Aren't Athiests and Beleivers Being Equally Presumptious?

Question

I always think it's funny how people make fun of beleivers in an afterlife (christians, muslims, jews, etc) as if they're brainwashed idiots...and YET, atheists are doing the EXACT SAME THING by stating they know WITH CERTAINTY, what happens to one's conciousness after they die...but atheists are somehow more logical and enlightened? I think not...

Here's my theory on what happens to our conciousness after we die...and the answer is...I DON'T KNOW. I repeat, I DON'T KNOW. I think saying "I don't know", is BY FAR, the most intelligent answer. And the reason, is we all share 1 thing in common...NONE OF US HAVE DIED YET! So the form of agnosticism that admits it is a fundamentally unknowable answer (until one dies), has always made the most sense.

It's funny really, pretending you "know" one way or the other.
It's like if I never opened a closet in my house, but i claim to "know" what's in it. Foolish, wouldn't it be? Both beleivers and atheists are guilty of that logic.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what athiests you know, they'll be the first to believe, just show them the evidence. WITH CERTAINTY that there's no afterlife is not the way scientists or objective observers would state that belief. If scientists, athiests, and objective observers stated things in absolute terms, we'd still be living in a flat earth society.

Thankfully, we athiests (and most scientists) are open to new paradigms of physics and worldviews...based on the latest observations. To jump to the supernatural conclusion without proof is not logical...sorry.

Answer 2

Believers presume. Atheists do not. They are persuaded by the LACK of evidence, and take their views from what evidence exists - such as astronomical physics, biology, etc. Therefor they are open new hypotheses (theories, if you like) but only if supported by evidence, not by dictate. But they also stand on theories that have been proven convincingly - such as the idea that Earth rotates around the Sun, the Sun is actually a minor star amongst millions, and the evolution of life on Earth (evidenced by biology and fossils). All of which have been contested by religious believers. We don't know that there are any "unknowable answers". Certainly there are questions to which we don't know the answers ... and the answers we can comprehend may be ultimately limited by our own intelligence, senses, and tools ... and there must be many questions we haven't asked yet, and won't till we have more answers (that's the way knowledge, and science, goes). But more critically, there are people who can live without the illusion that they know all the answers, or even the most critical ones; people who can live with uncertainty, acting with courage on present knowledge (as distinct from belief), and recognising present ignorance (as we recognise the ignorance of the past). That takes a kind of faith only sceptics and atheists can muster - it is a simple commitment to life and the universe, without unevidenced presumptions, or expectations. It doesn't allow the hubris of expecting immortality. Belief on the other hand does have assumptions or presumptions, and does postulate expectations. It seems to me the religious confuse "faith" with "belief", and know very little about the nature of either. For that matter most know very little about religion in its widest sense, geographically, historically, or in variety. It's interesting exploring such things when young; but the real world at our feet is so much more wonderful, exciting - and too much ignored as present climate change demonstrates. And in the interests of future living humans and other species, it desperately needs our attention right now. Let Heaven wait, if you believe in it - life on Earth needs our attention first.

Answer 3

The process can be reviewed. On what day did you come to believe that a god or gods existed? On what day? Who told you this? Why did you believe them? What was the consequence if you didn't believe? Do you always believer everything you are told? Are you gullible? Weren't these the same people who tell us about santas and fairies and the like?

The atheist by contrast requires logic and evidence to support conclusions. Not something a child is told and believes because they were told it.

There is nothing similar in the logic of the two.

Answer 4

While "I don't know" is certainly preferable to believing in something without justification just because you want to believe in it, it is nonetheless not as good as actually using your brain to arrive at a rational answer.

We do know quite a bit about consciousness. We know WITH CERTAINTY that your personality, your memories, your experiences, everything you know, and everything that defines you as an individual, is stored as the pattern of neuronal connections in your brain. We know because we can run experiments and conduct observations to verify this.

We know WITH CERTAINTY that your thought processes are the result of the firing of the neurons in your brain. We know the electrochemical methods by which these firings occur, and can replicate them both in theory and in actual experiments. We know the effects of varying the levels of various neurotransmitters, and as a result have been able to design successful drugs to treat mental abnormalities resulting from neurotransmitter dysfunctions.

We know WITH CERTAINTY that when you die, electrochemical activity in your brain comes to a halt and the connections between the neurons begin to decay a few minutes after brain death. Ergo, we can say with reasonable confidence that when you die, your thought processes stop and all the information that defines you rots away into nothing.

Now, just whose view is more reasonable here? The atheist view that death is the end of our existence, or the religious view that somehow, through some unexplained, unprovable and completely unknown process, your conscious thought processes and personality persist after death? While I'm always wary of creating a false dichotomy, I really don't think "I don't know" is an option here. I simply see no rational reason to reject the atheist view and no rational reason to accept the religious view.

Do not equate atheism with religious belief. Atheism is founded on rational thought and science, not blind faith. Atheists do not claim to have all the answers, but we do have some of them, and we can prove it.

Answer 5

I'm in complete agreement. There is not enough evidence to conclude either hypothesis. It's an open-ended topic.

Wars are brought on by those on opposite sides of the fence. The greatest hope for peace is to be on the fence. Where no assumptions lie.

Answer 6

Exactly, that is why I am an agnostic, so I can be away while the believers and the atheists battle out their ideals. In the end, no one will benefit, since it impossible to prove the existence or inexistence of God.

Answer 7

You think it's foolish b/c u don't understand the truth. Humans like easy little stories to explain things. Even fairly objective people get caught in traps allowing for metaphysical phenomena.

The fact is, it's all bunk.

Answer 8

Interesting.

Answer 9

Yes, that is true. But I don't think that it is exactly right. That is like riding the fence your entire life. You have to make some sort of assumption.

No one is a true believer, because no one knows, unless that person is dead.

Same with atheists, like myself. We simply SPECUALTE. But I could be wrong. And I accept that.

There is nothing wrong with having some sort of opinion, but no one truly knows. But eventually we all will!

Answer 10

we all r living in a world of fantasy. u don't know what is going to happened to u the next moment. but we do things with a belief that the next moment is going to be there. without that belief we wont be able to do anything at all. we will stop doing anything. this is about this life. if we don't believe something about after life we will loose our control. it is the belief that keeps us in control. if we don't believe our life becomes so dark and scary.