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

[McBell]

You are taking the picture way too literally.

No, I am answering the question quoted in the post you replied to.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am moving on, I'm replying to everyone.

I haven't even replied to half the responses to get the discussion going. It seems you are convinced that your view is right and have no need to discuss. If so, fine by me.

No, I like it when my beliefs are challenged, but logically fallacious analogies don't present a challenge, only a headache.

And are you sure those 2 words mean what you want them to mean (logical fallacy)? A Troubled Man already called my OP a 'strawman' argument but it must be a new word for him because he doesn't know it's meaning and that it has no application on what I'm saying. I'm just asking you to be sure that's all.

Son, please.

 

[Gharib]

Im an atheist, but I don't share the bleak view that when we die thats it. I think its possible that when we die thats it, but that is only one possibility among many. Another possibility is that when we die we go to heaven and God takes care of us. I don't believe in God, but its possible he exists. Another possibility is that this is a computer simulation of one kind or another, and after we die we wake up into the 'real' world. Another possibility is something similar to what mycorrhiza said, except that our atoms might possibly assemble themselves in a similar way as they are now, and we will be alive again. That idea is really complex though, with a whole range of variables involved about which we know very little, and I don't feel like getting into it here. Maybe Aliens will preserve our consciousnesses? Might sound funny to some people, but under the circumstances of what we know about reality, I would say it is more likely than the idea that there is a God who will take care of us.

In short, it takes some combination of ignorance and faith to think that death is permanent.

Basically you are saying that all outcomes put forward by different people of different beliefs on this matter might be possible and just as equally possible as any other view.

It seems to me that you neither accept God nor deny him which explains the middle stance of an afterlife, there could be one but then again there might not be one.

 

[Gharib]

No, I am answering the question quoted in the post you replied to.

If it is not related directly to the picture then how does it answer my question?

I didn't understand the relation. If it even has any.

 

[Gharib]

No, I like it when my beliefs are challenged, but logically fallacious analogies don't present a challenge, only a headache.

Son, please.

I haven't even had the chance to respond to most of the replies and explain my stance better and all you say is logical fallacy.

I can tell you that it is not, give me some time and I will do that.

 

[McBell]

life after birth isn't a guarantee.

Why not?

Leading Causes of Infant Death - Leading Causes of Infant Death or Mortality

You are taking the picture way too literally.

No, I am answering the question quoted in the post you replied to.

If it is not related directly to the picture then how does it answer my question?

I didn't understand the relation. If it even has any.

 

[McBell]

Basically you are saying that all outcomes put forward by different people of different beliefs on this matter might be possible and just as equally possible as any other view.

It seems to me that you neither accept God nor deny him which explains the middle stance of an afterlife, there could be one but then again there might not be one.

personally, I have not seen or heard anything that indicates life after death.
However, I am not so arrogant as to make the claim "there is no after life" based on the fact that I have not seen or heard anything that indicates there is life after death.

 

[Gharib]

Okay, I'll weigh in with a weird, far-out viewpoint.

I'm a believer in reincarnation despite being essentially an atheist. Therefore, I think what's commonly called the soul is simply energy that leaves the physical body at death to go to a mode of existence referred to as "another plane."

Eventually, this energy reinhabits a physical body and is born into another lifetime. So, obviously, I don't believe that the body I have now will do anything but rot away and hopefully feed some nice plants.

I'm an atheist because I think that the ideas people have of various deities are simply how we try to make sense of that which we don't yet know.

Perhaps there are some sort of quite natural spirit-beings that have communicated with some people and still do. These contacts have been very much transformed into belief in gods. That this may be so is part of my beliefs.

I am also skeptical that all this is just something I like to think could be true because doing so satisfies an emotional need of mine. Realistically, I know that my beliefs are more than likely just as foolish and baseless as those of people who believe in the deity-concepts of the various world religions.

So if you believe in some sort of an afterlife (reincarnation) and accept that there is a soul/spirit/energy then how can you not accept God? I know roughly why from your above statements, but it doesn't make very much sense. You believe in some sort of 'beings' but not in God, I can't see how that works unfortunately.

 

[Gharib]

That's why I didn't see the relation, I thought you posted the link in reply to my post asking you to elaborate. I didn't realize you replied to my question directed at waitasec.

 

[Gharib]

The OP, in an attempt to show two individuals reasoning has instead shown a complete lack of reasoning in it's deployment. Well done.

Thank you.

 

[Gharib]

I have a few problems with that picture. Here's my alternate version:

- hey! Did you know that after birth, a unicorn will give us each our own perfect placenta! No more sharing any more, and we'll be even warmer and cozier than we are here. Won't that be great? L

- When did you find all this out? We've been together the whole time. I think you're making it up. ... and what's a unicorn?

Sorry I don't see how that works.

In the picture I posted there is 'evidence' of the existence of the mother (just let me explain) as there is revelation from God in real life outside of the womb that indicates to examples of Gods existence.

But your version says that there is no evidence whatsoever and that since they have been together the whole time they both would have had the same thinking/beliefs (and you are being misleading by mentioning a unicorn). But this goes either way, maybe the 'atheist' baby is all about "I will believe when I see" then even though there is evidence that leads to Gods existence he won't believe unless he actually sees God no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

And one more thing, when you actually see something and witness it with your own eyes, your choice of 'believing it' is no longer an option, you must believe it. So again, Atheists don't wish to have belief in something they have to wait to see but instead prefer to have belief in something they are going to see in this life time. Like the scientist example I made earlier.

 

[A Troubled Man]

A Troubled Man already called my OP a 'strawman' argument but it must be a new word for him because he doesn't know it's meaning and that it has no application on what I'm saying.

Here's how it works based on the fallacy.

Person A has position X.

This position is how two babies cannot "reason" they don't know if they have a mother, showing the premise to be flawed, which was presented by a number of folks here explaining the OP so-called reasoning is based on beliefs and not evidence, the same belief used to claims the existence of gods.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

YOU said, "I will give you an example of how belief fits into the scene."

Person B attacks position Y.

YOU then go on to present your attack of that position.

A scientist conjures up in his mind an experimental theory about the cure of cancer. he carries it out believing that it will work, it turns out that what he believed to be the cure didn't work, so he repeats this same thing by creating different experiments and trying them out.

If the scientist had no belief that his experiment would work he would not have gone through with the experiment and the only way to find out was through actual experimentation.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

So why would he try something that he knew would fail? He wouldn't, he tried something he believed would work which latter failed.

God too requires that kind of belief.

See how that works out to be a strawman?

 

[A Troubled Man]

You might want to read up on the definition of straw man arguments.

Let me help you: Fallacy: Straw Man

No, I like it when my beliefs are challenged, but logically fallacious analogies don't present a challenge, only a headache.

:bow:

 

[mycorrhiza]

Moreover, death is what the body goes through, however, the soul/spirit just moves on (transits) from one place (realm) into another. So there is nothing wrong with the analogy, because in both cases the 'human' simply transits from one place to another.

We don't have any evidence of there being a soul, though, while the fetuses in the picture have plenty of evidence of there being a body. There's quite the difference between believing that the body will travel through a tunnel than believing that something we have never observed will transcend into another realm of being.

What do you mean by humans not being special, in what way are we not special?

In my opinion the fact that we have the ability to think is what sets us apart from every other living creature. In the Qur'an is also says that this form which we have is perfect in comparison to the forms which all other creatures have (It says something along those words). Lets say that things did/do evolve, all creatures when compared to humans play no major role. This life is mostly about us, everything revolves around us. I will try and give some examples another time.

Our thought is no more special than the cat's eyesight. We fill a different niche, but the whole world doesn't revolve around us. Many humans think that it does, since they don't care to look at the world through the eyes of another species. We're far from the most plentiful species on earth and therefore we are also far from the most successful species on earth. Look at the dandelion, it vastly outnumbers us in all places where it grows and it finds its way through our asphalt, adapting to the world we create. They're a species that is much more successful than we are.

Evolution doesn't put humanity on a piedestal, because we are not the final product, the last species. There is no such thing in evolution. Religion is what puts humanity at the center of the Universe, not evolution. If we turn to the night sky, we see just a tiny amount of all the stars in our vast and amazing Universe. Our planet is one out of billions and billions of planets and life much more complex than our has probably evolved on other planets.

To me, calling humanity special doesn't reflect our place in the Universe. In the big picture, we're not that important at all and we need to realize this to be able to take care of the Earth we live on and are part of. Realizing that we lack meaning doesn't make our lives worthless. It only makes our lives more important to us, because it's the only life we have and we need to enjoy it while preserving all other life around us. If there is a realm after this, then what we do on Earth ultimately means nothing. Why look at life as a small step towards better life when we can cherish the life we have and try to make our Earth the best place in the whole Universe to live in? Why wait for paradise when we can bring it here?

There is a whole heap of evidence that leads to the existence of God, of course this does require belief also. In Islam the whole point of this life is for us to worship God, to believe in his existence without having seen him directly. Is there any evidence that points to his existence? Yes, however, a condition of seeing these evidences requires some faith too.

Then could you please show me the evidence? If evidence cannot be observed without already believing in it, is it really evidence? There are always claims of there being evidence for the existence of God, but none is ever presented.

 

[McBell]

That's why I didn't see the relation, I thought you posted the link in reply to my post asking you to elaborate. I didn't realize you replied to my question directed at waitasec.

Ah.
Your reply makes more sense then.

My apologies.

 

[McBell]

Then could you please show me the evidence? If evidence cannot be observed without already believing in it, is it really evidence? There are always claims of there being evidence for the existence of God, but none is ever presented.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record....

It might be a good idea to be more specific than the vague generalization of just "evidence".

Evidence simply means: "basis for belief or disbelief;"

thus anything can be said to be evidence if it is the basis for belief or disbelief even if it is something that you personally do not see or accept as evidence

 

[outhouse]

What a retarded analogy.

LOL no kidding


what a desperate attempt to justify mythology

 

[Storm]

I dunno.... It's not quite as simple as it seems on the surface.

From what little I've read, the primary objection seems to be that there's evidence the mother exists, but that's from our perspective. An unborn baby doesn't exactly have the knowledge, much less the technology to look outside the womb and confirm Mom's existence. Likewise, we don't have the knowledge or equipment to confirm God's. Or deny.

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand the strict definition of "atheism", but the real question is "what does it mean?"

The strict definition is what it means (that's the definition of definition ). You're asking "how it is used?".

Words have meanings but they're also used, as tools, sometimes as weapons. If someone is using (abusing?) a word whose literal definition applies to me, that doesn't mean their use of it necessarily says anything about me.

Do you believe in an afterlife? Woo? A spiritual existence?

Personally no, but that's still above and beyond my atheism.

If so, then I submit you are not in accordance with the definition provided on Atheists.org

That would be true. I also submit that the definition provided there is flat out wrong. They're misusing a convenient word to label their world view because there isn't one that easily encompasses it all. Thankfully, that organisation doesn't own the word atheist.

This is like telling a Christian that they're not actually praying because they're not on their knees facing Mecca.

 

[gnomon]

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.

Slightly humorous in a good mocking way.