A picture for Atheists - What is your impression of it's message?

[fantome profane]

Yes it is cute and a little funny. And if you say it explains the theist perspective, fine.

But it is not a logical reasonable argument. Basically it is saying we don't know for sure what happens after death therefor "God" exists. That is not a worthy argument.

 

[HonestJoe]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

The "atheist view" is not believing in the existence of any god or gods. Most people with that view also do not believe in the existence of any form of life after death but that is not necessarily the case and shouldn't really be defined as part of the "atheist view".

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words

They do, so I think it's telling that your picture still relies on words to put the point across. I'm afraid it's value is still measured by the word.

and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

It's fundamentally flawed. It falsely equates the concept of there not being sufficient evidence for something with the individual not having personally seen it. It also don't take account of the difference between not believing something exists and believing something doesn't exist.

You have made the argument with more class and style than most though.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It is funny but it does present the 'logical' reasoning of atheism behind it's claim that there is no God. Does it not?

No. To begin with, the analogy of atheists as babies in a womb is inapt. Whoever created this cartoon cleverly used an image of two babies in a womb because everybody, including atheists, knows that there is in fact life after birth and a "Mom" on the other side. Ergo, by using this image, the atheist comes off looking self deluded and his logic appears faulty and presumptuous.

Now, remove or change the image and change the wording so that it's just two people talking about God and suddenly the atheist argument makes more sense. Or at least it cannot be so easily ridiculed or refuted:

"Hey brother! Do you believe in life after death? Do you believe in God?"

"Nah, I'm an atheist. I mean, have you ever seen God?"

I've never seen God and I've never seen or perceived any indication that there is life after death. So tell me, based on this, what exactly is wrong with the logic I use to arrive at the conclusion that there is no God or life after death?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is funny but it does present the 'logical' reasoning of atheism behind it's claim that there is no God. Does it not?

If anything, it points out the folly of making knowledge claims that are completely beyond our experience and about which we have no knowledge.

It's hypocritical. The message is basically "those silly atheists should know better than to accept a bunch of baseless claims about what happens after we die. Instead, they should accept my favourite collection of claims about the afterlife despite the fact that I have nothing to give them in the way of support for those claims." It's ridiculous.

If fetuses could think and talk the way we do, they still wouldn't be able to say anything valid about after birth.

The correct answer to the question "do you think we'll meet Mom after birth?" Is "what do you mean by 'Mom' and 'birth', because even if those terms describe actual things, I can guarantee that whatever you mean by them is wrong."

 

[Valjean]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

Atheists, like metallurgists, accountants and oceanographers, have no doctrine regarding life after death.
Why do people read so much into a simple lack of belief?

A picture of two unborn babies? What's your point here? Is this an anti-abortion thing? Of so, most abortions involve non-viable foetuses, not babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes it is cute and a little funny. And if you say it explains the theist perspective, fine.

But it is not a logical reasonable argument. Basically it is saying we don't know for sure what happens after death therefor "God" exists. That is not a worthy argument.

"Is this coin going to come up heads or tails?"

"Umm... heads."

"Ha! You have no way of knowing that, so you should agree with me when I say it's going to land on its edge and then pop up and hover in midair."

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

Since when is atheism a position on the existence of an afterlife?

 

[doppelganger]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

Will these babies' parents torture them for their whole life because they didn't believe in what they couldn't see? Or is it completely irrelevant whether they "believe"?

Rather obviously it's the latter. So the comparison is silly.

It's always okay for a person to admit that he or she doesn't actually know something. Corollary: merely insisting that one need to feel like one absolutely knows something he or she cannot know is not the same as actually knowing it.

 

[freethinker44]

It is funny but it does present the 'logical' reasoning of atheism behind it's claim that there is no God. Does it not?

The only time I have ever come accross this type of atheist, is when it came from the mind of a religious person.

 

[doppelganger]

Hey, Eselam:

Do you believe that Marshall Applewhite was an Prophet of God and that he came to lead his followers through Heaven's Gate into perfect union with Jesus behind the Hale-Bopp Comet?

See: Heaven's Gate (religious group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't know that he wasn't. I guess YOU are just like these babies too . . .

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes, the little baby seems completely ignorant of biology.

It is kinda cute what ideas that ignorance can produce.

 

[Student of X]

One might suppose for the sake of argument that the unborn babies are ignorant of a higher level of reality that encompasses theirs. As are atheists.

 

[beerisit]

One might suppose for the sake of argument that the unborn babies are ignorant of a higher level of reality that encompasses theirs. As are atheists.

One might indeed if one were completely ignorant.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

Two things. They can hear their mom. They can feel their mom. Case closed.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Since when is atheism a position on the existence of an afterlife?

This too :yes:

 

[Road Warrior]

Since when is atheism a position on the existence of an afterlife?

Atheism | American Atheists

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

"Atheists" who believe in "woo", aren't atheists. They're pantheists, panentheists or some other form of spiritual believer, but according to the definition above, they are most certainly not atheists.

BTW, I liked Eselam's picture. Like all humor, there are holes in the logic, but it is funny and thought-provoking...which is the purpose, of course.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Will these babies' parents torture them for their whole life because they didn't believe in what they couldn't see?

No. Just during puberty.

 

[beerisit]

No. Just during puberty.

No puberty is when children torture parents.

 

[HonestJoe]

"Atheists" who believe in "woo", aren't atheists. They're pantheists, panentheists or some other form of spiritual believer, but according to the definition above, they are most certainly not atheists.

Unless that definition is wrong (or, in fact, the definition is right but the implication is wrong). It's generally bad practice to rely on interested parties to define such words as bias, even subconsciously, is likely to be involved. It's the same reason we don't rely on the CIA to define torture or Al-Qaeda to define terrorism.

Atheism means not believing in the existence of a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. What individual and groups of atheists believe beyond that has absolutely nothing to do with the root definition.

 

[Kerr]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

I am guessing it is someones attempt to show that atheism is flawed. You could make one of those with a unicorn and say that theists are delusional as well. It would fall in the same category of meaningful messages.