Why do atheists assume that non-existence is a real thing?

Originally posted by Mr_Awesome
Let’s look at what is provable and what is not provable.

Existence is provable... I’m here, you're here... we exist... obviously.

Non-existence on the other hand is not provable.

Notable atheist Stephen Hawking's stated his opinion that this is the one and only life that we will ever experience and when it is over we will cease to exist, however he doesn't provide any proof for this state of non-existence, which paradoxically he thinks exists.

So if this is really the only life that we have then what are the odds that in the massive expanse of time, from the beginning of the universe to the end (if there even is such a thing), that you find yourself in a state of existence right now?

I mean just think about it. One of our lifetimes is a blink of the eye when compared to the entire timeline of the universe and yet astonishingly you find yourself existing right now in this moment. Wow... It’s an amazing coincidence don't you think? I mean you haven't already died which if you did would mean that apparently you can never exist in any form again. And you haven't not been born yet, which would mean that you had never existed before but might at some point. To think of all the time that will pass (perhaps even an eternity) after your life and to consider all of the time that has passed before your life, to actually exist here and now in this moment is truly astonishing. Could you even calculate those odds?

But actually I don't think it is a coincidence at all and I would say that I exist now because I have always existed in one form or another. In fact I only know of existence and have never seen or experienced non-existence.

I would like to add that the forgetfulness of the limited physical brain does not constitute evidence for non-existence... such as 'i dont remember before I was born, why would I remember after'.

I can only prove existence and cannot prove non-existence and if I exist right now in this moment why should I assume that I don't always exist in some form?

edit on 17-5-2011 by Mr_Awesome because: typo

You have to remember is that most atheist's are sociopaths(people born without a conscience and view conscience based policies as against their interest). In the Middle Ages sociopaths like nowadays, where drawn to institutions of power. Back then that was the Church. Today it is "science" and politics. But much like how they will use idiotic statements like(existence came from non-existence) they used similar arguments to attack conscience based science when it tried to prove them wrong(people will always try to fill a niche, since sociopaths occupied the Church's, the only open niche for normals and empaths was science).

In order to understand institutions, ideas, concepts and social structures you have to seek to understand the people behind such things. Because without people those things have no value or inherent meaning in the natural world.

reply to post by Mr_Awesome


We know that our human consciousness (The I am function ) ends when our life ands. Because our senses stop sensing the environment around us.
We cant see, hear or feel, because our senses have shut down.

Our I am "brain" function in this dimension, is dependent on our bodies ability to sense, observe and to have physical choices within this dimension.

The physical and moral choices that we make as live beings represents our soul. They represent our physical personality.
Our soul is not a separate physical energy within our body, our soul represents the physical actions/choices we make.

reply to post by Mr_Awesome

Originally posted by Mr_Awesome
And I have no evidence that my consciousness is an emergent factor arising from my brain meat.

Except you have every field of science relating to the brain as evidence.

Actually there is evidence, the most convincing of which is subjective spiritual experience (which I realise to those who have never experienced something like this is hard to swallow).

Except that this isn't evidence as it is neither verifiable nor does it stand testing.

It has been written about and talked about in every culture.

So was geocentrism up to a certain point in time. Doesn't make it true. Appeal to tradition and popularity.

In our entire human history as if by instinct, there has been a belief in something beyond our physical lives (unfortunately organised religion hijacks these natural belief systems).

Actually, the whole religion thing makes sense from an evolutionary psychology point of view. We have pattern recognition 'software' in our brain meat. It's why we see shapes in places where there are no shapes. Like a cloud that is apparently shaped like a fire hydrant.

Ugh...Descartes, you old Frenchy, look what you've done to people who don't know any better...

How is the mind separate from the brain?

Because anyone who knows better would agree with you right.

No. I'm simply saying that our understanding of consciousness has grown so much since Cartesian dualism was established.

So are all brilliant scientists and mathematicians gnostic atheists? Well I guess the ones that aren’t just don’t know any better… right.

Great Dorothy's flaming straw man, Batman! I'm sorry, but I'm not a gnostic atheist, nor do I think that gnostic atheism is a tenable position.

Of course, I don't know of many people in the field of neuroscience who subscribe to dualism...so...yeah. Of course, that's not what I was saying. I was calling you out on your ignorance and asking you to prove me wrong by actually demonstrating how the mind is separate from the body.

While we inhabit these bodies the mind and brain are connected. The fact is that we don’t understand how the relationship works.

The fact is that we don't have a single shred of evidence of the mind being separate from the body. I'm asking you again:

How is the mind separate from the brain?

Still you make a large assumption by believing that you know the answer instead of admitting that you cannot know for sure.

I'm not saying I know the answer, but I am saying that there is no evidence to support your position. While not making my position certain, it at least gives my position a greater level of credibility than yours.

Again, where is your evidence for the separate of mind from the brain?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Mr_Awesome
And I have no evidence that my consciousness is an emergent factor arising from my brain meat.

Except you have every field of science relating to the brain as evidence.

Except scientists admit that they don’t understand how consciousness arises.

Actually there is evidence, the most convincing of which is subjective spiritual experience (which I realise to those who have never experienced something like this is hard to swallow).

Except that this isn't evidence as it is neither verifiable nor does it stand testing.

That’s why I put in the word ‘subjective’. Im not saying that it is verifiable by any scientific method and if it was then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It is meaningful for the person experiencing it only.

It has been written about and talked about in every culture.

So was geocentrism up to a certain point in time. Doesn't make it true. Appeal to tradition and popularity.

It’s a point of interest and the difference being that spirituality is still written and talked about in every culture because science has not been able to disprove it.

In our entire human history as if by instinct, there has been a belief in something beyond our physical lives (unfortunately organised religion hijacks these natural belief systems).

Actually, the whole religion thing makes sense from an evolutionary psychology point of view. We have pattern recognition 'software' in our brain meat. It's why we see shapes in places where there are no shapes. Like a cloud that is apparently shaped like a fire hydrant.

So what was the original pattern that all these beliefs are based on? Perhaps psychedelics? who’s to say that there is no merit to it.

Ugh...Descartes, you old Frenchy, look what you've done to people who don't know any better...

How is the mind separate from the brain?


Because anyone who knows better would agree with you right.


No. I'm simply saying that our understanding of consciousness has grown so much since Cartesian dualism was established.

Depends on your definition of consciousness. Consciousness from a Philosophical point of view is far from understood.

So are all brilliant scientists and mathematicians gnostic atheists? Well I guess the ones that aren’t just don’t know any better… right.


Great Dorothy's flaming straw man, Batman! I'm sorry, but I'm not a gnostic atheist, nor do I think that gnostic atheism is a tenable position.

Of course, I don't know of many people in the field of neuroscience who subscribe to dualism...so...yeah. Of course, that's not what I was saying. I was calling you out on your ignorance and asking you to prove me wrong by actually demonstrating how the mind is separate from the body.

Calling me out on my ignorance… more like just asking me a loaded question which you know I could not answer to your satisfaction. For example prove to me that we cease to experience existence in any form after we die… oh you can’t… well then I must be right by default. Sorry it doesn’t work like that.

While we inhabit these bodies the mind and brain are connected. The fact is that we don’t understand how the relationship works.


The fact is that we don't have a single shred of evidence of the mind being separate from the body. I'm asking you again:

How is the mind separate from the brain?

Oh this again? I already said I don’t understand the relationship between the mind and brain. How about an out of body experience, is that a shred of evidence for some kind of separation? Perhaps the separation is between the electricity or energy in our bodies which is not physical compared to the physical brain meat. Perhaps the pineal gland is where the mind resides. When I dream I have a perceived body and brain in the dream world, yet if I die when I’m dreaming I don’t cease to exist, I simply wake up.

Still you make a large assumption by believing that you know the answer instead of admitting that you cannot know for sure.

I'm not saying I know the answer, but I am saying that there is no evidence to support your position. While not making my position certain, it at least gives my position a greater level of credibility than yours.

Where is your objective evidence that we will cease to exist in any form after we die? I am not coming from a position of certainty either but I certainly wouldn’t say that your position is more credible. In fact due to my subjective experiences I would say that for me your position is less credible.

Also the point I was making in my OP was to say that to be in a state of existence right now is miraculous if we only experience it once and only for a very short period of time, Compared to existence being eternal, which would make perfect sense that I would exist in some form right now.