by one's particular worldview, a worldview that is formed by numerous interpretations of the world around oneself to build a singularly cohesive picture. Some evidence is so overwhelming that it clearly favors one interpretation over another, whereas other evidence holds room for multiple different interpretations. The topic of 'Do we have souls?' is one such topic. There is numerous evidence on both sides. If you want to make the case that consciousness is generated by the material brain and that we have no souls, then be my guest. I don't deny that you have evidence to support your case, I merely disagree with your interpretation of said evidence. However, what most often happens with most atheists (namely materialists) is that they deny that the opposing viewpoint has any evidence at all, which is not the case whatsoever.

If you want to see the evidence for the existence of the soul / anything spiritual, I invite you to start by clicking the links in my signature below. And if you want to know why this evidence is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, the best place for that info would be found in the 'Skeptical About Skeptics' link below as well. I could add to this evidence later, but that alone is a good place to start.

If you want to openly discuss the evidence, and debate over which interpretation is most likely to be correct, then by all means I would love to discuss this with you. But don't continue this dogmatic lie that 'there is no evidence' for the opposing viewpoint, because that's just utter nonsense, and I refuse to waste my time with anyone caught in the snares of dogmatism.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes4747
1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

In the next life Frank will be an atheist.

No in his next life he will be poop. And frank would never be atheist, requires too much faith.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, Wes4747 said:

No in his next life he will be poop.

Taking the side of Archons? Bad Frank!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
4 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

And frank would never be atheist, requires too much faith.

Brilliant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
4 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

No in his next life he will be poop. 

Excuse me. Poop does not exist in the afterlife.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

But turds do.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
8 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

You're correct that the 'burden of proof' is on the person who makes a truth claim, however to assume that materialism (which is what this topic appears to be mostly about rather than atheism specifically) is the default position is dogmatic and wrong.

Materialism asserts that consciousness is generated by the material brain without having the slightest idea of what consciousness even is. Most materialist scientist will be up front in telling you this. The idea that consciousness is generated by the material brain is a truth claim that requires evidence to back it up. Therefore, the 'burden of proof' also lies with the person making this claim as well.

The only default position here is agnosticism, as is the case with every truth claim. You don't get a free pass to fall back onto materialism as if it were the default position in science, because it's not.

'Proof' is a relative term in and of itself, whereas objective evidence is not. Therefore I prefer to simply say that there is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of the soul.

It's frustrating, and I've already repeated myself on here numerous times on this issue, and so I don't care to go into it in-depth over and over again. So I'll just give you the lowdown in a nutshell.

All evidence requires interpretation, interpretation that is most often influenced by one's particular worldview, a worldview that is formed by numerous interpretations of the world around oneself to build a singularly cohesive picture. Some evidence is so overwhelming that it clearly favors one interpretation over another, whereas other evidence holds room for multiple different interpretations. The topic of 'Do we have souls?' is one such topic. There is numerous evidence on both sides. If you want to make the case that consciousness is generated by the material brain and that we have no souls, then be my guest. I don't deny that you have evidence to support your case, I merely disagree with your interpretation of said evidence. However, what most often happens with most atheists (namely materialists) is that they deny that the opposing viewpoint has any evidence at all, which is not the case whatsoever.

If you want to see the evidence for the existence of the soul / anything spiritual, I invite you to start by clicking the links in my signature below. And if you want to know why this evidence is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, the best place for that info would be found in the 'Skeptical About Skeptics' link below as well. I could add to this evidence later, but that alone is a good place to start.

If you want to openly discuss the evidence, and debate over which interpretation is most likely to be correct, then by all means I would love to discuss this with you. But don't continue this dogmatic lie that 'there is no evidence' for the opposing viewpoint, because that's just utter nonsense, and I refuse to waste my time with anyone caught in the snares of dogmatism.

I'm not really interested in going into a lenghty discussion on this. Anyway I really hope that you mean that you won't waste your time on me on this issue only, because I quite like the fun we have had in other posts and would be sad to lose that.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
8 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

All evidence requires interpretation

Excellent point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.O'N

It requires faith to be an atheist? isnt an atheist someone who doesnt believe in a God cause there isnt proof? no faith needed...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
1 minute ago, Baldylocks said:

It requires faith to be an atheist? isnt an atheist someone who doesnt believe in a God cause there isnt proof? no faith needed...

It's a soundbite. Catchy in speech, poorly thought out on examination. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes4747
1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

It's a soundbite. Catchy in speech, poorly thought out on examination. 

Should i spell it out??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I'm not really interested in going into a lenghty discussion on this. Anyway I really hope that you mean that you won't waste your time on me on this issue only, because I quite like the fun we have had in other posts and would be sad to loose that.

Oh don't at all think that I have anything personal against you on this. :unsure: The only place where things tend to get personal is on the topic of U.S. Politics now days on here, which is the one topic I try to stay the hell away from. :lol: 

In all honesty, I didn't really feel like going into it with someone over this myself, so I feel ya there. :tu:

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a bad mood in general tonight, so if my previous post came off as too confrontational then by all means, ignore it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
4 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I'm not really interested in going into a lenghty discussion on this. Anyway I really hope that you mean that you won't waste your time on me on this issue only, because I quite like the fun we have had in other posts and would be sad to lose that.

Having worked for the Skeptics on Wikipedia group for a bit, it's fairly amusing to see the conspiracy theories that have been cast on it since. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
2 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

Should i spell it out??

Eh? I'm just pointing out the phrase is meaningless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Just now, Aquila King said:

Oh don't at all think that I have anything personal against you on this.

Thats good to know.

Just now, Aquila King said:

:unsure: The only place where things tend to get personal is on the topic of U.S. Politics now days on here, which is the one topic I try to stay the hell away from. :lol: 

I tend to stay away from the politics section too.

Just now, Aquila King said:

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a bad mood in general tonight, so if my previous post came off as too confrontational then by all means, ignore it.

What post ? :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes4747

Which one? I claim it requires faith to proclaim there is no creator.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
5 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

Which one? I claim it requires faith to proclaim there is no creator.

And what is the proof for the creator then? 

 Specifically, a thinking, conscious, active creator. 

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
Just now, ShadowSot said:

And what is the proof for the creator then? 

Ask the pink unicorn.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
4 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Specifically, a thinking, conscious, active creator. 

Just ask Him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes4747
1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

And what is the proof for the creator then? 

 Specifically, a thinking, conscious, active creator. 

Though not popular, it is a standing theory in creation that will not go away. 

To be a creationist or atheist from my current position would require a leap of faith.

Short answer, existance and its complete lack of explanation of why something instead of nothing allows for the possibility of a creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
1 minute ago, Wes4747 said:

Though not popular, it is a standing theory in creation that will not go away. 

To be a creationist or atheist from my current position would require a leap of faith.

Short answer, existance and its complete lack of explanation of why something instead of nothing allows for the possibility of a creator.

So, for you, it is a placeholder then. Because we don't know x, therefore there is a creator? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Just ask Him.

 

 

Tried that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, Wes4747 said:

Short answer, existance and its complete lack of explanation of why something instead of nothing allows for the possibility of a creator.

Unfortunatelly even this sort of an answer will stir some more of good old "proofmania". Just wait and look as the flames go higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.