Why are Atheists Here?

[liamconnor]

It seems to me that far more atheists frequent this site than theists.

It is also obviously apparent that non-theist members here are very, very passionate.

But why? What is your goal.


Are you trying to create atheists? But that goal does not fit the strategy, which is typically on the defensive: i.e., "Prove to me there is a God!"


So why are you here? You obviously want theists to be constantly trying to convince you of ideas you think ridiculous. This is very strange. I think Islam an error; yet I am not a member of a single Islamic site. Are you? I think Hinduism strange; still, not seeking a Hindu forum to demand evidence for their beliefs.

So, to reiterate:

what is your goal?

why specifically Christianity?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 69 by KenRU]


"My goal is to have my views challenged and to learn more about the subject. I find it very interesting. "

As an atheist you are not truth seeker.

You demand proof of what's behind the closed door which you have firmly shut.

Vain exercise.

Show the door exists, and let's go open it. Every believer at this site has been asked and has yet to offer up any empirical data or evidence for any supernatural claim. You want people to have an open mind about....nothing? That makes no sense.

[Elijah John]

As an atheist you are not truth seeker.

You demand proof of what's behind the closed door which you have firmly shut.

Moderator Warning


These are blanket statements and a personal attack. Best not to characterize your opponents motivations.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Aetixintro]

Show the door exists, and let's go open it. Every believer at this site has been asked and has yet to offer up any empirical data or evidence for any supernatural claim. You want people to have an open mind about....nothing? That makes no sense.

However, the Atheists show little will to step outside their armchair philosophy. They continue to reiterate and are subjects to Problem of Induction on so many things. When can they show some humility and see the "black swans"? The cockiness should be punished somehow?

Heh-heh-heh, maybe "stuck" is the word!

I mean, typically the beliefs are beyond science anyway. Like "I believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist".

What is left? Exposition of views? The details? However, I'm not against sharing information and in a sense, people get "richer" by being here and reading up, up to a point, I guess.

[Kenisaw]

Show the door exists, and let's go open it. Every believer at this site has been asked and has yet to offer up any empirical data or evidence for any supernatural claim. You want people to have an open mind about....nothing? That makes no sense.

However, the Atheists show little will to step outside their armchair philosophy. They continue to reiterate and are subjects to Problem of Induction on so many things. When can they show some humility and see the "black swans"? The cockiness should be punished somehow?

Heh-heh-heh, maybe "stuck" is the word!

I mean, typically the beliefs are beyond science anyway. Like "I believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist".

What is left? Exposition of views? The details? However, I'm not against sharing information and in a sense, people get "richer" by being here and reading up, up to a point, I guess.

I don't know what philosophy you are referring to, so I can't comment on that directly.

The reason, at least for me, that I continue to reiterate my points (including the one about lack of evidence) is that they continue to be circumvented, misdirected, or flat out ignored by believers. I can't get even one little old empirical data point out of anyone that supports any supernatural claim in the entirety of human history. Since that seems to be a point that dozens of people don't want to touch, it must be a pretty good point...

Pointing out the lack of adequate response to a key request isn't related to humility.

[Zzyzx]

.

However, the Atheists show little will to step outside their armchair philosophy.

Yes, the giant 'armchair philosophy' in I don't believe your god tales.

It is a CONSPIRACY against all the thousands of 'gods' imagined, worshiped, feared, loved, and fought over by adherents of tens of thousands of religions, led by millions of 'preachers' who KNOW about 'gods'.

Not believing them gets many all upset and often hostile.

Scientists (including those who are Christian) are part of the conspiracy too because they keep finding things that contradict god tales and stories.

They continue to reiterate and are subjects to Problem of Induction on so many things. When can they show some humility and see the "black swans"? The cockiness should be punished somehow?

I mean, typically the beliefs are beyond science anyway. Like "I believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist".

How about, I don't believe ANYONE'S god tales. Apologists should understand that because they don't believe tales about OTHER 'gods' -- just their favorites.

Is that a 'belief' that is 'beyond science'?

What is left? Exposition of views? The details? However, I'm not against sharing information and in a sense, people get "richer" by being here and reading up, up to a point, I guess.

Theistic positions do not seem to fare well in debate. Why not?

[Aetixintro]

Theistic positions do not seem to fare well in debate. Why not?

Because Atheists are better banging their heads against the wall of futility?

As much as Theists are bad at proving that God exists so too are Atheists bad at proving that God doesn't exist.

[Aetixintro]

The reason, at least for me, that I continue to reiterate my points (including the one about lack of evidence) is that they continue to be circumvented, misdirected, or flat out ignored by believers. I can't get even one little old empirical data point out of anyone that supports any supernatural claim in the entirety of human history. Since that seems to be a point that dozens of people don't want to touch, it must be a pretty good point...

Pointing out the lack of adequate response to a key request isn't related to humility.

I'd say it's pretty empirical what concerns the Van Lommel studies, the narrative of Near-Death Experiences and Out-of-body experiences. I also believe that some narrative also escapes the highway of information so that "freak nature" continues to be elusive to us (commoners of information). Now? Not an empirical point? I say there are many points, but somehow the opposition keeps distorting the data...

[Zzyzx]

,

Theistic positions do not seem to fare well in debate. Why not?

Because Atheists are better banging their heads against the wall of futility?

As much as Theists are bad at proving that God exists so too are Atheists bad at proving that God doesn't exist.

Many Theists bang their head against a wall thinking that Atheists have to prove that gods do not exist. Atheism means 'without belief in gods' -- period -- full stop.

Perhaps the head banging prevents comprehension that , 'I do not believe your god tales' is NOT the same as 'gods do not exist'

My theistic position as a Non-Theist (not Atheist) is summarized in signature. Theists claim that far more 'gods' do not exist than I do.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The reason, at least for me, that I continue to reiterate my points (including the one about lack of evidence) is that they continue to be circumvented, misdirected, or flat out ignored by believers. I can't get even one little old empirical data point out of anyone that supports any supernatural claim in the entirety of human history. Since that seems to be a point that dozens of people don't want to touch, it must be a pretty good point...

Pointing out the lack of adequate response to a key request isn't related to humility.

I'd say it's pretty empirical what concerns the Van Lommel studies, the narrative of Near-Death Experiences and Out-of-body experiences. I also believe that some narrative also escapes the highway of information so that "freak nature" continues to be elusive to us (commoners of information). Now? Not an empirical point? I say there are many points, but somehow the opposition keeps distorting the data...

The Atlantic
Near-death experiences have gotten a lot of attention lately. The 2014 movie Heaven Is for Real, about a young boy who told his parents he had visited heaven while he was having emergency surgery, grossed a respectable $91 million in the United States. The book it was based on, published in 2010, has sold some 10 million copies and spent 206 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. Two recent books by doctors—Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander, who writes about a near-death experience he had while in a week-long coma brought on by meningitis, and To Heaven and Back, by Mary C. Neal, who had her NDE while submerged in a river after a kayaking accident—have spent 94 and 36 weeks, respectively, on the list. (The subject of The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven, published in 2010, recently admitted that he made it all up.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... es/386231/

The Trigger of Extreme Gravity:
Dr. James Winnery's NDE Research
Scientific research has tried to unlock the secrets of death and what happens to consciousness after death. Our scientific understanding of the mind / brain chemistry involved in the processes of death remains relatively limited. In spite of the findings reported from these studies, little emphasis has been placed on the loss of consciousness. The results of the loss and recovery of consciousness experiments in healthy humans may provide insight into the normal processes in the brain that occurs in association with NDEs.

This report focuses on the mind/brain events associated with acceleration gravitationally-induced loss of consciousness, also known as G-LOC, in completely healthy individuals. Acceleration of gravitational stress is a unique aspect of flying fighter aircraft during aerial combat maneuvering. Modern fighter aircraft can attain high levels of gravitational forces that puts most humans at risk for G-LOC.

The gravitational-stress reduces blood flow to the head and causes pooling of blood in the abdomen and extremities which result in G-LOC. A solution for the G-LOC problem requires a thorough understanding of the alterations of consciousness. Although preventing further losses of aircrew and aircraft is the goal of fighter aviation medicine, the results from experiments involving G-LOC in completely healthy humans should be of interest to a broad range of scientific disciplines.

The results to be discussed represent data collected from over fifteen years of acceleration research and more than 700 episodes of G-LOC that occurred in fighter aircraft and during gravitational centrifuge exposure. The research subjects averaged in age of 32 years. All of them were healthy after having successfully completed a military physical examination. The G-LOC episodes from the centrifuge were all recorded on videotape for analysis.

When gravitational stress is applied well above tolerance, there is a short time period during which normal brain function persists, despite loss of adequate blood flow. At the end of this period, consciousness is lost, and the gravitational stress is reduced back to normal conditions. The length of the unconsciousness averaged 12 seconds with a -5 to +5 standard deviation and a range of 2 to 38 seconds. The estimated average length of time blood flow to the central nervous system was altered during the loss and recovery of consciousness was approximately 15 to 20 seconds.

Convulsive activity was observed in 70% of the G-LOC episodes. The convulsive activity began on the average 7.7 seconds after the onset of unconsciousness and lasted 3.9 seconds. The convulsions would cease with the return of consciousness. Upon recovery of consciousness, there is a period of relative incapacitation that lasts on the average about 12 seconds, in which there exists confusion/disorientation.

It is possible to classify the G-LOC episodes. The G-LOC experience includes specific visual symptoms (tunnel vision through blackout), convulsive activity, memory alterations, dreamlets, and other psychological symptoms. The major, overall G-LOC experience characteristics that have commonality with NDEs are shown below.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/t ... avity.html

Out of body experiences, also referred to as NDE's, are produced by the brain as a result of temporary lack of oxygen. They often produce vivid memories and experiences. They are physiological rather than spiritual.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 69 by KenRU]


"My goal is to have my views challenged and to learn more about the subject. I find it very interesting. "

As an atheist you are not truth seeker.

You demand proof of what's behind the closed door which you have firmly shut.

Vain exercise.

Does it ever occur to you that "truth" only applies when it conforms to your dogma?