Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

[Yazata]

so you are saying death is more than your heart stopping and being brain dead?

My answer would be 'yes'. I'd define 'death' in the biological sense as cell death, as the permanent disruption and cessation of cell biochemistry and ultimatly the lysis and disintegration of the cell.

On an organismic level, death would consist of cell death on such a scale that further continuation of physiological functions becomes impossible.

The idea of heart stoppage or brain death being an indicator of death is a legal criterion, not a biological one. The law needs to have some criterion to distinguish between a living individual and a dead one, since living people have a legal status that's very different from that of corpses.

In ancient times, breathing was often taken to be the criterion. But we all know that it's often possible to revive people who have stopped breathing. So in the 19'th century, physicians promoted a new standard that employed heart stoppage as the indicator of an individual's death. Of course today it's basically routine for surgeons to stop and re-start hearts in order to perform repairs.

That motivated the widespread adoption of irreversable brain-death, defined in this case as brain inactivity as measured by EEGs, as the legal criterion of death in the 20'th century.

Note the word 'irreversable'. Simply rendering somebody unconscious, even if their heart is stopped, doesn't qualify as death. And the fact that NDE cases revive to tell their tales of what death is supposedly like indicates that none of their situations was ever irreversable. So none of their situations ever satisfied the legal criterion of death.

The problem with brain death defined as irreversible brain inactivity is that it's very hard to define and measure, since many severely brain-injured individuals might show little cortical activity, but still some residual activity deeper in their brain stems. So there's an active debate among physicians, lawyers and courts about what level of brain inactivity qualifies. And there are the underlying problems of determining what level of brain damage is truly irreversable and what level of brain activity corresponds to the presence or absence of a conscious 'self'.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

A person who believes that it is okay for him to lie, kill and steal is uncivilized, regardless of his religious or irreligious philosophy.

I resent that. Lies are easy to justify at a certain level of intelligence. Killing is an action that only happens in civilization to call it uncivilized is just untrue no matter how much we wish it to be.

If you can justify your actions as moral, I see no reason to let something unjust skip past a recommended punnishment.

Besides as a society we have to find some way to justify war. Most aren't deep enought to feel the blood of the dying spilling through their own veins.

 

[yaracuy]

I love all you atheists,

 

[yaracuy]

Why do Americans still dislike Atheists?

Enough said

O really dislike this phony Lyme, he is a appointed christian and found himself a way to make money of the suckers atheists by publishing what they want to hear.

 

[yaracuy]

So to say, "You don't know there is no god so there could be one," is as disingenuous as saying, "You don't know there is no Santa Claus, La Llorona, or Fraggle Rock, so there could be one."

To postulate the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and then fabricate an entire gallery of supernatural creatures and a history of supernatural events around it,





Why scientist hunt for Higgs particle are they really know that it exist, are we sure about dark matter or dark energy ? Why going in spends billions in hunting that does not affect man kind . Wouldn't bettere to spend the money for health an food growing for mankind ?
If theist are and chose to be ignorant in physical matter, you are ignorant in their subject which makes them happy ., What is important in life is to be happy and make someone happy.

 

[SciWriter]

To say, "No one knows for sure," is to mimic the intellectual dishonesty of the religionists.

It's like saying, "You don't know for sure that there's not an alligator hiding under your bed, so I'm not going to take my shoes off." But no, actually it's not even that reasonable a statement. There is a zoo in Washington, they have an alligator exhibit, the entire staff could have gone on strike and left all the enclosures unlocked in protest, an alligator could have crawled 25 miles north without being spotted by the police or squashed by a truck, my housemate could have left the front door open, he could have come down the stairs and hidden under the bed, and along the way he could have captured and eaten a deer so my dogs are still alive and I didn't immediately wonder why they didn't run to the door to greet me when we arrived.

The chances of this happening are infinitesimal, but it is possible. It doesn't violate any of the laws of nature that we have spent half a millennium carefully discovering.

To say, "You don't know for sure that there is no god," does not fall into that same category. The existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which creatures capriciously wield forces that interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, violates the fundamental premise of science, which is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. This premise has been tested and peer-reviewed aggressively and exhaustively for half a millennium, and has never come close to being falsified. All of our meticulously accumulated empirical evidence about the behavior of the universe supports this premise. To gainsay it is to reject science.

So to say, "You don't know there is no god so there could be one," is as disingenuous as saying, "You don't know there is no Santa Claus, La Llorona, or Fraggle Rock, so there could be one."

To postulate the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and then fabricate an entire gallery of supernatural creatures and a history of supernatural events around it, and then proselytize a code of behavior designed to please one of those imaginary creatures, is a sophomoric exercise. A great way to waste time and energy that could be spent learning how the natural universe actually works and making a positive contribution to civilization.

Another top ten classic by Fraggle. Thanks.

Some of these are so great that I reference them on other forum sites.

 

[gmilam]

Why scientist hunt for Higgs particle are they really know that it exist, are we sure about dark matter or dark energy ? Why going in spends billions in hunting that does not affect man kind .

A deeper understanding of reality does affect mankind.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

A deeper understanding of reality does affect mankind.

If that is the case then most of the things humanity are struggling to find are in reality unable for them to grasp. Why learn or use something that is more expensive than it is useless, unless it provides some sort of benefit to mankind as a whole.

Man has never been able to solve his individual problems, what makes any of us think we could solve the world's with a machine.

 

[NMSquirrel]

It's funny that you imagine that Americans know who Richard Dawkins is,

so that is who that is..

 

[NMSquirrel]

(making it one of the reasons I never bother to read philosophy books because I get tired of spending money on books and then tearing them up in anger),

anger? (frustration,fear,sadness,guilt,or loss?) inadequate understanding or disagree with content?

He may have presented this as a valid code to live by, but apparently he himself did not practice it.

history is filled with ppl like that..
i personally do not think it is an excuse to dismiss the message, there can be other, more qualified excuses if its a harmful message..

then it brings up the question of ; if some one asks you for advice, do you tell them what is best or what you do?
iow, have you ever gave advice that you didn't follow?

 

[gmilam]

If that is the case then most of the things humanity are struggling to find are in reality unable for them to grasp. Why learn or use something that is more expensive than it is useless, unless it provides some sort of benefit to mankind as a whole.

Man has never been able to solve his individual problems, what makes any of us think we could solve the world's with a machine.

How can you determine what use future knowledge will be?

 

[spidergoat]

O really dislike this phony Lyme, he is a appointed christian and found himself a way to make money of the suckers atheists by publishing what they want to hear.

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins, he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.

 

[Kennyc]

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins, he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.

quoted for truth.

 

[NMSquirrel]

My answer would be 'yes'. I'd define 'death' in the biological sense as cell death, as the permanent disruption and cessation of cell biochemistry and ultimatly the lysis and disintegration of the cell.

So none of their situations ever satisfied the legal criterion of death.

The idea of heart stoppage or brain death being an indicator of death is a legal criterion, not a biological one.

?
but i think i do get your point..i'm not sure i agree with it in this context, legal vs biological death, but as you say the laws change as exceptions are found, same with biological death, some day they may find a way to revive a persons cells.:shrug:..then the definition will change again..

 

[NietzscheHimself]

How can you determine what use future knowledge will be?

We all determine what future knowledge will be by what questions we ask each other. Till mores and maxims are made to suit societies outlook on life. Till all the deepest question have all the deepest answers. Then we are supposed to live finally. Unlike what we have been doing lately. Distracted by material possessions and fascinated by objects we will never approach. Future knowledge will always turn to previous wisdom for what they can not explain.

 

[parmalee]

It's funny that you imagine that Americans know who Richard Dawkins is...

Wasn't he the host of Family Feud back in the day?

 

[yaracuy]

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins, he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.

Religion gives a piece of mind for some people and they don't have to take any pills ( medication ). Would you rather see million more people take anti depressant , let them be , let not every body be so smart as you, otherwise would be harder to get alone.

 

[spidergoat]

I would be depressed if I thought I was under the control of some transcendent totalitarian ruler you could never get away from, even in death- someone who watches you all the time, and plays games with your life (such as with Job). You can't even draw a picture of the bastard.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

An atheist has no-one to blame but themselves for their mistakes. A theist can throw the blame unto God just as quickly as an atheist can blaspheme.

Is there a correlation between religion and drug use? I highly doubt your naturalistic tendencies to steer away from aspects concerning God causes depression.

 

[SciWriter]

Theists have no one but themselves to blame for their myth-takes.