Guys, don't worry. Once I die I'll post in this thread what I see when I'm dead.
There are countless theories that have been demonstrated many times, but because of a few small details, cannot technically be called laws.
Also, atheists do not have to prove god does not exist. Common analogy is that is like saying you can't prove that there isn't a flying pink elephant in the room. You don't not have to prove that there isn't one. In fact, if it doesn't exist, there will actually be little if any evidence to its nonexistence. The problem is with the people trying to prove that it does exist. They have the burden of proof whereby they have to provide evidence that something exists. If it exists, there will be evidence of it. At this point, the only responsibility of the opposition is simply to negate any evidence that the supporters provide through the use of their own. If they can do this, then the conclusion ultimately has to default to the opposition. If they can't then it falls down to the credibility of the supporting evidence and the overall quality of said evidence, in which case it can still go to the opposition, it just means the supporters have a chance now.
Beyond texts and scriptures that run on circular reasoning and incredibly subjective and highly unscientific anecdotes, there is no evidence to support any religion. Simple as that.
At one time, religions were a tool to help explain why certain events of nature occurred because the ability to scientifically explain them did not exist. We now know that earthquakes are caused by the release of energy from the Earth's crust, not because the forsaken son of a god is chained up under the earth and tugging at his bindings. Religions then became a tool to give people hope, provide group cohesion, and exhibit social control. Now, they are simply relics of a dying era in human history. They simply refuse to accept defeat and fade in to the text books.
And with religions, like any theory, they fall quicker as more pieces are removed. Consider it like a game of Jenga. You can remove one or two pieces, and the thing should be pretty much perfect if a little wobbly. But once you have removed more and more, its increasingly hard to keep the tower standing. Eventually you'll pull the right block and the whole thing collapses in a heap. The problem with religions however is that you have a player who is trying to keep the tower standing by holding it. It'll work for a bit, but it will still collapse eventually.
I think people should be allowed to have whatever they want to give their lives meaning and help them cope with their lives as long as it doesn't affect the lives of others. If someone needs to believe that there is something wonderful waiting for them after death and that gives them a reason to be happy and to be good in their lives, then that is great for them. To me, I continue to live and do good and be happy because there is nothing left for me after my life is over, so I'm making the most out of it.
And I just can't see how someone could be happy or proud with the idea that the good things in their life are because someone else did them. To me, its empowering to know that I'm the one who got me through high-school and that it is because of me that I have the nice things I have. "Hey, I just got a promotion! This is because I did well and my actions caused this." And with the bad things, I just say that its going to be me fixing my problems, no one else. "Damn, I got fired. But I'm going to fix this and I'm going to get a new job."
I've adopted the belief however that what happens after death is of no concern to me, because I have genuinely decided that I simply will not die. I will do whatever it takes to continue living. If that means I am paralyzed in a hospital bed for thirty years on life support, unable to interact with the world beyond blinking, I'm prepared to accept that fate. I'm confident that eventually science will find a way to get me up and running again. If I have to have every last piece of me replaced by machinery, hell, that is great. I welcome that with open robot arms.
Its always fun when people ask what I want to happen when I die because I get some widely varying and often humorous responses when I say "I'm not going to die." Religious people do tend to appear either frightened, disgusted, or angry when I say this though. Don't see why.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29870791]How is that the least bit ironic? his life sucks but he does the most he can with what he has[/QUOTE]
I would disagree. I would lose the ability of most of my muscles if it means being that smart and changing the world. I bet hes happy.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;29880080]I've adopted the belief however that what happens after death is of no concern to me, because I have genuinely decided that I simply will not die. I will do whatever it takes to continue living. If that means I am paralyzed in a hospital bed for thirty years on life support, unable to interact with the world beyond blinking, I'm prepared to accept that fate. I'm confident that eventually science will find a way to get me up and running again. If I have to have every last piece of me replaced by machinery, hell, that is great. I welcome that with open robot arms.
Its always fun when people ask what I want to happen when I die because I get some widely varying and often humorous responses when I say "I'm not going to die." Religious people do tend to appear either frightened, disgusted, or angry when I say this though. Don't see why.[/QUOTE]
You can't account for the unexpected, though.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29880092]I would disagree. I would lose the ability of most of my muscles if it means being that smart and changing the world. I bet hes happy.[/QUOTE]
I bet he still feels bad about the fact that he couldn't be much of a father for his children.
Not saying that he would've been a bad father, but you know what I mean.
[QUOTE=critein_protein;29871064]How ignorant of you to assume that. Are you from the future? Do you have a time machine?
And that's my God damned 2 fuckin' cents. :smugissar:[/QUOTE]
:irony:
Edit:
Oh it appears i got rated dumb. It is ironic because he states that how could he know that unless if he was from the future but the rest of his argument is also assumption.
[QUOTE=Sqwerp;29875666]People tend to assume that when a god is mentioned that it is the one from the Bible, and have all their arguments prepared to debunk that specific god, when what is really the case could be far less nice.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck do you think he's talking about, Cthulhu?
[QUOTE=Zeddy;29880080]I will do whatever it takes to continue living. If that means I am paralyzed in a hospital bed for thirty years on life support, unable to interact with the world beyond blinking, I'm prepared to accept that fate. I'm confident that eventually science will find a way to get me up and running again.[/QUOTE]
Uh...
Your brain is going to degrade. We don't have any alternative to it currently either, so even if some crazy bunch of tech comes forth in your lifetime to replace almost every organ in your body but the bones you're still going to be a dribbly mess of alzheimers eventually.
Unless you mean "I genuinely decided that I simply will not die [i]anytime soon[/i]" instead.
ignosticism is kind of dumb
How does he know?
[QUOTE=critein_protein;29870810]I don't know.
Here's how I see religion. Religion is a part of human nature that has a chance of occurring. It gives us hope and morals, but is inevitably false. The next step in human evolution is to denounce religion, and my friends, this next step is already taking place, we just all haven't experienced it yet. Religion WAS vital, but now we are beginning to grow out of it. Imagine it as a mothers breast milk, feeding all of humanity, giving us a certain necessity to progress, but it is inevitable that we will all grow out of it.
It's quite exciting, seeing the atheist revolution grow and grow, taking over the ancient and now obsolete idea of religion. Can't wait until everyone has evolved past the idea of God. Just imagine what we can accomplish. No more hatred towards gays, stem cell research internationally accepted, rape victims able to get abortions. And most of all, no more holy wars. I'm honored to be a part of the generation that is witnessing this transformation of humanity![/QUOTE]
Religion giving morals? Hah.
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
I've noticed the vast majority of religious test subjects participating in the Aperture Science Co-operation test are far more likely to kill their co-operative partner than non-religious test subjects.
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
and that's 97.222221% of all religious test subjects. When the percentages are that high, a causal link becomes evident.
Oh damn it, that's my view on afterlife as well complete with the "humans should therefore seek to live the most valuable lives they can while on Earth."... Darn, all cool things have already been said by other people now.
I still find it ridiculous people claim the Christian god is the only possibility. There are an infinite number of possibilities that could exist why would one even attempt to say something is correct with no evidence? Not only that if God is to be incomprehensible then why do Christian's keep contradicting that statement?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29873476]how do you know it, prove it to me, quantify it, prove to me that sentience and humane sentience isn't just chemical reactions.[/QUOTE]
My whole point is that there are some things you know for sure that you CAN'T quantify, that you CAN'T measure, and that you CAN'T prove to anyone else. That's where science fails. I can't prove to you that my sentience isn't just a chemical reaction, but I know for sure it isn't; if you can't see it in yourself there's nothing I can do to persuade you. I know my consciousness, or "soul" exists as surely as I know the world exists, if not more so.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing for the existence of the afterlife here, just the existence of the human soul/consciousness.
Does Stephen Hawking play on our Minecraft server or something
[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l189/Simski_2006/myhouseofthoughts.png?t=1305611783[/img]
[QUOTE=The golden;29881744]Well, let's start with the fact that there isn't a single molecule of proper documented proof in the entire human existence about the presence of a real afterlife.[/QUOTE]
If the trip to the afterlife was one-way, then of course there wouldn't be any proof. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially in this case.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881792]My whole point is that there are some things you know for sure that you CAN'T quantify, that you CAN'T measure, and that you CAN'T prove to anyone else. That's where science fails. I can't prove to you that my sentience isn't just a chemical reaction, but I know for sure it isn't; if you can't see it in yourself there's nothing I can do to persuade you. I know my consciousness, or "soul" exists as surely as I know the world exists, if not more so.[/QUOTE]
Cool, but that's irrelevant. If you're not going to entertain other ideas, then don't ever discuss it. I don't see sentience as being anything but chemical reactions. Somehow, there's this part of my brain... it just needs evidence to make a jump like that.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881824]If the trip to the afterlife was one-way, then of course there wouldn't be any proof. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially in this case.[/QUOTE]
Occam's Razor.
An afterlife creates a lot more questions than it answers.
It raises the questions of where it exists, how it exists, why people go there, if people have souls, what souls are made of, why there is no signs of it existing, etc.
While non-existence does not raise a lot more questions, it merely states that after you die, nothing else happens.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881824]If the trip to the afterlife was one-way, then of course there wouldn't be any proof. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially in this case.[/QUOTE]
Nope but it's still not a rational means to assert something exists
There is literally no way to know what happens after death and wasting your time thinking about it is pretty pathetic
Why are people even afraid of there being nothing there? I'd be horrified if there was something even if I got the "good" ending.
To head on in a after-life for infinity is idiotic simply because it would soon become your own purgatory.
To simply not exist, is to not exist.
[QUOTE=Simski;29881849]Occam's Razor.[/QUOTE]
You can't use Occam's Razor that way. It's like saying nothing exists in space because that's simpler then stuff being there that we just don't know about.
[QUOTE]Nope but it's still not a rational means to assert something exists[/QUOTE]
I know that, and that's why I'm not asserting that it exists, I'm just defending the possibility.
[editline]16th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The golden;29881878]This is what the church says. If we're trying to think in a broad and open way here, then you need to look past a human organization that used to execute homosexuals and people of different religions.
You doubt my proof-less words but believe theirs?[/QUOTE]
What on earth are you even talking about? So because the church says something, I'm not allowed to even suggest it or else I'm supporting the church? That's quite the logical fallacy.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881889]You can't use Occam's Razor that way. It's like saying nothing exists in space because that's simpler then stuff being there that we just don't know about.[/QUOTE]
No, I can use Occam's razor this way.
What you're saying is basically "In space, there is unicorns".
What I'm saying is "Until we have proof of unicorns in space, there likely are no unicorns in space".
[QUOTE=Fables;29881880]Why are people even afraid of there being nothing there? I'd be horrified if there was something even if I got the "good" ending.
To head on in a after-life for infinity is idiotic simply because it would soon become your own purgatory.
To simply not exist, is to not exist.[/QUOTE]
Why people desire an afterlife is beyond me. I think it demeans this life, it makes it mean less, why would I take this life seriously if I live afterwards? It also brings up so many questions that can't be answered. Sure you can believe that things can't be noticed or seen or understood by us, but while I accept that it could and can happen, what's there not understood about death? If somethings happening, it's measurable, if it's not measurable on any scale, then how can you say something is happening?
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881824]If the trip to the afterlife was one-way, then of course there wouldn't be any proof. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially in this case.[/QUOTE]
It's not proof of absence but we should default to skepticism of any claim without any sort of evidence backing it up.
[QUOTE=Simski;29881916]No, I can use Occam's razor this way.
What you're saying is basically "In space, there is unicorns".
What I'm saying is "Until we have proof of unicorns in space, there likely are no unicorns in space".[/QUOTE]
No, what I'm saying is "in space, there are likely things we don't know about (life forms, etc)"
and you're saying "There's no proof that there's anything specific in space, therefore there is most likely nothing in space."
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881938]No, what I'm saying is "in space, there are likely things we don't know about (life forms, etc)"
and you're saying "There's no proof that there's anything specific in space, therefore there is most likely nothing in space."[/QUOTE]
No that's not at all what he's saying...
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881938]No, what I'm saying it "in space, there are likely things we don't know about"
and you're saying is "There's no proof that there's anything specific in space, therefore there is most likely nothing in space."[/QUOTE]
No, what you're saying "In space, there likely exist things that logically can not exist, and since there is no proof of it existing it might still exist".
I'm not suggesting anything specific. Everyone seems to be assuming (despite my assurance otherwise) that I'm promoting some specific afterlife, like heaven or some shit like that. I'm not. I'm defending the possibility that our consciousness doesn't just end when we die.
[editline]16th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Simski;29881972]No, what you're saying "In space, there likely exist things that logically can not exist, and since there is no proof of it existing it might still exist".[/QUOTE]
Now you're just being ridiculous. What about the afterlife "logically can't exist"? The stream of experience we call a consciousness doesn't need to continue to exist in the space-time we currently occupy.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29881982]I'm not suggesting anything specific. Everyone seems to be assuming (despite my assurance otherwise) that I'm promoting some specific afterlife, like heaven or some shit like that. I'm not. I'm defending the possibility that our consciousness doesn't just end when we die.
[editline]16th May 2011[/editline]
Now you're just being ridiculous. What about the afterlife "logically can't exist"?[/QUOTE]
What about it can? What about it has a basis in reality? I'm all well and good with YOU believing something off of intuition or whatever, but, I think most of us need proof.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.