Does Atheism have evidence (Jesus, bible, beliefs, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than that, so far as I know, there is no reliable evidence of any feedback from a supposed afterlife. Sure, we get a lot of claims and not all have been debunked or explained (Like NDEs) but unexplained is 'Unexplained', not evidence for an afterlife.
While your post answers the point very well, it leaves open the possibility that the afterlife manifests in a way that is unrecognisable. But that would fall into the category of claims that can neither be proven nor disproven and of course prove nothing either way.
That's also his MO. He hits and runs away. Been doing it for years.
Stay on the sidewalks, try to walk or ride your bike on dedicated paths or in parks rather than the streets, jog at night with a reflective vest. Makes life MUCH more difficult for "hit and run" posters...
Does Atheism have "evidence"? It likely thrives on the LACK of evidence, court decisions would be UPHELD for lack of evidence in that Theists don't have much...
Judge: "Decision for the defendant (Atheist) and upheld due to lack of evidence"....
Stay on the sidewalks, try to walk or ride your bike on dedicated paths or in parks rather than the streets, jog at night with a reflective vest. Makes life MUCH more difficult for "hit and run" posters...
Does Atheism have "evidence"? It likely thrives on the LACK of evidence, court decisions would be UPHELD for lack of evidence in that Theists don't have much...
Judge: "Decision for the defendant (Atheist) and upheld due to lack of evidence"....
Judge: "Decision for the defendant and upheld due to anyone's lack of ability to explain away the irreducible"....
Only because theism keeps raising the matter. The debate is really about the claims of the religion, not a god or afterlife or Abiogenesis or Consciousness or the Cosmic Origins, although we (the royal We) can point to some indirect evidence that supports the atheist view, but about the claims of religion - specifically in the Bible. And there we have testable evidence.
About the other stuff, we must be Agnostic, and Agnostic means you don't know whether the claims put forward bt Theists are true, so we don't believe them until we do. Burden of proof, as usual, falls on the claimant. The claimant, however, illogically takes the stance that the claims stand unless disproved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Judge: "Decision for the defendant and upheld due to anyone's lack of ability to explain away the irreducible"....
Harry has it right; Irreducible Complexity was struck down in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover)where the findings of science were supported. You may have meant something else that was irreducible, however.
That when one dies one ceases to exist. The lights go out and all is quiet and you just become worm food. I’ve read this as an opinion. But no evidence has ever been presented. Just opinion. Can anyone help me out? Inquiring minds want to know.
All living things die. That is direct observation. I have no memory of events that occurred before I was born. WW2 , for an example, ended before I was born. Yet I have no doubt that it occurred. People I know and trust who are older than me described the details of the events that occurred during WW2 to me, and I have seen physical evidence that serves to substantiate their claims. I did not yet exist when WW2 was occurring, so I have no direct knowledge of it, or anything else that occurred before I existed. That is not represented by a kind of "darkness." There simply is nothing there in my memories. This is significantly different from "The lights go out and all is quiet." Even in total darkness and absolute quiet a living person has sensory perceptions. Non existence allows for NO perceptions at all.
If the idea of becoming "worm food" disturbs you, than you can always choose to be cremated. The real point of course is that when you die your existence ends. Much as your inability to experience sensory perceptions before you existed, there is no reason to suppose you will continue to experience sensory perceptions after you die. You will no longer exist.
Supposing that sensory perceptions continue on after death, THAT is an opinion. It is an opinion that rests on no actual evidence but has been imagined and declared to be true. Direct observation (by the living) indicates that the dead are no longer capable of sensory experiences. That is NOT an opinion. That is direct observation.
Now, consider the difference between what we are capable of imagining to be true, and observed reality. There is entertainment to be found in the things we are capable of imagining to be true. Humans have an unlimited ability to imagine things. But confusing the imaginary with observed reality and believing in things which are entirely the result of the workings of the imagination is childlike.
I mention the theist idea that not only are beliefs equal in validity (which only works if you ignore the evidence) but that the Theist claim is supposedly to be taken as true unless disproved.
Mr 5150's post sets this out admirably. While on the face of it, it makes no sense to ask why we take it that people that die stay dead, it makes sense in Theist terms because it is assumed they Live (in some incorporeal way) after death and no really sound evidence that people live after death means nothing because negative evidence does not disprove the claim - which is true (aside the indirect evidence to suggest that living after dying is inexplicable).
It makes perfect sense to the Theists who begins with the assumption that Life after death is a Fact (because it is believed) until disproven and negative Evidence disproves nothing. This is why Theism and atheism talk past one another all the time because each of their mindsets are a reversal of the other.
Sorry to go on about Ways of Thinking, but that is the main thrust of theist arguments these days. They have lost on the evidence, so they have to try to make a case on how we think about it.
I am sure I am not the only person who has noted the absence of the OP from his/her discussion. I could get all meta about that, but - nah.
There is no discussion to be had. I requested proof/evidence of nonexistance after physical death. Not an I’m right you are wrong exchange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
That's also his MO. He hits and runs away. Been doing it for years.
And yet four pages and counting
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
