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 -
bigjim36

Atheists is there life after death

How many atheists believe in an afterlife?   

36 members have voted

  1. 1. How many atheists believe in an afterlife?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      27


451 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Only_
14 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

When has God did it as an answer accurately explained any phenomena?

The Big Bang Theory. Did you know that it was initially rejected by the scientific world as an ''obvious'' Church ploy to legitimize creation? Few people took the idea of a beginning of the Universe seriously. The atheists at the time held on to a 'static Universe'. Many still do.

 

THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG
When Religion Masquerades As Science
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

Link: http://brainmind.com/BigBang.html

 

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
21 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

My point is, there are certain things that we do not understand, and we do take it by faith. For example, Christians believe that God caused the Big Bang or that God is the uncreated Creator. It is technically impossible to prove that scientifically as far as we know, and it is equally as impossible to disprove that statement. However, there is a very interesting presupposition made by the atheist that needs to be taken into account. The atheist is making the claim that there must be naturalistic explanation for everything. That is a large assumption that is on very shaky philosophical ground.

I'm pretty sure to be a Christian you need to follow the Genesis story of creation. You can't choose to ignore parts of the Bible just because you find them inconvenient. If that was the case why the hell would you believe any of it?

Unfortunately there appears to be a naturalistic explanation for nearly everything. We don't have a grand unfied theory yet but hopefully some day we will. We can't see past the start of the big bang based on our current knowledge but if that changes that will answer one of the two questions we all want to know.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
6 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Big Bang Theory. Did you know that it was initially rejected by the scientific world as an ''obvious'' Church ploy to legitimize creation? Few people took the idea of a beginning of the Universe seriously. The atheists at the time held on to a 'static Universe'. Many still do.

 

THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG
When Religion Masquerades As Science
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

Link: http://brainmind.com/BigBang.html

 

The Big Bang has nothing to do with God so I'll ask again, when has God did it as an answer accurately explained any phenomena?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm pretty sure to be a Christian you need to follow the Genesis story of creation. You can't choose to ignore parts of the Bible just because you find them inconvenient. If that was the case why the hell would you believe any of it?

Unfortunately there appears to be a naturalistic explanation for nearly everything. We don't have a grand unfied theory yet but hopefully some day we will. We can't see past the start of the big bang based on our current knowledge but if that changes that will answer one of the two questions we all want to know.

You've never heard of Christians accepting evolution? I mean the Catholic Church officially accepts it. A number of clergy evolutionists.

It does call into question the Bible and I couldn't personally accept Christianity if the Bible wasn't true. One of the reasons I left Christianity.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
9 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The Big Bang has nothing to do with God so I'll ask again, when has God did it as an answer accurately explained any phenomena?

That has never been the role of science to weight on the question of God. However, it is clear, in my view, that some scientific theory have theological and philosophical implications that are beyond the boundaries of science. Those you choose to ignore by assuming that everything is naturalistic. The Big Bang Theory is a very exemple that you, in fact, has provided for us.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

BTW Rhawn Joseph is quite clearly a nutjob.

http://brainmind.com/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm pretty sure to be a Christian you need to follow the Genesis story of creation. You can't choose to ignore parts of the Bible just because you find them inconvenient. If that was the case why the hell would you believe any of it?

Here's a new term for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

You've never heard of Christians accepting evolution? I mean the Catholic Church officially accepts it. A number of clergy evolutionists.

It does call into question the Bible and I couldn't personally accept Christianity if the Bible wasn't true. One of the reasons I left Christianity.

Yeah I'm very aware of what the Catholic Church has stated. It calls into question their credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

That has never been the role of science to weight on the question of God. However, it is clear ,in my view, that some scientific theory have theological and philosophical implications. Those you choose to ignore by assuming that everything is natural. But The Big Bang is a very exemple that you, in fact has provided for us.

I'm not asking whether the explanation is scientific, I'm asking when has God did it as an answer accurately explained any phenomena? 

The Big Bang still has nothing to do with God.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

BTW Rhawn Joseph is quite clearly a nutjob.

http://brainmind.com/

And yet he is also quite clearly a non-believer or atheist.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

 

 

21 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Big Bang Theory. Did you know that it was initially rejected by the scientific world as an ''obvious'' Church ploy to legitimize creation? Few people took the idea of a beginning of the Universe seriously. The atheists at the time held on to a 'static Universe'. Many still do.

 

THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG
When Religion Masquerades As Science
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

Link: http://brainmind.com/BigBang.html

 

What does a neurophysiologist know about physics and the big bang theory? Also his credibility has been called into question again and again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, Clockwork_Spirit said:

And yet he is also quite clearly a non-believer or atheist.

Atheists aren't immune to magical thinking.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
10 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

 

The Big Bang still has nothing to do with God.

Then why was it dismissed as religious nonsense when it was first proposed by Georges Lemaître?

The term ''Big Bang'' was actually coined as a mockery of the idea by an atheist at the time, Fred Hoyle.

''He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).[21] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their steady state theory.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

 

What does a neurophysiologist know about physics and the big bang theory? Also his credibility has been called into question again and again.

He butchers quantum physics with woo and uses Deepak Chopra as a reference.

http://journalofquantumphysics.cosmology.com/QuantumEntanglementLincolnsDeath.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

He butchers quantum physics with woo and uses Deepak Chopra as a reference.

http://journalofquantumphysics.cosmology.com/QuantumEntanglementLincolnsDeath.html

I know unfortunately one of my students asked me about his hypothesis when I was lecturing, so I had to read up on him and I even bought his book. So I'm sorry for giving him money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
6 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Then why was it dismissed as religious when it was first proposed by Georges Lemaître?

The term ''Big Bang'' was actually coined as a mockery of the idea by an atheist at the time, Fred Hoyle.

And yet, just as the idea of continental drift was superceded by the evidenced and more accurate study of plate tectonics evidence of the Big Bang Theory has greatly surpassed its early detractors understanding of the Universe's origin. It appears someone is some 90 years behind. 

cormac

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Then why was it dismissed as religious when it was first proposed by Georges Lemaître?

The term ''Big Bang'' was actually coined as a mockery of the idea by an atheist at the time, Fred Hoyle.

Georges Lemaitre made references to the Creator in his explanations, not that it added anything of value.

So is that the answer to my question, God is worthless as an explanation?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
10 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Then why was it dismissed as religious nonsense when it was first proposed by Georges Lemaître?

The term ''Big Bang'' was actually coined as a mockery of the idea by an atheist at the time, Fred Hoyle.

''He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).[21] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their steady state theory.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I think you will find even scientific people hold on to there beliefs. People didn't accept that Einstein was correct until his theories were proved true. Then Einstein didn't accept what Niels Bohr had to say either.  He coined is saying " God doesn't play dice"

However because we test theories we usually find the truth by experiments.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Old Fred was quite a character too ...
 

Quote

 

~

Fred Hoyle: the scientist whose rudeness cost him a Nobel prize ...

Oct 2, 2010 - Of Fowler's own close collaborator, Fred Hoyle – the British scientist who had led their joint research work – there was no mention. .... By contrast, supporters of the rival big bang theory argued that the universe had exploded into existence in a single event at some point in the finite past. Then, in the fire of ...
 
~
Apr 15, 2005 - But out of the gloom strode an unlikely hero, Fred Hoyle, a blunt Yorkshireman with a distaste for the establishment. His creativity dazzled his ... But well aware that he was not capable of fighting Hitler with a soldering iron, he instead set about developing the theory that underpinned this crucial technology.
 
~

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle - Telegraph

Aug 22, 2001 - Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, who has died aged 86, was Britain's best-known astronomer and (until Stephen Hawking's work became generally known) physicist, as well as a much-admired writer of science fiction; he was also an outrageous mischief-maker who took a delight in enraging his academic ...

 

~

THE LIVES THEY LIVED: SIR FRED HOYLE, B. 1915; Ba-Da Bang ...

Dec 30, 2001 - Richard Powers tribute to astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who developed theory of nucleogenesis, which explained formation of elements in cores of stars; Hoyle ... Even Hoyle's outrageous ''panspermia'' -- the heretical idea that life originated in biological particles dispersed through deep space -- has been ...

 

~

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 4/6/2018 at 6:15 PM, danydandan said:

He didn't see science and religion as incompatible. He seen science as a way to prove what religion already knew. So in his mind religion asked the question and science attempted to answer.

I just think that was just his opinion on the conclusions. If there are two paths, it means they don't cross. Regardless, nothing religious contributed to the result. It was just a personal belief that only convoluted the study. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 4/9/2018 at 4:49 AM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Whilst invoking 'God' for something we don't understand could be determined a 'God of the Gaps', equally proposing 'not God' for something we don't understand when God could be a valid option becomes an atheism of the gaps – i.e. when I can't explain it, it definitely wasn't God.

There are scientific theories on the big bang though, you know this. A difference of potential acting on virtual particles. Because rigion says goddidit doesn't mean science counters with goddidntdoit science doesn't work like that. Hence the LHC. Theory paves the way, not squabbling. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian

Nope, no afterlife, imho.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
7 minutes ago, ai_guardian said:

Nope, no afterlife, imho.

Well, now I'm convinced.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
1 minute ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Well, now I'm convinced.

Do you need convincing? ....there's little precious time, and I'm not prepared to waste it on a lengthy discussion when all I need to do is vote yes/no as the topic asks. ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Clockwork_Spirit

Quote

 

Whilst invoking 'God' for something we don't understand could be determined a 'God of the Gaps', equally proposing 'not God' for something we don't understand when God could be a valid option becomes an atheism of the gaps – i.e. when I can't explain it, it definitely wasn't God.

 

I don't think you're grasping the force of the argument that you're rejecting by a false symmetry.

There are two issues: whether or not any sufficiently powerful gods exist AND whether attributing agency to one or more of them ever explains anything in the natural world. Nobody knows the answer to the first, and the answer to the second is both tautological and consistent with the universal experience of humankind: No.

Example: Knowing that Herman Melville wrote the novel Moby Dick explains nothing about how or why the book was written, unless we know how and why Herman Melville did things. Lucky us, we know that he was literate in English, used pencils and pens and knew people who owned printing presses (how he made the book). We also know that in his younger days, he crewed on whaling ships (why so many whales and whalers come up in his book).

We don't know how or why gods would do anything in the natural world. Even if I knew for a fact that a god wrote Moby Dick (perhaps using Melville as a passive "prophet" to get the thing published as if it had been written by a human being, which the god would do because ... um, well, because gods move in mysterious ways) I couldn't explain how or why the book is the way it is.

"God of the gaps" refers to a variation of the plain vanilla argument from ignorance fallacy (we cannot explain ____, therefore God did it), which is ramped up with a dynamic component (it frequently happens that what we could not explain yesterday we can explain today, so what God did changes over time, which does seem odd).

There are always going to be gaps. All accomplished explanations must end in some last unexplained ground fact or simple assertion (a special case of the principle that all formal arguments must have premises whose merits are offered apart from the argument itself).

The existence of gaps, then, is logically necessary. What is logically necessary cannot be evidence for or against any logically possible contingency.

There is no theist-atheist symmetry here. The theist who uses a gods-of-the-gaps argument proposes it as an argument favoring the existence and activity of gods. Since there will always be "gaps" (a.k.a. premises to the arguments that genuinely explain things), there will always be an argument from ignorance for gods, whether or not there really are gods.

Meanwhile, the atheist simply asserts what's in the last paragraph. Identifying the defects in a defective argument is not producing evidence for or against anything (not to be confused with defeating a valid argument, which would be a reason for belief change about its premises or conclusions).

Similarly, no falsification is no problem. Putting aside the many shortcomings of Popper's account of scientific epistemology, the worst that can be said is that science cannot decide between competing answers to the Question of God.

Peachy. There are plenty of ways to form rational contingent beliefs outside of science. For example, I am rather taken with the idea that Julius Caesar was a real ancient Roman. Science offers us little or no help with that question. I look for evidence, and make my best estimate, knowing that I could be wrong (just as scientists know that they, too, could be wrong about their scientific estimates).

Note that scientific or not, "Julius Caesar lived in ancient Rome" is not falsfiable, but it is a rational belief all the same.

Quote

The atheist is making the claim that there must be naturalistic explanation for everything.

Alas, I've never met The atheist. At the very least, I'd hope she would have said that

there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything natural that can be explained at all.

That is uncertain, but seems altogether tenable, and that version resolves the surface defects in your version (there will always be unexplained premises, even apart from that, can everything be explained? If supernatural beings exist, could they be explained naturalistically? and maybe a few other black holes of pointless disputation).

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.