Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on March 23, 2016, 01:37:40 PM
-
Why is it so important to you that there is an afterlife?
What is so wrong with the fact that we all just eventually return to dust, making no real impact on the history of planet Earth?
Why do you need to think/believe there is an afterlife??
-
Can of worms: open.
To me ultimately it all comes down to ego. It can't simply or entirely be about the dread of annihilation, of non-being, since we all have that for several hours every single day (or rather night, usually) when we're not dreaming, a period when from the subjective point of view we simply don't exist. It has to reduce to egotism of a form, as I see it. While we're alive, unless we're in a coma or something similar, we can affect the world and the things in it. We can have an impact upon the world and that includes other beings. When we act or even merely speak we have an effect upon the stuff of the world; even if nobody takes any notice of what we say, we have been heard and that in itself is a change in the state of the world. Death takes us out of that once and for all and for ever. To be alive is to be able to do, at least potentially; to be dead is never able to do anything at all ever again. So the ego concocts a way in which it can continue, where it can go on even though there's nothing to support it - Freud said that in the unconscious we are all convinced of our immortality, because we can't apprehend a world without us and our ability to act in it.
-
But why think there is an afterlife at all?
What is the purpose behind it?
-
But why think there is an afterlife at all?
What is the purpose behind it?
It provides a theatre, so to speak, in which the ego can persist - in which the personality can carry on.
-
But why think there is an afterlife at all?
What is the purpose behind it?
I think it brings comfort to the fear of the Unknown.
-
So if people think you is bad - you goes to hell.
But if you is remembered fondly - you goes to heaven.
-
As soon as one person had the idea and expressed it, the chance of it being denied throughout pre- and recorded history was lost!! Even when the human species is about to become extinct, I just bet you there will be someone there jollying some of the others along and saying they should think of the after-life.
-
Why do we need an Afterlife?
-
Because many of us can't imagine not existing
-
Because many of us can't imagine not existing
Just think about before you were born! :)
-
Why is it so important to you that there is an afterlife?
What is so wrong with the fact that we all just eventually return to dust, making no real impact on the history of planet Earth?
Why do you need to think/believe there is an afterlife??
Not sure that anyone disagrees with the fact that our physical element eventually return to dust - its a highly Biblical principle. However, for those of us who do not believe that the physical is the only element of humanity, there needs to be an outcome for those other, non-physical, elements that we believe humanity is equally composed of.
-
But why think there is an afterlife at all?
What is the purpose behind it?
You might as well ask what the purpose of anything is?
-
So if people think you is bad - you goes to hell.
But if you is remembered fondly - you goes to heaven.
I suppose it depends on how you define 'bad' or 'good' or remembered fondly or otherwise.
-
Why is it so important to you that there is an afterlife?
What is so wrong with the fact that we all just eventually return to dust, making no real impact on the history of planet Earth?
Why do you need to think/believe there is an afterlife??
I don't believe that people would carry on how they do if they didn't secretly believe in an afterlife if they really reflected on it........which they don't.
-
I've reflected on it.
I think it's an utterly puerile idea unworthy of serious-minded rational grown-ups.
Your turn.
-
I've reflected on it.
I think it's an utterly puerile idea unworthy of serious-minded rational grown-ups.
Your turn.
If people like you really believed this was the one life we had why would you be wasting your time on here durrying shite?
-
You can't make a rational argument by simply saying that people don't really mean what they say, Vlad.
I don't believe in an afterlife.
-
You can't make a rational argument by simply saying that people don't really mean what they say, Vlad.
I don't believe in an afterlife.
So what?
-
Why is it so important to you that there is an afterlife?
What is so wrong with the fact that we all just eventually return to dust, making no real impact on the history of planet Earth?
Why do you need to think/believe there is an afterlife??
I don't believe in an afterlife, although I do understand that such beliefs arise out of ancient dissonances that are still not resolved in the minds of modern humans. Hope frequently touches on this - that we seem to have a dual nature, part physical and part spiritual, and whilst we all accept that physical things wither and decay, spiritual things, or the things of the mind, they don't seem to be made of stuff at all, so the idea of them decaying does not make sense intuitively. A face can become wrinkly with age, but how does age affect longing; can a tendency to untidiness catch an infection ? When we think of a person who has just died, it is not their body we are remembering, it is their character, their joys and fears, their sense of humour, their little habits. These are the things that a person is made of. Our minds fabricate a compelling sense of personhood and we cannot help but live day to day and moment to moment within that illusion.
-
Why is it so important to you that there is an afterlife?
What is so wrong with the fact that we all just eventually return to dust,
What a nice thought .....it must be a great comfort to you.
-
You can't make a rational argument by simply saying that people don't really mean what they say, Vlad.
I don't believe in an afterlife.
Well according to you that's a lie. Or at best a self- delusion.
-
If people like you really believed this was the one life we had why would you be wasting your time on here durrying shite?
What's time-wasting about enjoying yourself, precisely?
-
Sigmund Freud writing in
The Future of an Illusion.
Talks about mankind’s belief in the afterlife thus;
They will have to admit to themselves the full extent of their helplessness and their insignificance in the machinery of the universe, they can no longer be the centre of creation, no longer be the object of tender care on the part of a beneficent providence. Surely infantilism is destined to be surmounted. We may call this education to reality.....
You are afraid, probably, that they will not stand up to the hard test? Well, let us hope they will. It is something, at any rate, to know that one is thrown upon one’s own resources. One learns to make proper use of them. And men are not entirely without assistance. Their scientific knowledge has taught them much since the deluge. As honest smallholders on this earth they will know how to cultivate their plot in such a way as it supports them. They will probably succeed in achieving a state of things in which life will become tolerable for everyone and in which civilization is no longer oppressive to anyone. Then, with one of our fellow unbelievers, they will be able to say, without regret, we leave heaven to the angels and sparrows.
-
What's time-wasting about enjoying yourself, precisely?
Hmmmmmm.........there's an element of truth in that I suppose.....
It must be OUR time your wasting :)
-
If people like you really believed this was the one life we had why would you be wasting your time on here durrying shite?
We too should be redeeming the time. Time to move on.
-
What we should be doing is living life to the full down here, and not worrying about some afterlife which may not exist.
-
What we should be doing is living life to the full down here, and not worrying about some afterlife which may not exist.
Simply put. One life at a time, as Robert Ingersoll said. Is there another one? I don't know. Do I think there is? No.
I'm here now, though.
-
Simply put. One life at a time, as Robert Ingersoll said. Is there another one? I don't know. Do I think there is? No.
I'm here now, though.
It seems crazy to me that some folk spend so much time contemplating an afterlife, they miss out on enjoying the one they have here.
-
Why is it so important to you that there is an afterlife?
What is so wrong with the fact that we all just eventually return to dust, making no real impact on the history of planet Earth?
Why do you need to think/believe there is an afterlife??
Afterlife = Why is it so important?
Returning to dust = what is wrong with the fact?
Afterlife = is there a need to think/believe in an afterlife.
If returning to dust is to be believed as being final would there be a need to think/believe there is an afterlife?
Not sure you really thought about the questions in relation to each other.
I would say that you have to ask yourself those questions.
I see no need or importance being given to believe in an afterlife. It everyone just returned to dust and that was the end of the matter then there is nothing else required.
I don't really think about an afterlife. The bible tells us:
King James Bible
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
I do not believe life ends at death. There would be little purpose for us to exist at all if everything was for nothing.
Sometimes our life experience and our love for others assures us there is something more to this life.
We all search for truth, that is most of us. There is too much in heaven and earth for their to be nothing.
I don't need to believe in afterlife, as for returning to dust, we all do it.
But we are not an accident. In life we have to follow our hearts and live as we would want others to treat us.
God is my reason for believing in eternal life. I am sad so many atheists use him as a battering ram to hurt believers.
Hurting a believer because they believe in God is no different to any other type of prejudice born by man to others.
I am not sure why you need an answer when you will remain with your own belief in this matter.
It won't add or take away from your belief. Why do you feel the need not to believe in an afterlife?
I would have thought you would question your own beliefs before the those of others.
Why don't you believe in anything but dying and returning to dust?
-
So if people think you is bad - you goes to hell.
But if you is remembered fondly - you goes to heaven.
Going to heaven or hell is a choice the individual makes it has nothing to do with what others think about you.
-
I would much prefer to die and cease to be, rather than spend eternity in 'heaven' with the Biblical deity.
-
It seems crazy to me that some folk spend so much time contemplating an afterlife, they miss out on enjoying the one they have here.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." - Susan Ertz.
-
Going to heaven or hell is a choice the individual makes it has nothing to do with what others think about you.
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
In the Christian faith it isn't an opinion it is a fact. You choose whether you go to heaven or hell.
As I know of no other heaven or hell choices then the facts show the belief is based on the choice of the individual.
FULL STOP and not an opinion.
-
In the Christian faith it isn't an opinion it is a fact. You choose whether you go to heaven or hell.
As I know of no other heaven or hell choices then the facts show the belief is based on the choice of the individual.
FULL STOP and not an opinion.
Stating that an opinion is a fact doesn't make it so.
-
In the Christian faith it isn't an opinion it is a fact. You choose whether you go to heaven or hell.
As I know of no other heaven or hell choices then the facts show the belief is based on the choice of the individual.
FULL STOP and not an opinion.
As there is no evidence heaven or hell exist in reality, how can a non believer make a choice about something which is only a matter of faith?
-
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." - Susan Ertz.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowbagger,_the_Infinitely_Prolonged
Unlike other immortals, whom he calls "a load of serene bastards", he doesn't cope very well with his infinite life, having not been born into it and thus lacking the innate ability to handle it. Finding something to do on Sunday afternoons causes him particular difficulties. Eventually he comes up with a plan to keep himself busy: he will insult every single living being in the universe - in alphabetical order.
I think I'm going to adopt this plan if I ever become immortal.
In fact, most Sunday afternoons I feel like adopting this plan.
-
"God and immortality ... find no support in science ... No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs, because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked. But for my part I cannot see any ground for either ... Persons are part of the everyday world with which science is concerned, and the conditions which determine their existence are discoverable. A drop of water is not immortal; it can be resolved into oxygen and hydrogen. If, therefore, a drop of water were to maintain that it had a quality of aqueousness which would survive its dissolution we should be inclined to be skeptical. In like manner we know that the brain is not immortal, and that the organized energy of a living body becomes, as it were, demobilized at death, and therefore not available for collective action. All the evidence goes to show that what we regard as our mental life is bound up with brain structure and organized bodily energy. Therefore it is rational to suppose that mental life ceases when bodily life ceases. The argument is only one of probability, but it is as strong as those upon which most scientific conclusions are based." - Bertrand Russell
-
What we should be doing is living life to the full down here, and not worrying about some afterlife which may not exist.
People don't simply worry about an afterlife, but live as though their lives depend on it.
Which is no life at all.
-
People don't simply worry about an afterlife, but live as though their lives depend on it.
Which is no life at all.
Unfortunately they find happiness doing so, and it seems like a disservice to wake them up. :(
-
People don't simply worry about an afterlife, but live as though their lives depend on it.
Which is no life at all.
Agreed.
-
People don't simply worry about an afterlife, but live as though their lives depend on it.
Which is no life at all.
Can't say that I know anyone who does this, Rhi.
-
God and immortality ... find no support in science ...
and science has to be the be-all and end-all? No.
-
and science has to be the be-all and end-all? No.
By all means furnish us with some other method of consistently, accurately and reliably knowing stuff.
Not that you will, obviously ...
-
By all means furnish us with some other method of consistently, accurately and reliably knowing stuff.
Not that you will, obviously ...
You forgot his "God" breathed book. :)
-
By all means furnish us with some other method of consistently, accurately and reliably knowing stuff.
Not that you will, obviously ...
Well, I wouldn't start with science, for a start. As we all know science is consistent and reliable at discovering things and showing that what was previously believed to be deemed knowledge to be incorrect.
I'm not sure that one can associate the term 'accurate' with science, as a result.
-
Well, I wouldn't start with science, for a start. As we all know science is consistent and reliable at discovering things and showing that what was previously believed to be deemed knowledge to be incorrect.
I'm not sure that one can associate the term 'accurate' with science, as a result.
No, science is useless! We should have stuck to our caves and animal skins. We would be better off!
-
No, science is useless! We should have stuck to our caves and animal skins. We would be better off!
Again, as someone who has studied sceince to 'A'-level, I'd have to disagree, Len. But then, I make it my business to disagree with you ;)
-
Again, as someone who has studied sceince to 'A'-level, I'd have to disagree, Len. But then, I make it my business to disagree with you ;)
I am happy to say you are not alone! If we all agreed about everything the forum would be very boring.
-
Again, as someone who has studied sceince to 'A'-level, I'd have to disagree, Len. But then, I make it my business to disagree with you ;)
Did you pass any science subject?
-
Well, I wouldn't start with science, for a start.
That isn't what was asked. What would you start with?
As we all know science is consistent and reliable at discovering things and showing that what was previously believed to be deemed knowledge to be incorrect.
Science is effective because it doesn't regard making mistakes and then finding them out as a weakness.
I'm not sure that one can associate the term 'accurate' with science, as a result.
But you don't understand what science is, so why would your word carry any weight?
-
Did you pass any science subject?
At both 'O'-level and 'A'-level - before deciding to become an English teacher.
-
That isn't what was asked. What would you start with?
I agree that that isn't what was asked, but I thught I'd explain why I wouldn't start where many seem to feel they have to. I'd probably start with experience of life.
Science is effective because it doesn't regard making mistakes and then finding them out as a weakness.
So, in may ways, its very much like Christianity, where doubt and questioning is an important aspect of the faith.
But you don't understand what science is, so why would your word carry any weight?
Well, at its simplest, science is 'knowledge'. At its most complex, it's 'knowledge'.
-
I agree that that isn't what was asked, but I thught I'd explain why I wouldn't start where many seem to feel they have to. I'd probably start with experience of life.
It looks very much like displacement activity to me. If you start off by explaining everything you wouldn't do, it'll take so long to get to the nub of what you would do, that we'll all have died of old age.
In reality, nobody believes you have an answer to the question because we have seen you avoid it so many times.
So, in may ways, its very much like Christianity, where doubt and questioning is an important aspect of the faith.
That's bullshit. Even Jesus looked down on doubt and questioning.
Well, at its simplest, science is 'knowledge'. At its most complex, it's 'knowledge'.
Ah, as I thought, you do not know what science is. Thanks for the confirmation.
-
That's bullshit. Even Jesus looked down on doubt and questioning.
Citation required
Ah, as I thought, you do not know what science is. Thanks for the confirmation.
No, I'd suggest that you don't know what it is. I was simply using a definition several scientists I know use whenever they are asked the same question.
-
You know an incredible range of people, Hope. Atheists who go to church, scientists who disagree with all the other ones as to what science is, atheists who are against gay marriage for scienc-y reasons ...
-
You know an incredible range of people, Hope. Atheists who go to church, scientists who disagree with all the other ones as to what science is, atheists who are against gay marriage for scienc-y reasons ...
Well, I am X years old and have had dealings with a large variety of people as a result of the various jobs I've done, as well as the peple I have met through these folk.
-
Well, I wouldn't start with science, for a start.
Great - that's what you wouldn't start with.
Now are you finally going to tell us what you would start with? "Experience of life" is too vague and wavy-handy - experience of what in life specifically?
As we all know science is consistent and reliable at discovering things and showing that what was previously believed to be deemed knowledge to be incorrect.
That's right. Where's the equivalent with religious beliefs? You claim that doubt and questioning are important elements of Christianity - how do you know if/when your doubts are resolved one way or the other and how do you know if/when your questions are answered? Remember that over in ScienceWorld these questions are easy to answer because there's a definitive methodology - where's yours?
We're not going to find out, of course, because although he seems to make a habit of often being in the right, JeremyP has scarcely written a truer sentence than the following:
In reality, nobody believes you have an answer to the question because we have seen you avoid it so many times.
*
I'm not sure that one can associate the term 'accurate' with science, as a result.
Good science makes testable predictions - if the hypothesis is put to the test and found wanting with regard to the data, it's not accurate. If it passes the test, it is.
-
"Experience of life" is too vague and wavy-handy - experience of what in life specifically?
Well, experience is something we all have, and in that sense, experience across a whole range of topics is very important as it provides us with a balanced outlook on life. As such, I wouldn't rule out any experience, because that is simply limiting the scope of reality. Sometimes those experiences will be positive, sometimes negative, sometimes neutral.
That's right. Where's the equivalent with religious beliefs? You claim that doubt and questioning are important elements of Christianity - how do you know if/when your doubts are resolved one way or the other and how do you know if/when your questions are answered? Remember that over in ScienceWorld these questions are easy to answer because there's a definitive methodology - where's yours?
Well, there is comparison - so we are told to test a teaching or claim against what Jesus taught - meaning that when, for instance, the BNP effectively claims to be speaking on behalf of Jesus and Christians as far as their xenophobic doctrine is concerned (or that of the KKK, or that of generations of Imperial staff and so-called entrepeneurs who looked down their noses at their Indian/N.American/African/etc counterparts) people can/could compare their attitudes with those of Jesus.
The same goes for groups who claim Christian support for sexual behaviour that does not fit the teaching that sex should only occur within the context of a one man/one woman marriage.
Good science makes testable predictions - if the hypothesis is put to the test and found wanting with regard to the data, it's not accurate. If it passes the test, it is.
Until, of course, the test is seen to have been faulty, or the person/people concerned have fixed the results. Or, new data is available that shows that what has been understood as accurate, isn't.
Interestingly, this is very similar to much of what has happened within Christianity over the years. Certain influences have imposed attitudes on the Church, even though those attitudes run counter to the teaching of Jesus. As people have begun to feel confident and therefore able to challenge these assumptions so those attitudes have either been seen to be erroneous or open to debate.
-
Science is not atheism.
-
Citation required
It seems I'll have to quote your own holy book to you. I'm surprised at how little you know of it.
Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’
No, I'd suggest that you don't know what it is. I was simply using a definition several scientists I know use whenever they are asked the same question.
Yes you claim to know a lot of experts in pretty much every field we debate in and yet you are still wrong so often.
Science is not knowledge, science is a method used to try to find knowledge. Science is having an idea and then (and this is the important part) testing your idea against the real World to make sure it is not false.
-
Well, experience is something we all have, and in that sense, experience across a whole range of topics is very important as it provides us with a balanced outlook on life. As such, I wouldn't rule out any experience, because that is simply limiting the scope of reality. Sometimes those experiences will be positive, sometimes negative, sometimes neutral.
This stacks up as a lot of words that say nothing. You're dodging the point (unsurprisingly). Remember that the notion of experience came into this discussion at all because you claimed that it's an alternative to the scientific method in evaluating claims. Here's the nub of the conversation again, with the extraneous bits excised, so that you can see where this came from:
By all means furnish us with some other method of consistently, accurately and reliably knowing stuff.
Well, I wouldn't start with science, for a start.
That isn't what was asked. What would you start with?
I'd probably start with experience of life.
This makes it plain that you're stating something as bland and airy-fairy as "experience of life" (you) as "some other method of consistently, accurately and reliably knowing stuff" (me). But you haven't explained how.
Until, of course, the test is seen to have been faulty, or the person/people concerned have fixed the results. Or, new data is available that shows that what has been understood as accurate, isn't.
That's right, and in both cases there's a clear means of sorting the true from the false because there's a methodology at work - you know, that thing you claim to have with regard to your beliefs, claim to have posted elsewhere but here run a mile from.
-
"God and immortality ... find no support in science ... No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs, because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked. But for my part I cannot see any ground for either ... Persons are part of the everyday world with which science is concerned, and the conditions which determine their existence are discoverable. A drop of water is not immortal; it can be resolved into oxygen and hydrogen. If, therefore, a drop of water were to maintain that it had a quality of aqueousness which would survive its dissolution we should be inclined to be skeptical. In like manner we know that the brain is not immortal, and that the organized energy of a living body becomes, as it were, demobilized at death, and therefore not available for collective action. All the evidence goes to show that what we regard as our mental life is bound up with brain structure and organized bodily energy. Therefore it is rational to suppose that mental life ceases when bodily life ceases. The argument is only one of probability, but it is as strong as those upon which most scientific conclusions are based." - Bertrand Russell
A load of twaddle and means absolutely NOTHING in the great scheme of things.
I honestly cannot believe you reiterated something said by someone else, another human being and thought it carried weight.
You have your own views but to think that actually meant anything in the great scheme of things concerning an afterlife is simply rubbish.
-
By all means furnish us with some other method of consistently, accurately and reliably knowing stuff.
Not that you will, obviously ...
Well I would say to science as far as the 'Afterlife' is concerned:- "You first".
-
Well I would say to science as far as the 'Afterlife' is concerned:- "You first".
... in which case you, along with Hope, would be committing the negative proof fallacy (also known, much more appositely, as the Argument from Ignorance).
-
That isn't what was asked. What would you start with?
Science is effective because it doesn't regard making mistakes and then finding them out as a weakness.
But you don't understand what science is, so why would your word carry any weight?
Hope. and his words would carry a great deal of weight. Because the answer to the 'Afterlife' from a faith prospective and the questions do not relate to any science.
So why do you think Science carries any weight concerning the Afterlife which Thrud asked about?
-
Msg 62 " I honestly cannot believe you reiterated something said by someone else" Thats you, that is. I honestly cannot believe that after all the very fine points put to you over the months with science, logic, reason and just plain common sense you still waffle on with nothing in the kitty.
-
Hope. and his words would carry a great deal of weight. Because the answer to the 'Afterlife' from a faith prospective and the questions do not relate to any science.
So why do you think Science carries any weight concerning the Afterlife which Thrud asked about?
The afterlife is only a faith scenario without any evidence to support it, whereas science can often prove its discoveries to be factual. Faith is stuck in a rut and doesn't alter its stance even when the odds on it being true, in the real sense of that word, are infinitesimal. Science isn't stuck in a rut, it is ever searching to improve our knowledge.
-
Well, at its simplest, science is 'knowledge'. At its most complex, it's 'knowledge'.
Well, that's the meaning of the Latin word scientia, from which the word 'science' derives. Just because words share a common etymology, does not mean that the modern meaning of a word is the same as the word from which it derives. The English 'embarrass' and the Spanish 'embarazar' share a common origin, but since the Spanish word means 'to make pregnant', you are advised not to think that their common etymology counts for much.
As has been pointed out, the modern meaning of the word 'science' is quite specific, and you do not appear to have grasped what that meaning is.
-
I was simply using a definition several scientists I know use whenever they are asked the same question.
No, you do not know what the modern meaning of the word science is. As for the scientists using the vague definition you have given, (if indeed you have met any such), I doubt whether their opinions count for very much in the scientific world - or in the world of any informed intellectual exchange.
-
Science is not knowledge, science is a method used to try to find knowledge. Science is having an idea and then (and this is the important part) testing your idea against the real World to make sure it is not false.
Can we just have a few people confirm that Jeremy is absolutely correct in his definition of science (and Hope hopelessly woolly) - even if it would be an argumentum ad populum?
-
Science is not atheism.
Well I never!
-
Can we just have a few people confirm that Jeremy is absolutely correct in his definition of science (and Hope hopelessly woolly) - even if it would be an argumentum ad populum?
If I'm hopelessly woolly, perhaps the Oxford Dictionary is also hopelessly woolly:
1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
the world of science and technology
1.1A particular area of science:
veterinary science
[COUNT NOUN]: the agricultural sciences
1.2A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject:
the science of criminology
1.3 archaic Knowledge of any kind:
his rare science and his practical skill
-
If I'm hopelessly woolly, perhaps the Oxford Dictionary is also hopelessly woolly:
It should be clear to you that the first definition is the apposite one. Nobody uses 1.3 anymore.
-
Science is not atheism.
No it isn't. I was looking at the list of types of people that Hope has known and I too have known similar. I'll add to that, scientists who are Christian. A couple of scientists who were Christian and creationists! I couldn't quite get my head around that one but they were, I knew them quite well and they were lovely but this particular issue was a blind spot. They had friends, one or two of whom I met, who were also scientists and creationists and one who had taught biology but gave it up because the curriculum required him to teach evolution. I must admit I couldn't understand it but there we are. As we go through life we meet all sorts. Part of life's rich tapestry.
-
Science is not atheism.
Sport is not agnosticism.
Is this a game...? Err...
Stamp collecting is not neoplatonism.
-
Sport is not agnosticism.
Is this a game...? Err...
Stamp collecting is not neoplatonism.
:d :D Well said1 Wish I could think of a few more, but thank you for making me laugh. I have been muttering to myself, 'How can anyone today believe, as I heard the AofC say when I turned the radio on briefly this morning, '... the disciples found that he was risen ... and lives forever.' or something like that. I turned off straight away! I turned on again a bit later and there was an item (in the BBC Radio 4 'Sunday' programme) about the Belgian Gov's position which gives equal recognition to the major religions, and includes non-confessional beliefs in the list. There's still such a long, long way to go, though, before belief in the impossibility* of God/gods etc becomes a minority view.
*I know I have to allow a 0.00..include several million zeros here ...01 possibility that there is, but I haven't got enough time left in my life to waste it on that!! :)
-
... in which case you, along with Hope, would be committing the negative proof fallacy (also known, much more appositely, as the Argument from Ignorance).
Negative proofs fallacies do not exist in an afterlife conversation.
Nothing from ignorance at all because in truth there is NOTHING from an evidence point of few to base a negative proof fallacy on when it comes to the Afterlife.
And that is why you could not do anything or prove anything but come up with the usual load of twaddle which has absolutely '0' and I do mean ZERO meaning or stance in the discussion of an Afterlife.
-
Msg 62 " I honestly cannot believe you reiterated something said by someone else" Thats you, that is. I honestly cannot believe that after all the very fine points put to you over the months with science, logic, reason and just plain common sense you still waffle on with nothing in the kitty.
You mean the Kitty which has NEVER and Never will EXIST in the definition and evidence concering Afterlife in Science or anything else.
The EVIDENCE OF AFTERLIFE exists for those who died and then after being brought back to life tell of an existence after death.
You can Say whatever you want but the usual waffle does not apply to this thread and the questions asked.
-
The afterlife is only a faith scenario without any evidence to support it,
Evidence please... Oh, that's right that is just an opinion from someone who has never learned about ATHEISTS who have died and come back to life believing in God and Jesus Christ because of what they experienced. But you, like many atheists never check your facts you are worse that pagans because you never even look for truth.
whereas science can often prove its discoveries to be factual.
Okay show the science that PROVES THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE.
See what I mean about your useless twaddle and lack of sincerity when it comes to actual truth.
Your belief requires more faith that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Personally, I would not display your ignorance as a fact when we all know SCIENCE cannot and has not made any discoveries about the AFTERLIFE.
[wuote]
Faith is stuck in a rut and doesn't alter its stance even when the odds on it being true, in the real sense of that word, are infinitesimal. Science isn't stuck in a rut, it is ever searching to improve our knowledge.
[/quote]
Stuck in rut.... your posts reveal you are the only one stuck in a rut and your science. Science does not improve knowledge because knowledge even in man can only come from the source the maker created. God gave us our brains and everything we do, or think or say can only be done because of what he has done.
But like everything we can use what we have for good or evil.
Science is responsible for all the weapons in the world that has destroyed life how did that improve knowledge?
You need to think long and hard about science and reality...
-
You mean the Kitty which has NEVER and Never will EXIST in the definition and evidence concering Afterlife in Science or anything else.
The EVIDENCE OF AFTERLIFE exists for those who died and then after being brought back to life tell of an existence after death.
You can Say whatever you want but the usual waffle does not apply to this thread and the questions asked.
One of your daftest statements to date. ::)
-
One of your daftest statements to date. ::)
Sums up every post you have ever made.. hard to pick a winner...
-
Sums up every post you have ever made.. hard to pick a winner...
I am sure that made you feel good! ;D ;D ;D
-
I am sure that made you feel good! ;D ;D ;D
Unlike yourself, Floo,
I can see nothing making me feel good about having to state the obvious. :o
-
Unlike yourself, Floo,
I can see nothing. making me feel good about having to state the obvious. :o
There Sass! Corrected that for you. :)
-
There Sass! Corrected that for you. :)
;D
-
This thread has turned very nasty and contentious!
The afterlife cannot be proved scientifically and floo is quite right to say that belief in the afterlife is a faith matter - but I would not say, ''Only faith'', in such a dismissive way, because faith is very important to many of us.
It's Easter which is usually a lovely time of year (despite the sudden terrible weather!), so let's enjoy and relax.
-
This thread has turned very nasty and contentious!
Only to those who read it that way. It's just a lot of people exchanging views and trying to be funny ... life's to short to get dramatic about it.
The afterlife cannot be proved scientifically and floo is quite right to say that belief in the afterlife is a faith matter - but I would not say, ''Only faith'', in such a dismissive way, because faith is very important to many of us.
It's more important to get along together and not to take each other too seriously.
It's Easter which is usually a lovely time of year (despite the sudden terrible weather!), so let's enjoy and relax.
Easy-peasy! It's sunny and warm here! :P
-
Msg 76 Susan Doris. I'm with you on I can't listen to this stuff. It's like I'm visiting a different planet when people are talking in this strange wordy nonsense about things that are just plain silly. Like you too I feel it's got to take a bit dollop of "honest debate" to wean believers off of their comfort blanket.
-
No it isn't. I was looking at the list of types of people that Hope has known and I too have known similar.
It's not so much that Hope knows these people but that, on any given topic, he has always recently been talking with the experts about the exact topic.
A couple of scientists who were Christian and creationists! I couldn't quite get my head around that one but they were,
You can't be a proper scientist and a creationist. A scientist needs to go where the evidence leads. The evidence does does not lead to creationism.
-
But why think there is an afterlife at all?
What is the purpose behind it?
Some people have had the experience of God answering a prayer. That is when they start thinking, what ho, God really does exist. They believe there is a spiritual realm, which exists apart from the physical world but interacts with it; that leads to the hope of an afterlife.
-
Some people have had the experience of God answering a prayer. That is when they start thinking, what ho, God really does exist. They believe there is a spiritual realm, which exists apart from the physical world but interacts with it; that leads to the hope of an afterlife.
As I have asked many times why does the sky fairy sky only answer prayer positively when it feels like it? I am of the opinion that so called answers to prayer are no more than coincidence if something goes the way a person wants it to.
-
Some people have had the experience of God answering a prayer. That is when they start thinking, what ho, God really does exist. They believe there is a spiritual realm, which exists apart from the physical world but interacts with it; that leads to the hope of an afterlife.
That would be easy to test out.
I'll ask God in prayer to eliminate the Zika virus on Tuesday at 4pm BST.
If it suddenly disappears, it would be in every newspaper headline, we would all get to know about it, and we would start to have some reason to take the god idea seriously.
Until that time though ...
-
As I have asked many times why does the sky fairy sky only answer prayer positively when it feels like it? I am of the opinion that so called answers to prayer are no more than coincidence if something goes the way a person wants it to.
I would say God never answers in the way a person wants or expects him to 8)
-
I would say God never answers in the way a person wants or expects him to 8)
translation : Believers are those who are prepared to indulge convoluted rationalisations to explain away God's apparent disinterest in answering prayers in a straightforward way.
-
I would say God never answers in the way a person wants or expects him to 8)
This is so sad. Pray - wait - whatever happens, believe it's the answer; may not be what I wanted or expected but it must be the answer 'cos god always answers.
Talk about blind, circular 'reasoning'....
-
I would say God never answers in the way a person wants or expects him to 8)
Yeh always an excuse for it, isn't there?
-
Yeh always an excuse for it, isn't there?
If God never answers prayer in the way that a person expects I'd absolutely love to know how and why anybody believes a God is involved at all rather than sheer random chance.
-
It's simply that Christians are taught that God answers all prayers. It's not difficult to make experience fit that - God gives us what we need and not what we want, sometimes God answers no, or attributing unexpected events or feelings to God's intervention.
If you believe God is always with you, and your God is a great big omni version, what other option is there?
-
It's simply that Christians are taught that God answers all prayers. It's not difficult to make experience fit that...
It is if their capacity to reason is healthy and functioning.
-
It is if their capacity to reason is healthy and functioning.
But if you take as a starting point that the big omni God exists and loves you then this appears to be reasonable.
You can reason your way out of belief, but not out of faith.
-
But if you take as a starting point that the big omni God exists and loves you then this appears to be reasonable.
You can reason your way out of belief, but not out of faith.
I fear you must be right. People invent daft ideas and some people become slaves to them. :(
-
If God never answers prayer in the way that a person expects I'd absolutely love to know how and why anybody believes a God is involved at all rather than sheer random chance.
If you wait for a sensible answer to that one you will be waiting for all eternity and beyond. ;D
-
It is if their capacity to reason is healthy and functioning.
They're Christians, of course their capacity to reason is impaired.
-
They're Christians, of course their capacity to reason is impaired.
You are confusing swivel eyed antitheism with reason.........reminder, take the tablets before breakfast and the green and white capsules after each meal.
-
It's simply that Christians are taught that God answers all prayers.
Interestingly, I've never been taught that. Rather, I've been taught that I need to be in sync with how God thinks and acts, and to be ready to be the answer to my and others' prayers.
-
You are confusing swivel eyed antitheism with reason
Wrong. Christian faith tells people to believe things that reason says cannot be so. For instance, reason tells us that a two day old corpse cannot be reanimated and yet, you guys believe it.
.........reminder, take the tablets before breakfast and the green and white capsules after each meal.
Errr, it looks like you've accidentally pasted the to do list from your calendar into your reply again.
-
Interestingly, I've never been taught that. Rather, I've been taught that I need to be in sync with how God thinks and acts, and to be ready to be the answer to my and others' prayers.
We should always subject what we are taught to reasoned thought, and reject any "teaching" that is clearly without supporting testable evidence.
-
This thread has turned very nasty and contentious!
The afterlife cannot be proved scientifically and floo is quite right to say that belief in the afterlife is a faith matter - but I would not say, ''Only faith'', in such a dismissive way, because faith is very important to many of us.
It's Easter which is usually a lovely time of year (despite the sudden terrible weather!), so let's enjoy and relax.
Who are those being nasty and contentious?
-
Who are those being nasty and contentious?
Well, obviously, all those nasty atheists! :)
-
Who are those being nasty and contentious?
Only just seen this Sass. Len told me over the past couple of days that people do not take themselves seriously and it is banter (my paraphrase), so it appears I have been overreacting. I'll stay out of it in future.
-
Only just seen this Sass. Len told me over the past couple of days that people do not take themselves seriously and it is banter (my paraphrase), so it appears I have been overreacting. I'll stay out of it in future.
No! Leonard like other atheists... insult someone and then tell others they are only joking.
The atheists are very serious they just pretend they are joking so the can insult others whilst telling the world it is a joke.
So it does what you saw it do.
You saw it as insults... they know it is an insult... but they say it not meant so it remains for everyone to see.
-
Who are those being nasty and contentious?
You for a start! ;D
-
No! Leonard like other atheists... insult someone and then tell others they are only joking.
The atheists are very serious they just pretend they are joking so the can insult others whilst telling the world it is a joke.
So it does what you saw it do.
You saw it as insults... they know it is an insult... but they say it not meant so it remains for everyone to see.
Yes, Sassy dear. Anything you say! :)
-
Interestingly, I've never been taught that. Rather, I've been taught that I need to be in sync with how God thinks and acts, and to be ready to be the answer to my and others' prayers.
Bit difficult that Hope since there's no way of finding out if you're in sync with something that you've no idea if it exists or not, I can see your dilemma, ever considered atheism or is it a bit too realistic for you?
ippy
-
Bit difficult that Hope since there's no way of finding out if you're in sync with something that you've no idea if it exists or not, I can see your dilemma, ever considered atheism or is it a bit too realistic for you?
ippy
Atheism too realistic? Hope has served his community as a teacher and public servant. What have you ever done?
-
Atheism too realistic? Hope has served his community as a teacher and public servant. What have you ever done?
Why on earth is that relevant.
There are plenty of atheists who have (or continue to) served their communities in all sorts of respects, such as as teachers, public servants, volunteers for all sorts of things that benefit the community.
-
Why on earth is that relevant.
There are plenty of atheists who have (or continue to) served their communities in all sorts of respects, such as as teachers, public servants, volunteers for all sorts of things that benefit the community.
Yes and they all have a better grasp on what is real that somebody who has never engaged publicly.
Now if it is ontological reality we are talking about, atheists we are often assured only see the universe in terms of what physically operates now, what is empirically detected. Given that the universe in which those laws operate may be but one universe and the universe has a past and possible future where those laws likely didn't and wont operate......the atheist view on ontological reality isn't exactly promising is it.
-
Wrong. Christian faith tells people to believe things that reason says cannot be so. For instance, reason tells us that a two day old corpse cannot be reanimated and yet, you guys believe it.
Is that in the same way that reason told us that a virgin cannot give birth?
Reason tells me that if you believe we are merely the result of the organisation of our physical components then not to believe that a corporal resurrection could technically take place seems to contradict that belief.
God has the technology so I'm afraid it's back to demonstrating God-Free again.
-
Yes and they all have a better grasp on what is real that somebody who has never engaged publicly.
Now if it is ontological reality we are talking about, atheists we are often assured only see the universe in terms of what physically operates now, what is empirically detected. Given that the universe in which those laws operate may be but one universe and the universe has a past and possible future where those laws likely didn't and wont operate......the atheist view on ontological reality isn't exactly promising is it.
If you say so, but as ever this is all unevidenced hand waving and mumbo jumbo.
But what on earth does that have to do with your clear inference that somehow being engaged publicly is somehow linked to whether someone is religious or not.