Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Owlswing on January 23, 2016, 05:10:11 PM
-
It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.
I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.
In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.
Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.
However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.
That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!
I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.
I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.
I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.
-
It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.
I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.
In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.
Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.
However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.
That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!
I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.
I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.
I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........Oh.......Yes......what?
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........Oh.......Yes......what?
Exactly what I expected from you, Vlad, a response full of words and empty of meaning. To have meaning it would have required thought, something of which you are totally incapable.
-
Exactly what I expected from you, Vlad, a response full of words and empty of meaning. To have meaning it would have required thought, something of which you are totally incapable.
I'll get me coat.
-
In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing. ...
To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.
If the atheists were to be proven to be correct, would the religious of any nature - Christian or otherwise - have any idea that their ideas had been wrong? Would atheists have any idea that their views had been correct?
However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.
That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!
They couldn't be proved correct collectively because there are enough differences amongst them to make them effectively incompatible. Individually could occur - but then who would know?
I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.
That, of course, assumes that any Christians here or elsewhere are as certain of anything as you like to think they are.
I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.
Could you explain this in plain English, please?
-
It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.
I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.
In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.
Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.
However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.
That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!
I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.
I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.
I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.
The odds for this happening are so unlikely I can't see that it's worth bothering, 2000 years, no proof or even a hint of the magical, mystical or the superstitions involved with religion, how long do you think it's worth waiting?
ippy
-
I'll get me coat.
Thank Christ for that!
-
The odds for this happening are so unlikely I can't see that it's worth bothering, 2000 years, no proof or even a hint of the magical, mystical or the superstitions involved with religion, how long do you think it's worth waiting?
ippy
Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated. Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?
-
Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated. Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?
As Sam Harris said somewhere, atheism is really only the reaction of reasonable people to unreasonable claims and assertions - as such it's not a belief system but the absence of one, to wit, theism. (Clue is in the name). What you are in fact asking for here is evidence of a negative - well, given what is claimed for gods by their believers the evidence of their absence is overwhelming, I'd have thought. Theism is the positive assertion about the nature of reality (indeed, ultimate reality, according to its acolytes) and thus is the thing that stands in need of backup.
-
That, of course, assumes that any Christians here or elsewhere are as certain of anything as you like to think they are.
It is no assumption - you are one of the masters of assumptions!
Your certainty of anything to do with the afterlife is plastered through hundreds if not thousands of posts by those that I classify as the Super-Christians, which, no surprise here, includes you!
I do not doubt for one instant that you will now wriggle and squirm for god alone knows how many posts trying to deny your stated certainty of your, and others of your ilk, acceptance in heaven for your support oif Christianity.
Could you explain this in plain English, please?
They would take it philosophically.
-
Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated. Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?
Why should we trust yours!
Because you say so?
No way!
-
The odds for this happening are so unlikely I can't see that it's worth bothering, 2000 years, no proof or even a hint of the magical, mystical or the superstitions involved with religion, how long do you think it's worth waiting?
ippy
The odds of what happening? To which particular part of the OP are you referring?
-
As Sam Harris said somewhere, atheism is really only the reaction of reasonable people to unreasonable claims and assertions - as such it's not a belief system but the absence of one, to wit, theism. (Clue is in the name). What you are in fact asking for here is evidence of a negative - well, given what is claimed for gods by their believers the evidence of their absence is overwhelming, I'd have thought. Theism is the positive assertion about the nature of reality (indeed, ultimate reality, according to its acolytes) and thus is the thing that stands in need of backup.
Sam Harris.................Happiness is a warm nuke/gun.
-
As Sam Harris said somewhere, atheism is really only the reaction of reasonable people
reasonable people? Check this out
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/jan/07/sam-harris-faith-guns
-
Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated. Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?
"Hear we Go Again Happy as Can Be, la la la la la la la"
ippy
-
The odds of what happening? To which particular part of the OP are you referring?
Go back to post 5.
ippy
-
Go back to post 5.
ippy
There is an exception to every rule!
I said that I thought that atheists would probably be more philosophical on the subject - you may well be the exception that proves the rule.
-
I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.
Could you explain this in plain English, please?
It is in plain English.
It means that the atheists would wake up in whichever version of the afterlife is true and say "oh fiddlesticks, we were wrong. Never mind". Although I think the language would be stronger if the right version of the afterlife was eternity with TW.
-
Dear Owlswing,
And I say, as we both wake up in Summerland, me with a glass of Glengoyne 17 year old and you with a, well your favourite tipple, that was a blast, lets do it again, but this time with feeling 8)
When Earth's last picture is painted and the tubes are twisted and dried,
When the oldest colours have faded, and the youngest critic has died,
We shall rest, and, faith, we shall need it -- lie down for an aeon or two,
Till the Master of All Good Workmen shall put us to work anew.
And those that were good shall be happy; they shall sit in a golden chair;
They shall splash at a ten-league canvas with brushes of comets' hair.
They shall find real saints to draw from -- Magdalene, Peter, and Paul;
They shall work for an age at a sitting and never be tired at all!
And only The Master shall praise us, and only The Master shall blame;
Andd no one shall work for money, and no one shall work for fame,
But each for the joy of the working, and each, in his separate star,
Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are!
Gonnagle.
-
It is in plain English.
Clearly Matt doesn't want to explain himself, so perhaps you could explain what '..., be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.' means. I can understand the general gist of the post, but not this particular section. It doesn't seem to fit any rules of English.
-
Dear Owlswing,
And I say, as we both wake up in Summerland, me with a glass of Glengoyne 17 year old
When I wake up in the summerland I shall beckon Richard Dawkins over and say ''Waiter, I'll have what Gonnagle's having.''
-
It is no assumption - you are one of the masters of assumptions!
Your certainty of anything to do with the afterlife is plastered through hundreds if not thousands of posts by those that I classify as the Super-Christians, which, no surprise here, includes you!
Many of those posts also include words to the effect that people are at liberty to believe what they want to, and that I don't judge them in any way on that choice. All I say is that I believe that the message that Jesus taught was for all of humanity and for all time, and that therefore people ought to be given the opportunity to thoughtfully accept or reject it. I realise that this kind of honesty that the vast majority of Christians on this board have espoused over the years makes it difficult for you to have a go at them; it is an issue that I've encountered on several internet forums over the years, and I tend not to take the misrepresentations that result with much worry. You, however, seem keen to amass as many misrepresentations as you can, which is why I tend to challenge them in the way I do.
I do not doubt for one instant that you will now wriggle and squirm for god alone knows how many posts trying to deny your stated certainty of your, and others of your ilk, acceptance in heaven for your support oif Christianity.
I don't have to wriggle and squirm. If you care to track my posts as carefully as you seem to claim to have done, you will notice that I regularly refer to the 'sheep and goats' passage in Matthew 25: 31-46 whereby followers of Christ are warned that in certain circumstances Jesus may choose not to recognise those who claim to be his followers.
Yes, I certainly hope that in my journey of following Him, I have lived up to his standards (usually with his help) as best I can, and that this has become more and more so as I've aged, both chronologically and in my relationship with him. One thing I don't do is feel complacent in any way, and I have certainly never stated any certainty of (my) acceptance in heaven for (my) support of Christianity.
What is more, I don't 'support Christianity' (whatever that actually means) with the hope that it will provide me with entry to heaven. If you think that that is why Christians seek to be 'prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks them to give the reason for the hope that they have.' (1 Peter 3:15) you have massively missed the point. It's also worth noting that the author of that letter follows this advice immediately with 'But do this with gentleness and respect'. I have always sought to do that, but occasionally deliberate misrepresentation and unintended but oft-repeated misunderstandings can make it difficult to stick to that resolution.
They would take it philosophically.
Thay might, or might not. We have no example to look to.
-
What is more, I don't 'support Christianity' (whatever that actually means) with the hope that it will provide me with entry to heaven. If you think that that is why Christians seek to be 'prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks them to give the reason for the hope that they have.' (1 Peter 3:15) you have massively missed the point. It's also worth noting that the author of that letter follows this advice immediately with 'But do this with gentleness and respect'. I have always sought to do that ...
Does this "gentleness and respect" extend to your views on homosexuality, most recently expressed on the thread that you won't go back to after the drubbing you received?
-
Does this "gentleness and respect" extend to your views on homosexuality, most recently expressed on the thread that you won't go back to after the drubbing you received?
My language on that and other threads on the subject have been gentle and respectful (you can be respectful yet believe that some action or behaviour is wrong). Compared to that of some others - on both sides of the debate - it has also been mild and reasonable.
As for any 'drubbing I received', I must have missed that post. The reason I haven't bothered going back to the thread is because the attitude of some posters there was so irrational and abusive that I find that there is no need to return to a debate that they seem keen to lose.
-
My language on that and other threads on the subject have been gentle and respectful (you can be respectful yet believe that some action or behaviour is wrong). Compared to that of some others - on both sides of the debate - it has also been mild and reasonable.
And yet you seem unable to defend or justify any of it.
As for any 'drubbing I received', I must have missed that post.
Very obviously so.
The reason I haven't bothered going back to the thread is because the attitude of some posters there was so irrational and abusive that I find that there is no need to return to a debate that they seem keen to lose.
So you're declaring victory by refusing to answer any of the questions put to you about your assertions? Genius strategy there. How about going back to the thread and seeing who will really lose the "debate"? The fact that equal marriage is a reality and is becoming so in more and more countries as time passes indicates a pretty comprehensive loss already for your miserable shower, I'd have thought.
-
And yet you seem unable to defend or justify any of it.
Arhh. That would explain why so often your posts seem to be so irrelevant to what I say ;)
Very obviously so. So you're declaring victory by refusing to answer any of the questions put to you about your assertions? Genius strategy there. How about going back to the thread and seeing who will really lose the "debate"?
One doesn't 'declare victory' in a situation like this (though the fact that you use the phrase seems to suggest that you think that one can). Remember that one can lose an argument - or a battle - without the other side necessarily winning. Instead, everything is left as at the start.
As for going back and looking at the questions, they are no different to the questions that have been asked over the last 30-odd years that I've been involved in this debate, and which I have answered rationally and reasonably on a host of occasions - both here and elsewhere.
-
Arghh. That would explain why so often your posts seem to be so irrelevant to what I say ;)
That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense. You made a series of assertions about which I asked a number of questions - questions that you can't answer.
One doesn't 'declare victory' in a situation like this (though the fact that you use the phrase seems to suggest that you think in that way).
No - that's you, actually; I was merely echoing your usage of terminology such as "a debate that they seem keen to lose."
-
That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense. You made a series of assertions to which I asked a number of questions - questions that you can't answer.
You mean questions that I have answered numerous times, and from numerous posters, here and elsewhere. That is all I ever get from the likes of you - repeated questions as if you think that if you ask the same quetions often enough you'll get a different answer.
No - that's you, actually; I was merely echoing your usage of terminology such as "a debate that they seem keen to lose."
Well they seem to do so, by simly asking the same questions thread after thread. Its rather like some of Floo's threads that ask the same question, but are worded fractionally differently each time. Farmer G/Judder Man/whatever the current monicker is - does the same. Even ~TW~ sometimes.
-
You mean questions that I have answered numerous times, and from numerous posters, here and elsewhere. That is all I ever get from the likes of you - repeated questions as if you think that if you ask the same quetions often enough you'll get a different answer.
I haven't seen the first set of answers yet, though it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're trying yet again to fob us off by claiming that you've already provided them. Whereabouts have you answered those questions here (elsewhere doesn't matter), and what happened to the answers this time?
-
I haven't seen the first set of answers yet, though it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're trying yet again to fob us off by claiming that you've already answered them. Whereabouts have you answered those questions here (elsewhere doesn't matter), and what happened to do the answers this time?
On other threads on the subject - both directly and indirectly (there often are unrelated threads, as you know, that will include an excursion onto the subject). I don't spend my time checking up on the continued existence of those threads, nor do I feel it necessary to take copies of everything I write so as to be able to reinstate it whenever threads drop out of use. If you want me to change my opinion, you need to provide a convincing argument for me to do so, something that was beginning to develop on a forum I used to post on, until one of the more outspoken supporters of gay rights on the board turned the thread into an abuse-fest. Even 2 or 3 of those who argued for gay rights stated that his tirade had made them doubt their own judgement.
-
If you want me to change my opinion, you need to provide a convincing argument for me to do so, something that was beginning to develop on a forum I used to post on, until one of the more outspoken supporters of gay rights on the board turned the thread into an abuse-fest. Even 2 or 3 of those who argued for gay rights stated that his tirade had made them doubt their own judgement.
There's nothing entailed in changing your opinion that you don't already know through having been told repeatedly by umpteen other posters - Professor Davey invariably makes his case especially well. So long as you entertain the beliefs you do this is highly unlikely to happen.
Justifying your opinions and backing up your assertions is quite another matter, however.
-
Hope, you always offer evidence by anecdote. Debate on other fora that make pro-gay pee turn anti-gay. Atheists you know who are anti-gay, historical persecution of gay people that happened 'with good reason'. And I don't believe a word of it. Oh sure, there's probably the tiniest smigeon of something that gives you enough so that you can pretend to yourself that you aren't lying. But you are. Everyone can see that you are.
-
Hope, you always offer evidence by anecdote. Debate on other fora that make pro-gay pee turn anti-gay. Atheists you know who are anti-gay, historical persecution of gay people that happened 'with good reason'.
Ah yes, those damned, elusive "good reasons" ...
-
Could you explain this in plain English, please?
It is in plain English.
It means that the atheists would wake up in whichever version of the afterlife is true and say "oh fiddlesticks, we were wrong. Never mind". Although I think the language would be stronger if the right version of the afterlife was eternity with TW.
Too !"£%$%^&*()_)(**&&^%%$$££""£%$^&*(_)(*&^%£"!"$&(*)___)(*&&^$£" right it would be!
-
Dear Owlswing,
And I say, as we both wake up in Summerland, me with a glass of Glengoyne 17 year old and you with a, well your favourite tipple, that was a blast, lets do it again, but this time with feeling 8)
Gonnagle.
Thanks Gonners, I'll take a large glass of either Moniak or Lindisfarne mead; the true and literal golden nectar!
-
Clearly Matt doesn't want to explain himself, so perhaps you could explain what '..., be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.' means. I can understand the general gist of the post, but not this particular section. It doesn't seem to fit any rules of English.
For a supposedly intelligent man you can come out with some right royal tripe.
JeremyP correctly pointed out, as I did, that I meant that they would take the matter in a philosophical manner - hey, we were wrong; now let's see what good we can get out if it.
But you, as always, are looking for a fight because you do not like my distaste for your religion, which WAS my religion until I was 15 and took off the blinkers of my upbringing of unquestioned acceptance of my father's interpretation of Christianity, much like yours and others here, and some of the crap - see your homophobia - the you post here.
-
Well old Shake is trying to turn this goofy thread into an attack on Hope for his posts on other threads and not on this topic.
Matty, are you saying that atheists believe in a soul that lingers after death for a spell and then fade out? I never knew that about atheists. I always thought they believe when you die, you are dead, no soul floating around for a day or whatever. I think a monkey sitting on a rock would have a good laugh at you messed up "possible scenario".
-
Well old Shake is trying to turn this goofy thread into an attack on Hope for his posts on other threads and not on this topic.
Matty, are you saying that atheists believe in a soul that lingers after death for a spell - atheists do not believe in god, this does not preclude them from believing in a soul - and then fade - this should be spelt fades - out? I never knew that about atheists. I always thought they believe when you die, you are dead, no soul floating around for a day or whatever. I think a monkey sitting on a rock would have a good laugh - this should read "I think like a monkey sitting on a rock and would have a good laugh - at you - this should be spelt your - messed up "possible scenario".
-
Well old Shake is trying to turn this goofy thread into an attack on Hope for his posts on other threads and not on this topic.
Matty, are you saying that atheists believe in a soul that lingers after death for a spell and then fade out? I never knew that about atheists. I always thought they believe when you die, you are dead, no soul floating around for a day or whatever. I think a monkey sitting on a rock would have a good laugh at you messed up "possible scenario".
It isn't possible for you to know what any atheist thinks, other than they do not believe in any gods.
They may have nothing else in common.
-
You mean questions that I have answered numerous times, and from numerous posters, here and elsewhere. That is all I ever get from the likes of you - repeated questions as if you think that if you ask the same quetions often enough you'll get a different answer.
Given your extensive history of turning Nelson's eye to any questions you can't answer (typically questions about your penchant for the bald assertion and inability to back any of them up), repeated questions yielding any answer at all from you would be a refreshing change.
-
It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.
I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.
In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.
Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.
However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.
That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!
I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.
I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.
I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.
Angry, bitter man. It's no way to live your life. You really should get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
-
My view is that should an afterlife exist, it will be a surprise for everybody. A mild one for those atheists who admit the possibility but think it improbable, and a shocking one for all god believers who find out that it ain't what they have believed in all their lives. :)
-
I think our religious beliefs here will not matter in the after life. They are just a way of growing up.
Just as we believe in many fairy tales when we are children and when we grow up we stop believing in them.....but we never the less realize their value and beauty. We make it a point to teach our children the very same fairy tales that we stopped believing in.
Its the same with religious beliefs. As long as they have helped us develop spiritually...our after life will be just fine!
-
I think our religious beliefs here will not matter in the after life. They are just a way of growing up.
Just as we believe in many fairy tales when we are children and when we grow up we stop believing in them.....but we never the less realize their value and beauty. We make it a point to teach our children the very same fairy tales that we stopped believing in.
Its the same with religious beliefs. As long as they have helped us develop spiritually...our after life will be just fine!
And 'afterlife' is another religious belief that we grow out of eventually.
-
And 'afterlife' is another religious belief that we grow out of eventually.
Actually....belief in an Afterlife, reincarnation, Liberation etc....are not really religious beliefs. They are philosophical concepts that try to explain certain observations & experiences. They are secular hypothesis quite independent of religions.
Religious beliefs are more about stories, legends, ancient heroes, rituals and social norms......that are woven around the above fundamental philosophies...so as to appeal to people and to help them stay on the straight and narrow path.
-
What is so frightening about ending up as worm food or smoke and ashes? I just don't get it.
-
Angry, bitter man. It's no way to live your life. You really should get rid of that chip on your shoulder.
... says our resident anti-Semite and conspiracy loon who thinks only he has a handle on "the truth" while everybody else is duped by the media. Riiiight.
-
What is so frightening about ending up as worm food or smoke and ashes? I just don't get it.
Me either.
I suspect that for many it's the prospect that that's all they'll be after death - in other words, that'll be the end of conscious awareness for ever, and a decomposing corpse is the only (quite quickly disappearing) sign of their existence. To me, returning to the natural elements of the universe is comforting, but for many the prospect of not being anywhere or rather not being aware of being anywhere is terrifying. Philip Larkin expressed this in 'Aubade', usually regarded as his last great poem:
I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.
The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.
This ties in with a concept known as Terror Management Theory about which I've been meaning to construct a post recently, so I should get on with it.
-
What is so frightening about ending up as worm food or smoke and ashes? I just don't get it.
I think it is a testimony to the overwhelming power of the illusion of self and personhood. We can see organic things live and they die and thats it, but we can't help believing that we are persons, something distinct from our physical bodies although nonetheless intimately associated with it; a 'person' is not something made of flesh and blood so how can it 'die'.
-
I understand the fear of loss. I don't understand the fear of one's own death, although I'd prefer it to be as painless as possible.
-
... says our resident anti-Semite and conspiracy loon who thinks only he has a handle on "the truth" while everybody else is duped by the media. Riiiight.
Zzzzz!
-
I think it is a testimony to the overwhelming power of the illusion of self and personhood. We can see organic things live and they die and thats it, but we can't help believing that we are persons,
Torriden....What is being ''Illuded'' and what is doing the believing?
-
Zzzzz!
He's right though, ad-o. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously now?
-
Torriden....What is being ''Illuded'' and what is doing the believing?
-
He's right though, ad-o. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously now?
Because he's completely wrong.
-
I understand the fear of loss. I don't understand the fear of one's own death, although I'd prefer it to be as painless as possible.
Anyone of a nervous disposition maybe should not read this!
Because we can imagine being able to look at our dead bodies from some kind of an afterlife, we have to use correct knowledge, common sense, logic, etc, and, above all, Science not to think that is even remotely likely!
We can imagine finding ourselves still alive in a coffin; in fact it's just about impossible, I would say, to live your whole life without thinking about such things at one time or another. The closer I get to, inevitably, the end of my life, the more I revel in and value being a thinking, living, and cheerful person!
It is grey and gloomy here this morning, although not cold, and I hesitated a bout walking, but I walked around the town for 40 mins, including stopping to chat to a friend - lovely!
-
Susan, I think that they key word there is imagine.
We need to remind ourselves sometimes that our imaginings aren't real.
I'm glad you are having a lovely morning. :)
-
I think it is a testimony to the overwhelming power of the illusion of self and personhood. We can see organic things live and they die and thats it, but we can't help believing that we are persons, something distinct from our physical bodies although nonetheless intimately associated with it; a 'person' is not something made of flesh and blood so how can it 'die'.
The biblical version is that we will need to be resurrected and that we will have bodies.
So you are not really saying anything radical about what the early Christians already knew...... that the complete human being is body, mind and spirit.
Many Christians nowadays I move are, in a materialist environment, agnostic about and even disbelieving of, Post Mortem existence but their belief in enjoying Christ and God Now calls into question the atheist and pagan mythos that Christians are just in it for the afterlife.
-
Because he's completely wrong.
Yet again, just asserting something to be the case doesn't mean that it is.
-
The biblical version is that we will need to be resurrected and that we will have bodies.
So you are not really saying anything radical about what the early Christians already knew...... that the complete human being is body, mind and spirit.
Many Christians nowadays I move are, in a materialist environment, agnostic about and even disbelieving of, Post Mortem existence but their belief in enjoying Christ and God Now calls into question the atheist and pagan mythos that Christians are just in it for the afterlife.
Vlad, this pagan doesn't believe most Christians are in it purely for the afterlife. I think for many - if not most - it is a need not to feel alone, to feel supported and to have the hope that if you ask the bad stuff won't be so awful. Perfectly understandable.
-
Yet again, just asserting something to be the case doesn't mean that it is.
I throw the same accusation that back at you Shaker then. Being anti-Israel or believing Jews need to convert in order to be saved does not make one anti-semetic. Neither does believing there are anti-Christian forces at work or that western intelligence agencies are up to some very dodgy stuff make one a conspiracy nut. However much you claim otherwise doesn't make it true.
-
I through the same accusation that back at you then.
In relation to what?
-
In relation to what?
See my modified post above.
-
Being anti-Israel or believing Jews need to convert in order to be saved does not make one anti-semetic.
No it doesn't, though it certainly makes one an arrogant and obnoxious arsehole complicit in the same sort of attitude which has caused so much misery, death and destruction in the world for the past two thousand years.
Believing that "Zionists/Zionism" are involved in some massively well-orchestrated but highly secret conspiracy of some sort to subvert the supposedly "Christian" values of the West makes one anti-Semitic, as does relying on swivel-eyed wingnut sources for supposedly "accurate" information. Naming a well-known Jewish banking family in connection with these conspiracies makes one an anti-Semite. And so forth.
Neither does believing there are anti-Christian forces at work or that western intelligence agencies are up to some very dodgy stuff make one a conspiracy nut.
The first part does. It pretty much makes one a chippy twat with a grudge and a persecution/martyr complex.
-
I have given perfectly good sources, such as RT and Anonymous. By relying solely on mainstream western media, which is not beyond manipulation, and outright rejecting alternative sources you commit what you would call "confirmation bias".
http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/
-
I have given perfectly good sources, such as RT and Anonymous.
A "perfectly good source" called Anonymous. Right you are ;D
A "perfectly good source" called RT described by Wikipedia as: "... RT, originally Russia Today, is a Russian government-funded television network."* Oh, my sides, my poor sides.
By relying solely on mainstream western media, which is not beyond manipulation, and outright rejecting alternative sources you commit what you would call "confirmation bias".
http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/
Nope, because the alternative sources that you seem to rely on to feed you precisely whatever bigs up Mother Russia and Holy Mother Church (jeez, talk about a mother fixation ...) and whatever is derogatory to Jews and to the State of Israel invariably, sooner or later, show their hand as partial and interested parties with an agenda - which is of course, au fond, anti-Semitism.
Remember which language (and which country where this language is predominantly spoken) gave the world the word pogrom?
* It goes on to say: "RT has been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy by news reporters, including former RT reporters. It has also been accused of spreading disinformation. The United Kingdom media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content."
-
Of course it's going to say that because it exposes the hypocrisy and outright lies of western governments.
-
Of course it's going to say that because it exposes the hypocrisy and outright lies of western governments.
On no evidence whatever and relying on flat assertion unsupported by anything resembling fact.
Now where have we seen that before ...?
-
Yet again, just asserting something to be the case doesn't mean that it is.
Shaker
The man is a total (insert derogatory term of your choice) and I for one am wasting no more time or effort on him - take a break from a fruitless waste of time and do the same, there are far more important things to worry about and turn your talents to than responding to a terminal delusional.
-
On no evidence whatever and relying on flat assertion unsupported by anything resembling fact.
Now where have we seen that before ...?
They have presented plenty of evidence.
-
Shaker
The man is a total (insert derogatory term of your choice) and I for one am wasting no more time or effort on him - take a break from a fruitless waste of time and do the same, there are far more important things to worry about and turn your talents to than responding to a terminal delusional.
You are beneath contempt.
-
They have presented plenty of evidence.
I'm listening - go on ...
-
Shaker
The man is a total (insert derogatory term of your choice) and I for one am wasting no more time or effort on him - take a break from a fruitless waste of time and do the same, there are far more important things to worry about and turn your talents to than responding to a terminal delusional.
I fully understand the sentiment, Owly, but I don't see why such foul and pernicious opinions should be given a free pass and allowed to go through on the nod without challenge.
-
I'm listening - go on ...
Can't you find RT on your internet? And I gave links from Anonymous sources showing western involvement in the creation of ISIS.
-
Can't you find RT on your internet?
Yes, of course I can, but since it's a mouthpiece for the Kremlin, why would I want to besmirch my browser with such tripe?
-
I fully understand the sentiment, Owly, but I don't see why such foul and pernicious opinions should be given a free pass and allowed to go through on the nod without challenge.
The problem is that you are trying to explain colour to a blind man, music to a deaf one and one who will not believe you when you tell him he is pissing on his feet even though he can feel his socks getting wet! As wet as his unquestioning belief in any and every conspiracy theory that comes along that slags off the US and/or Israel.
-
You lack spiritual discernment and that's why you don't see it, these anti-Christian forces at work. Instead you have unwittingly become a tool of the devil.
-
Perfect way to triumph in a debate - invent some bullshit and say that your opponent is blinded by it.
I'll introduce you to Alan Burns the next time he's online. It's a favourite of his.
-
Perfect way to triumph in a debate - invent some bullshit and say that your opponent is blinded by it.
I'll introduce you to Alan Burns the next time he's online. It's a favourite of his.
Whatever would "God" do without his fall guy?
-
Yes, of course I can, but since it's a mouthpiece for the Kremlin, why would I want to besmirch my browser with such tripe?
See what I mean? You're not interested in knowing the truth.
-
You lack spiritual discernment and that's why you don't see it, these anti-Christian forces at work. Instead you have unwittingly become a tool of the devil.
I don't think Shaker's the tool round here.
-
See what I mean? You're not interested in knowing the truth.
Ad_O, it's no good. They have to find it for themselves. Sometimes it can be a case of mundus vult decipi - the world wants to be deceived. The truth is to complex and frightening.
-
The only thing that frightens me, SP, is that people still believe this stuff. Especially a lovely person like you. :(
-
Ad_O, it's no good. They have to find it for themselves
Find what?
The truth is to complex and frightening.
I agree with Oscar Wilde in most things, rarely more so than in his quip that "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
Unfortunately for you lot the truth has to be known to be the truth rather than merely accepted as such on the basis of a bald assertion of some dogmatic tripe or another, and that takes a proper procedure and methodology which you have yet to provide.
-
Well, for years I looked not much further than the media for info on politics. But then started to dig deeper. There's a lot more to be found. A good place to start re our own government is 'The Establishment and how they get away with it' by Owen Jones.
-
Find what?I agree with Oscar Wilde in most things, rarely more so than in his quip that "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
Unfortunately for you lot the truth has to be known to be the truth rather than merely accepted as such on the basis of a bald assertion of some dogmatic tripe or another, and that takes a proper procedure and methodology which you have yet to provide.
You do know Oscar Wilde was a real person in his own right and not just Stephen Fry in a page boy costume?
-
You do know Oscar Wilde was a real person in his own right and not just Stephen Fry in a page boy costume?
Yes, I was previously aware of that.
-
I don't think Shaker's the tool round here.
Nice one Lady Rhi!
-
Well, for years I looked not much further than the media for info on politics. But then started to dig deeper. There's a lot more to be found. A good place to start re our own government is 'The Establishment and how they get away with it' by Owen Jones.
Another pathetic Conspiracy theorist dupe!
-
Torriden....What is being ''Illuded'' and what is doing the believing?
Put it this way, the illusion is that there is an ontologically distinct thing 'inside' us that is having experience, but that is not really quite true; more accurate would be to talk in terms of us having a sense of self, something that is created by our brains, like our sense of balance or our sense of taste or our sense of right and wrong even. The feeling that there is an intangible and irreducible being inside us is overwhelmingly compelling but perhaps it is an ephemeral cerebral construct synthesised out of all our senses and memories and inidividual characteristics.
-
Put it this way, the illusion is that there is an ontologically distinct thing 'inside' us that is having experience, but that is not really quite true; more accurate would be to talk in terms of us having a sense of self, something that is created by our brains, like our sense of balance or our sense of taste or our sense of right and wrong even. The feeling that there is an intangible and irreducible being inside us is overwhelmingly compelling but perhaps it is an ephemeral cerebral construct synthesised out of all our senses and memories and inidividual characteristics.
If something looks like a dog, barks like a dog and walks like a dog.....its probably a dog.
So....if something feels like a Self and behaves like a Self, its probably the Self. What evidence do you have that it is not a Self and just an illusion?!
-
Put it this way, the illusion is that there is an ontologically distinct thing 'inside' us that is having experience, but that is not really quite true; more accurate would be to talk in terms of us having a sense of self, something that is created by our brains, like our sense of balance or our sense of taste or our sense of right and wrong even. The feeling that there is an intangible and irreducible being inside us is overwhelmingly compelling but perhaps it is an ephemeral cerebral construct synthesised out of all our senses and memories and inidividual characteristics.
If something looks like a dog, barks like a dog and walks like a dog.....its probably a dog.
So....if something feels like a Self and behaves like a Self, its probably the Self. What evidence do you have that it is not a Self and just an illusion?!
eerm, well the problem is that there is no evidence, for this 'dog', not even any definition. Could you describe the coordinates, extent, mass or speed of your self, or what is made of ? Probably not, whereas on the other hand we do have plenty of evidence of neurobiological processess involved in producing the various components of our internal mental experience.
-
eerm, well the problem is that there is no evidence, for this 'dog', not even any definition. Could you describe the coordinates, extent, mass or speed of your self, or what is made of ? Probably not, whereas on the other hand we do have plenty of evidence of neurobiological processess involved in producing the various components of our internal mental experience.
No one is denying neurological processes taking place. Just because a car moves forward because of its wheels, pistons, axle, engine etc......doesn't mean there is no driver.
You agreed that the idea of a Self is 'overwhelmingly compelling'....so you should say why it cannot exist.
-
No one is denying neurological processes taking place. Just because a car moves forward because of its wheels, pistons, axle, engine etc......doesn't mean there is no driver.
You agreed that the idea of a Self is 'overwhelmingly compelling'....so you should say why it cannot exist.
Surely "self" is that part of the brain which coordinates all the incoming stimuli and reacts to them.
-
No one is denying neurological processes taking place. Just because a car moves forward because of its wheels, pistons, axle, engine etc......doesn't mean there is no driver.
You agreed that the idea of a Self is 'overwhelmingly compelling'....so you should say why it cannot exist.
I'm not saying it cannot exist, more that there is no evidence for it, or at least none for a primal ontologically distinct thing, inside us, which is sort of how it feels. What the evidence does suggest, is that we develop a sense of self in terms of a unitary focal point of volition, agency, memory, experience and so forth which persists over time thanks to the fidelity of cell replication. We can infer complex processes going on under the hood to create this sense by examining cases where it breaks down - people with xenomelia, body dysmorphia, or amputee syndrome for example, these are outcomes associated with an underperforming sense of self.
-
Some cars don't need a driver, Sriram.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401562/pathway-driverless-cars-summary.pdf
Driverless cars are a recipe for disaster imo!
-
As bad as driverless brains?
-
Driverless cars are a recipe for disaster imo!
Au contraire, human-driven cars are the cause of thousands of road casualties each year. In a hundred or so years time, people will look back in disbelief that we allowed non-professional drivers in privately owned cars onto the roads with all their dispositions for drink and drugs and texting.
-
If something looks like a dog, barks like a dog and walks like a dog.....its probably a dog.
So....if something feels like a Self and behaves like a Self, its probably the Self. What evidence do you have that it is not a Self and just an illusion?!
Quoting Douglas Adams Sriram? Whatever next?
ippy
-
If something looks like a dog, barks like a dog and walks like a dog.....its probably a dog.
So....if something feels like a Self and behaves like a Self, its probably the Self. What evidence do you have that it is not a Self and just an illusion?!
The human brain feels like a self and behaves like a self, so that is exactly what it is.
-
Au contraire, human-driven cars are the cause of thousands of road casualties each year. In a hundred or so years time, people will look back in disbelief that we allowed non-professional drivers in privately owned cars onto the roads with all their dispositions for drink and drugs and texting.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm! But is technology as good as human comprehension? Sat Navs are a case in point, they are fine until they get it spectacularly wrong!
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmm! But is technology as good as human comprehension? Sat Navs are a case in point, they are fine until they get it spectacularly wrong!
Have you some citation that compares them to human error?
-
Have you some citation that compares them to human error?
I'm sure that more drivers get lost by getting their passenger to map-read that do so by following a Sat-Nav!
-
Some cars don't need a driver, Sriram.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401562/pathway-driverless-cars-summary.pdf
Not really! Its a different kind of driver that drives those cars. In fact, its a whole system of satellites and computers and stuff that needs to do that.......all of which have been designed and made by intelligent humans.