meowington
Parody Parrot
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,264
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 6w7
Atheists do not have to prove a negative. Theists do have to prove a positive.
This.
Atheists do not have to prove a negative. Theists do have to prove a positive.
The official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church is Faith and Reason. But the sleep of Reason brings forth monsters, and we have been discovering the monsters in the Judicial Enquiry into Child Abuse in Ireland, and as I write, we are discovering the monsters in Australia at our Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.
Atheists don't necessarily disbelieve in souls or consciousness after death. Atheism refers to lack of belief in a deity, and that's it.
I'm not sure what your point is, if its that all roman catholics are peadophiles then I'm just going to start reporting your posts.
I am 99.9% convinced there is no life after death, so in practice I treat it as a "no, there is no after life" because it's simply easier to say than "well I am 99.9% certain because of all the lack of evidence, and..." it gets really long winded. Again, because there is no evidence for it. All of the "evidence" doesn't fit into what we know of the world, physics, science, reality, psychology, etc. so it's meaningless. Regardless, it's something that is almost certainly literally impossible to know. Because of that, no one can say 100% there isn't because with our current knowledge there is no way to know. It's not fair or right to say you know with absolute certainty.
I look at it like I do in chemistry (I am a chemist). When I run a reaction and it's a perfect reaction, meaning all of the material reacts and converts to a product, you can say 100% yield because no side products at all were formed. However, you still lose a little bit in the reaction from tiny drops sticking to the glass during purification, work up, etc. It's a literal physical impossibility to get 100% yield that you can hold in your hand, but easy to get 99.9% yield (we'll "easy"). It's effectively 100% for all intents and purposes, but not literally so, and when you publish in literature, you can't claim 100% yield. 99% is the highest you can claim. Most chemists will say "quantative yield" meaning it's 99%, but functionally 100%. That analogy applies to how I look at my views as an atheist.
I see mystics as people who explore their own minds and experience the world around them in a analogical manner. What they see and claim doesn't fit into concrete world knowledge, or lie adjacent. Just because the mind experiences or sees something doesn't make it true. It's like experiencing a hallucinogenic drug (I have a lot of personal experience with this). You perceive the world around you totally different, and it's not uncommon for people to have mystical experiences on the drugs. We can reason why; the receptors in the brain these drugs act on are known to have the effects they do. That's it. Trying to extrapolate off that into saying it's a spiritual event, or you were speaking to spirits or something doesn't have any basis. All we can fairly say it was, is that it was a human experience due to the drug acting in the areas of the brain that it did.
Chado, are you amaury from ffshrine forums all growed up?
you are the proof that there is a god other wise were does such beautiful intellegence come from?just matter? or are you a soul that is eternal ,were does love free will,poetry,enjoyment,happyness,thinking,come from?the soul or is it just meaningless matter?
the soul or is it just meaningless matter?
“If you think God’s there, He is. If you don’t, He isn’t. And if that’s what God’s like, I wouldn’t worry about it.â€
Happy agnostics.
A good avenue to pursue here is why you find matter meaningless.
The brain, it seems, does not tend to associate strong mental rewards with explanation and models. Some of those rewards are what we end up describing as "meaningful". The mechanical narrative is treated very differently from the volitional narrative, and those seem to be the two main narratives our brains use to engage consciously with the world. They are not mutually exclusive, and so often come into conflict when attempting to describe the same set of facts. (Narratives here meaning neither true nor false, but simply a way of interpreting facts that are true or false)
This, I think, explains a lot of philosophical conflicts, and in your case it might be worth exploring your reactions to the two narratives mixed together (e.g. a mechanically described god, or a mystical unthinking force) or your reactions to both projected on the same story (e.g. a relationship described by wants, choices and desires vs social forces, brain chemistry and larger physical happenstance).
how can you conclude that theres no god no soul no consiousness that exsists after death how can you actualy conclude this?
what can you sure that you can say''there is no soul that exsists after death'' or we have no souls and are simply a body and matter
you might say lack of evidence i think there plenty of evidence out there that suggests a soul.
my own view on atheism is that atheism is just magical thinking or ego gymnastics,because you dont want to accept something about the soul/god/buddhism/hinduism/ect you start to look for evidence to suggest that the soul doesnt exsist,its like this one gay guy that use to eb a christian,he was a christian untill he saw that christianity doesnt accept gay people so after realizing he could not get rid of his gayism,he did an ego shift,or tricked himself into beliving god doesnt exsist,looke dfor evidence and found it...so there?