Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

seanie_c wrote: »

If I had asked a scientist before the discovery of gravity:
Which is heavier? A feather or a Kg lump of lead.

Boolean logic would assert the Kg lump of lead is heavier, but does that mean it's True?

The point here isn't to get to the facts. This isn't a protracted conversation about the ins and outs of theism in terms of credibility. We aren't assessing the claims made by religions. Rather, the point is about beliefs and knowledge. People hold to a knowledge base, and from this they hold a belief. Maybe tenuous, maybe strengthened by knowledge or a sense of knowledge, but one has both.

Atheists are, by definition people who reject the proposition of a deity. It is not the affirmation of believing there are no gods. It isn't a positive claim. There are a minority of atheists who would be closer to that, but when you talk about a perspective, you don't use the minority of a group to speak about the group.

People don't like the agnostic perceived middle ground bit being challenged. Maybe it's because people don't like to think about it, don't like to talk about it or for whatever reason, but agnostics have a perspective on knowledge. They have a perspective on belief, too. It's all about which side they lean towards to say if they are agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

Pushtrak wrote: »

You come across as a person who hasn't talked to a great many atheists. I'd advise they should be your first port of call on what is meant by atheist, and what is meant by agnostic. The religious like to use an argument of atheists "hate god" or "don't believe because they want to sin." I think people who find value in such arguments about as cogent in their arguments as young earth creationists.

Hmm, I decided to take you up on that and went and had a look at the A&A board here, here's a few thread titles

"Ongoing Religious Scandals" (that's a sticky)
"Catholic Church all over the Phillipines disaster like a rash"
"Please do this today to help separate Church and State in Ireland"
"Atheist Music" (?)
"The Atheist Book-A better Life"

That's page one. I get absolutely what you're saying about the literal definitions of the words, but I don't see that anyone can deny that Atheism has certain militant anti-religious connotations in modern usage, and it's not all because of crazy religious people. Like someone said before, people who are in fact atheist are hesitant to identify as such, that speaks for itself

poundapunnet wrote: »

"Ongoing Religious Scandals" (that's a sticky)
"Catholic Church all over the Phillipines disaster like a rash"
"Please do this today to help separate Church and State in Ireland"
"Atheist Music" (?)
"The Atheist Book-A better Life"

I don't spend much time over there, but looking at the thread titles, the only one I'd pause at is that last one. The atheist book. I prefer to go to the horses mouth, so to speak, so I went here Haven't read the lot, but the bit I've read isn't particularly objectionable to me.

Ongoing religious scandals, could you say why that shouldn't be discussed, or any of the other things there? You seem to think you have a point here, but I'm fecked if I can see it, so if you could be so kind as to let me know what it is exactly...

Xeyn wrote: »

Youre posting in an Internet forum. You can look up atheist and agnostic.

Right-o. Will do.

atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/Submit
noun
1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

poundapunnet wrote: »

Maybe I took you up wrong, but you seemed to be arguing that atheism is, in theory and in practice a separate thing from...enthusiastic secularism.

It's an forum for atheists. It's going to attract people to the forum for a number of reasons. Secularism isn't an interest exclusively to the non religious. Religious people can want secularism also. Forums are very simple phenomena to understand. You set a topic, and you will attract people who are interested in talking about that topic. People post what they feel is important, and others will respond or not as they feel necessary.

There is a tendency for people to look at something and see it as a monolith. You see secularism is a focus of discussion on the forum, so secularism is what all atheists are. It ignores those atheists who don't care, firstly. But more than that, secularism in itself needs to be unpacked.

Yes, secularism is the seperation of church and state so that religion doesn't have a dominant role on policy. But what that might mean depends on the individual. As a for instance, there are atheists who object to the Angelus. I can safely say I don't give any thought to it. My point being, those who would advocate for secularism have different focuses on where the lack of secularism is most problematic. Personally, my biggest concern is the grasp on the education system the church has, the need for birth certs to get children in to schools is ridiculous.

If it's just a lack of belief in a deity or the belief that that knowledge is impossible why is an atheist forum any more suitable a place from discussion of religious scandals.

An atheist forum exists because there is a demand for it. Do you think there should also be a secularism forum? I don't think it would last long, personally. I think, perhaps a name change of the A&A to include secularism as part of its mandate might be an interesting idea. Boards does combine groups that don't get much activity individually, so pre-empting that stage of creating a Secularism section might be interesting. Though, then, who knows, by the same token it might not alter traffic to the section one iota.

You took exception to people saying that atheism implies a shared set of values, beliefs, figureheads, but then why the need for a forum at all?

I took issue to the assumption that atheism has messiahs. I have no objection to atheists discussing shared interests, be it books, music or anything else.

If atheism is simply the lack of belief I referred to above then why the enthusiasm for science on every atheist forum I've come across?

Atheists don't have the luxury of having one book to answer any question they might have. They still do ask the big metaphysical questions, and are interested in finding answers. I personally don't find the biological sciences all that interesting, but the basics of cosmology, I find fascinating.

People who loudly proclaim themselves atheists seem by and large to have a certain set of shared beliefs, not just a shared lack of one, that's my point.

By this you mean what, like big bang, evolution, what other stuff do you see? Anything you see there is no justification for being so? And if you see something as unjustified, any reason why that is so?

poundapunnet wrote: »

That's page one. I get absolutely what you're saying about the literal definitions of the words, but I don't see that anyone can deny that Atheism has certain militant anti-religious connotations in modern usage, and it's not all because of crazy religious people. Like someone said before, people who are in fact atheist are hesitant to identify as such, that speaks for itself

I'm not. I am an atheist. However, it is not my atheism that leads me to believe in things like evolution and the standard model of cosmology. The thing that lead me to all three was scepticism (which itself came from my love of science). Many other atheists would be the same and so would tend to identify themselves firstly as sceptics or scientists (or humanists or whatever) simply because those positive beliefs define them better and more fundamentally that one of the beliefs that happens to be a consequence of them.

I wouldn't use the word "militant" in reference to modern atheism. Firstly because most people associate militant ideologies with violence, and there's no organised violent atheist movement that I am aware of. Secondly because it is inaccurate, you cannot create an "atheist way of life" for society to follow- there's not enough to it.

smurgen wrote: »

I don't know what to believe to tell you the truth.I used just think I'd be put in the ground and that but I'm not so sure. The idea of quantum mechanics and the likes does puzzle me and the idea that there are multiple universes with all your past and futures playing out.

The problem I have with all these theories is they're too human centric. The universe existed long before humans or even life came about, what we observe is irrelevant to the operations of the universe. I think people have allowed their human bias to corrupt what multiple universes actually might be. Those universes would have fundamentally different settings at the quantum level.

It's not so much that another universe would be a place where you became the king of Ireland but a universe where the atomic weight of something was slightly different which meant that atoms couldn't form, gravity doesn't work or electricity wouldn't work. It's the same as there being millions of different planets but the vast majority of them are completely void of life.

COYVB wrote: »

Yeah, but remember, you can only know the location of the tax or its velocity, not both

You're goddamned right.

ScumLord wrote: »

I must not be an atheist so. I can't prove gods existence but I strongly believe there is no god. Or more to the point that all the gods we know of are fairy tales.

I can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt so I have to believe it instead.

It said disbelieves *or* lacks belief. It isn't about proving gods can't exist in the least. What one believes says nothing about what they can prove, anyway. They are completely different things.

If there is multiple universes what's the problem with one of them being a place we call heaven?

Deleted User wrote: »

https://atheists.org/life-membership


Life Membership entitles you to:

• a Life Member Pin;
• a personalized Life Member Card;
• a lifetime subscription to American Atheist magazine; and
• a discount for our national convention.

OK. I asked for that!

:P

In all seriousness though, while any secularist movement would have my full support, a club for atheists seems to me to be just a little bit silly. Atheism is not a belief that there is no god. It is a lack of belief that there is one. The distinction is subtle, yet important. The following analogy is well worn, but it fits. Imagine a club made up of like-minded individuals who met regularly with the express purpose of not playing football? That'd be the same as a club for atheists.

To press the point. I am an Afootballist. Don't play it. Don't watch it. No problem with other people involving themselves in footballism, once they don't expect me to play football every Sunday, or come around to my place and make me watch it. If there's a football discussion over a pint, I don't join in.

I am a passive afootballist. Afootballists come from all walks of life and all social strata. Some blindly follow football because its deeply ingrained in their heritage and culture. Many otherwise smart and educated people continue to follow football despite the fact that they know on an intellectual level that its an ultimately futile endeavour. :P More power to them say I!

I'm not anti-football, once its not imposed on me. Same as my atheism.

rockbeast wrote: »

Anyone who has ever had a serious operation under anaesthetic knows the blackness that awaits us all.

I'd like to have two kids one day; if only to warn them about the darkness

ya, i remember being put under for an op one time, and it was like in "snatch" when brad pitt gets hit real hard and sinks below the floor, under water-like. it was a bit surreal, like watchin everything from the outside, lookin at myself, the op goin on , and then "the blackness" as you call it. i think i was dreamin i was dyin............

rockbeast wrote: »

Anyone who has ever had a serious operation under anaesthetic knows the blackness that awaits us all.

I'd like to have two kids one day; if only to warn them about the darkness

I don't even think you need to go that far,fainting is pretty much how id image death to be. One second your standing there,afraid that you're about to faint in front of everyone,then everything goes black.next thing you know there's a crowd of people standing around looking down on you.