Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
shruikan2553 wrote: »What if they have lived a life where they have done more to help others than anyone who believes in your god? Would god really judge them and say "you're great and all but you didn't believe in me so better luck next time!"
Would seem a bit attention seeking rather than acutually caring.
One of the reasons why I don't believe. In the hypothetical situation where the christian god does exist, a belief in him does not automatically lead to better treatment for fellow humans (in fact, someone who carefully reads the bible can use it to justify ill-treatment). So in the end, good treatment of humans does not require a belief in a god, and in fact, as far as I can tell, the belief is superfluous.
Judging where someone goes based purely on whether they accept Thing X to be true is...well, kinda stupid.0 -
I said Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. Terms and conditions do apply. Those without sin go to Heaven. Those with sin but in a state of grace go to Purgatory. Those in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. Unbaptized children are at God's mercy.
I don't know where you will be.
So you, like I, admit that you do not know what will happen after I die.0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »What if they have lived a life where they have done more to help others than anyone who believes in your god? Would god really judge them and say "you're great and all but you didn't believe in me so better luck next time!"
Would seem a bit attention seeking rather than acutually caring.
God will judge them as he will judge all of us. What the judgement will be we cannot say.0 -
So you, like I, admit that you do not know what will happen after I die.
That and his statements are at odds with other branches of christianity. Which branch teaches that once baptized, you're automatically set to go to heaven? I can't remember.
Given that there are all these various branches and denominations, all claiming to be true, but none offering a testable method to find out which if any, what am I, the unbeliever supposed to do? I only live once. It's not like I can die, find out that islam is correct, then somehow arrange to be reborn and live and die as a muslim.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
That's not what I said. Where you go after your judgement is up to God. Unless you remain obstinate in your rejection of God and choose hell by default.
Oh boy, you're of the "Nonbelievers choose hell" camp? If my choice affects where I go/what happens after I die, then this logically means that my choice can (somehow) override whatever your god's plan is for me.
Then I make the choice here and now. I choose not to go to hell. Now the ball is back in your god's court. I don't believe in his existence, because I have no reason to, but in the event that he actually does, he now has the option of sending me wherever.
If you still go on about how I am the one choosing hell, then where is it? Just so I don't get lost along the way, can you give me directions?0 -
That's not what I said. Where you go after your judgement is up to God. Unless you remain obstinate in your rejection of God and choose hell by default.
But you said if you're baptized, you go to heaven. I'm baptized, according to the Catholic church this is irreversible. So I'm going to heaven.0 -
-
But you said if you're baptized, you go to heaven. I'm baptized, according to the Catholic church this is irreversible. So I'm going to heaven.
Lazygal, please stick to critiquing what Festus is actually saying. S/he hasn't said anything along the lines of "Baptise = Automatic ticket into heaven irregardless of any other actions/conditions"
What you're doing there is sorta like attacking a southern baptist because a large percentage of Italians believe the pope to be God's representative on Earth. It doesn't apply to them.0 -
Well, as a Christian I do know what happens after we die. We are judged for our actions in this life and go to Heaven, Purgarory or Hell. The unbaptized are at God's mercy.What I said was if you are baptized you go to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.
So the baptized don't get to heaven, it depends on how God feels about them? So you can be a good person, having been baptized as I was, but if you annoy God he won't let you into his club? Or if you don't annoy him and do bad stuff, he will let you in
What about the unbaptized, who are at God's mercy? Where do they go? Does it not matter what they do, because they'll never get into heaven? Like a stillborn child who can't be baptized, or a foetus miscarried at six weeks, what happens to them?0 -
Advertisement
-
RikuoAmero wrote: »Oh boy, you're of the "Nonbelievers choose hell" camp? If my choice affects where I go/what happens after I die, then this logically means that my choice can (somehow) override whatever your god's plan is for me.
Then I make the choice here and now. I choose not to go to hell. Now the ball is back in your god's court. I don't believe in his existence, because I have no reason to, but in the event that he actually does, he now has the option of sending me wherever.
If you still go on about how I am the one choosing hell, then where is it? Just so I don't get lost along the way, can you give me directions?
You have free will. You can choose to reject God if you wish. In so doing you are refusing to accept God's plan for you. In rejecting God you also reject Heaven. In rejecting God you also reject Purgatory as on leaving Purgatory the only place to go is Heaven and you have already rejected Heaven by rejecting God. So logically the only place you can go is as far away from God as is possible. You won't need directions.0 -
Well, as a Christian I do know what happens after we die. We are judged for our actions in this life and go to Heaven, Purgarory or Hell. The unbaptized are at God's mercy.
So the baptized don't get to heaven, it depends on how God feels about them? So you can be a good person, having been baptized as I was, but if you annoy God he won't let you into his club? Or if you don't annoy him and do bad stuff, he will let you in
What about the unbaptized, who are at God's mercy? Where do they go? Does it not matter what they do, because they'll never get into heaven? Like a stillborn child who can't be baptized, or a foetus miscarried at six weeks, what happens to them?
Sometimes when I ask these very same questions to christians, they tell me that as long as I am a good person, I'll get into heaven regardless.
Re-read that please. That basically means that the belief in God is superfluous. Sometimes however, when I point this out, they'll retread and change their mind, going "no no no, belief in God IS important", at which point, if true, it's a completely artificial and unnecessary requirement, which is downright harmful (since it increases the chance for the believer to be gullible enough to believe other things that aren't true).
Anyway, Festus, I'm off to work now. If you want to continue this conversation, I'll be free to do so sometime tomorrow evening?0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »No, it is a lie. I stopped believing in god years ago, and yet I still not have found anything else to believe in. Once one stops believing in the fantastical, the fabulistic and the imaginary, one rarely goes out and finds something equally fake to replace it.
That is because most people who give up theism do so because they are strong enough mentally and intelligent enough to question the foundations of their former beliefs, and honest enough to accept the truth that those beliefs were founded as if they were a sandcastle built at low tide on the shore, without foundations or proper structure to hold them up to any sort of challenge. They are most definitely not going to fall for another fairy story once they have thrown off the shackles of the first one.
I throw that question right back at you. Because I have not yet found one single christian (and I don't mean people like the higher up church personages who are almost to a man only in it for the power it gives them, and not through any genuine religious belief) in my whole thirty-three years of existence as well versed, or alternatively as willing to accept and acknowledge the flaws (for those who know the bible and yet still believe sweep the problems with that bad fantasy novel under the carpet and pretend hard that they don't exist), as I am. There are no true believers who have properly subjected their beliefs to scrutiny, because that would defeat the whole purpose of their belief.
Brian, you are welcome to post etc... but could I ask you to be a bit less insulting to believers? I'll just go down through your post above...
"Once one stops believing in the fantastical, the fabulistic and the imaginary, one rarely goes out and finds something equally fake to replace it."
I find that a hurtful comment.... categorizing what I believe in as fantastical, the fabulistic and the imaginary, equally fake.
Your next comment....
'That is because most people who give up theism do so because they are strong enough mentally and intelligent enough to question the foundations of their former beliefs, and honest enough to accept the truth that those beliefs were'
Again I find this hurtful and insulting.... you are inferring that believers are weak mentally and weak in intelligence, and you add further insult by saying believers are dishonest.
You are not only insulting me... but obviously those people of any and all faiths who have died for their faith as well, St Cecilia being just one example.
Getting back to the OP.... N.D.Experiences are well documented all over the world, going back hundreds of years in all societies. Colm Keane has recently written several books on the subject, beautiful books in fact.
IMO... with regard to NDE.... I sincerely hope I have one.... from reading the books by Colm Keane... mostly of Irish people who have recently experienced NDE... they all appear to say the same thing... that Death has no fear for them anymore, they are not afraid of dying... they know there is a much happier place to go to...to meet relatives and friends, to get away from all the aggravation here on planet Earth. Bit like the relief one experiences at the end of a long great journey.. I've finally arrived!!
And Brian... with great respect..... I hope you have a NDE as well.... that way you get a opportunity to correct the error of your ways before it becomes final.0 -
You have free will. You can choose to reject God if you wish. In so doing you are refusing to accept God's plan for you. In rejecting God you also reject Heaven. In rejecting God you also reject Purgatory as on leaving Purgatory the only place to go is Heaven and you have already rejected Heaven by rejecting God. So logically the only place you can go is as far away from God as is possible. You won't need directions.
Just before I do go to work, I have to ask you WHY the consequence of non-belief is this? For example, I don't punish my sister because she believes Call of Duty games are fun. Punishing someone for their BELIEFS is harmful and just outright wrong.
Also, just to remind you, this doesn't convince. You're just spouting off this that and the other is true. Well...give me a reason to believe it is true.
Anyhoo, see ya tomorrow evening.0 -
Well, as a Christian I do know what happens after we die. We are judged for our actions in this life and go to Heaven, Purgarory or Hell. The unbaptized are at God's mercy.
So the baptized don't get to heaven, it depends on how God feels about them? So you can be a good person, having been baptized as I was, but if you annoy God he won't let you into his club? Or if you don't annoy him and do bad stuff, he will let you in
What about the unbaptized, who are at God's mercy? Where do they go? Does it not matter what they do, because they'll never get into heaven? Like a stillborn child who can't be baptized, or a foetus miscarried at six weeks, what happens to them?
I didn't say it depends on how God feels about them. I said God will judge them.
Heaven is open to all who follow God and do His will. As for annoying God it depends. You might have to be cleaned up a bit first.
Nor did I say the unbaptized will not get into Heaven or that they will never get into heaven. I said they are at God's mercy.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Just before I do go to work, I have to ask you WHY the consequence of non-belief is this? For example, I don't punish my sister because she believes Call of Duty games are fun. Punishing someone for their BELIEFS is harmful and just outright wrong.
Also, just to remind you, this doesn't convince. You're just spouting off this that and the other is true. Well...give me a reason to believe it is true.
Anyhoo, see ya tomorrow evening.
Does your sister actually play Call of Duty? If so she not only believes it is fun she indulges in it.
In that case what about people who believe killing other people is fun and they indulge in it. Is it wrong and harmful to punish them for their beliefs?
As for non-belief. I don't believe in non-belief. If. I believe atheists probably don't exist. I believe there are people who call themselves atheists who claim to believe in nothing but nothing does not exist so they are claiming to believe in something that does not exist which is confusing. To remove the confusion some use the language of spin to redefine their belief system as non-belief. And they call us gullible. In actuality all humans believe in something because they are hard wired to and it is impossible to believe in nothing.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Sometimes when I ask these very same questions to christians, they tell me that as long as I am a good person, I'll get into heaven regardless.
Re-read that please. That basically means that the belief in God is superfluous. Sometimes however, when I point this out, they'll retread and change their mind, going "no no no, belief in God IS important", at which point, if true, it's a completely artificial and unnecessary requirement, which is downright harmful (since it increases the chance for the believer to be gullible enough to believe other things that aren't true).
Anyway, Festus, I'm off to work now. If you want to continue this conversation, I'll be free to do so sometime tomorrow evening?
It depends on the Christians. There are Catholics, and indeed some Cardinals who would probably tell you the same initially. Some may even stick to their particular interpretation but they are wrong.
These Christians were probably just trying to be nice to you. And I agree that any Christian who tells you what you want to hear or what they think you want to hear is doing harm. What you need to hear is the Truth.
It takes more than just being a good person and keeping your head down.
This is covered in yesterdays Gospel read - the parable of the talents.
You have read the Bible so you know this reading.
The servant who hid his talent was in all probability a good person. He got punished.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »
Anyway, Festus, I'm off to work now. If you want to continue this conversation, I'll be free to do so sometime tomorrow evening?
Depends. It wouldn't want to stray too far from the purpose of this thread0 -
Mod: As this is the one thread in this forum for debating the existence of God, I've moved the last 50 or so posts here. Less of the snarky remarks and backseat modding, thanks.0
-
Well, I'm glad you don't believe in science then.
Why the fcuk would I believe in science? It is not some magical mystical sky fairy which sprinkles its pixie dust to ensure gravity happens, it is simply a human constructed system (the best we've ever come up with by the way) to interpret and explain the natural phenomena we experience and can empirically detect. There is nothing of science in which is so badly evidenced that we have to believe in order to think that it exists.
Frankly that's the most idiotic thing anybody has said to me ever. I've had more intellectually stimulating conversations with toddlers.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »There is nothing of science in which is so badly evidenced that we have to believe in order to think that it exists.
But what about gravity? Science can just explain gravity by observing its effects, it can't explain why gravity is!0 -
Mod:
Brian is on a month's hiatus from the forum. Sadly the automated system to inform of you this when you try to reply to his posts hasn't been invented yet. So if you did type out a lengthy reply to his posts before you saw this:
0 -
You have free will. You can choose to reject God if you wish. In so doing you are refusing to accept God's plan for you. In rejecting God you also reject Heaven. In rejecting God you also reject Purgatory as on leaving Purgatory the only place to go is Heaven and you have already rejected Heaven by rejecting God. So logically the only place you can go is as far away from God as is possible. You won't need directions.
I notice that in that quote, you used the word logically a couple of times. So then you're trying to convince me by using logic. However, do you not realise that in trying to use logic, you must constrain yourself to the logical requirements of providing evidence to back up your arguments? It may very well be true that the only three places that exist for souls after death are heaven, hell and purgatory, but you have not yet provided evidence for these 'places' (other than mention your bible that is). To me this smacks of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. You can't use logic only when it suits you.
I now have to inject actual logic into that scenario. Let's play it out hypothetically shall we? Let's imagine I say out loud "I choose not to go to hell". Then, at dinner, I choke to death on a chicken bone and to my surprise, I find myself in front of your god. He then confirms what you say and says to me "You have rejected me, therefore to hell you go". At which point I would correct him saying "No, I didn't reject you. I was not convinced. Those humans who did believe in you did a ****ty job in trying to convince me"
However, you have said to me that I have free will. I, before my death, chose not to go to hell. So I do not make any effort under my own power to go there. In fact, knowing myself as I do, I'd be cheeky, sit down and cross my arms and say "Your move, big guy".
If I then end up in hell, then this is entirely due to the agency of your god. Not me. It will then be him who has for some ****ed up reason said that there is a penalty for not believing Thing X to be true.
So your interpretation of the bible is correct, but theirs is wrong. What methodology did you employ to make that judgement? What if I ask these other people and they tell me that their interpretation is correct, and yours is wrong?Some may even stick to their particular interpretation but they are wrong.Does your sister actually play Call of Duty? If so she not only believes it is fun she indulges in it.
In that case what about people who believe killing other people is fun and they indulge in it. Is it wrong and harmful to punish them for their beliefs?
Yes, she plays COD, and so what if she does? Is the action of playing a video game harmful? I'd love to know what sort of twisted logic you employed in conflating the playing of video games with actions that we know, beyond a doubt, are harmful (murder).
I have to keep reminding you, that the thing we're talking about here is the commandment to believe. Not an action, a mental state. It is the one command, the one thing I won't do, to believe simply because I'm told there's a punishment for not believing. My sister believes playing COD is fun. I don't. However, I don't punish her for having a belief different to mine.
Teaching someone something that is true requires a certain amount of finesse. Go to a teacher, a trained teacher with an education degree, and ask them if the best method of imparting knowledge is them saying to their student "Believe this thing I am telling you, or you will be punished". Is your wise god really that inept at imparting knowledge that the best way he has to teach me of his existence is to say I'll be punished for not believing?
They would be nihilists then. I'm not one of them. Also, not all atheists are nihilists. Also, why is it that you say "claim" to believe? Why is it that when a person says to you "I believe in this" or "I don't believe in this", you don't take them at their word? (Of course, I understand that this seems contradictory to my constant demands for evidence, but just roll with it please)I believe there are people who call themselves atheists who claim to believe in nothing
I've taken you at your word that you believe in your god. I'm critiquing your belief of course, but at no point have I ever said to a theist "You don't actually believe what it is you say you believe". If I ever did say that, it would make a liar out of me, in that I would then have been knowingly criticising a person for something that I don't believe that they believe in.
Nope, from this, I gather that your thinking is that there are only two things a person could possibly accept and believe in - either your god, or nothing. In your view, (unless I'm mightily mistaken), nothing would encompass any and all other religions and beliefs, as well as a literal nothing.To remove the confusion some use the language of spin to redefine their belief system as non-belief.
I would disagree. Yes, I do use the term non-belief sometimes. I am at the null hypothesis. At this moment in time, I lack/have a non-belief in your god, in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons both you and I don't believe in hinduism (neither of us have been convinced hinduism is true).0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »I notice that in that quote, you used the word logically a couple of times.
In that quote I see "logically" only once, not a couple of times. If you want to play like that that's your business. I don't mind intelligent word play but deliberately misrepresenting what someone says is a game you are free to play with your pals, but not me, so count me out. And we've switched threads to one I have little interest in.
For me God exists and I see the proof of Him every day. That's one of the things that faith does. If you have no faith I cannot assist. Faith is a gift and if you have thrown yours away it is up to you to find it. I am not going to spell it out for you. When I was a child and wanted to know what a word meant or how to spell it I was directed to look it up in a dictionary. That taught me two things - 1, how to look up words and 2, how to use a dictionary. I accept you have to have a reasonable knowledge of spelling to use a dictionary but I think you are intelligent enough to get my point.
When I studied in university I learned that the greatest learning in university is not the skill you signed up for but how to self teach and research. Another thing I learned at university is that you must look at all hypotheses, not just the ones that suit your end game or agenda, and work through them all until you find the most suitable to the observations.
The observation here is that the majority of people in the world believe in God. Why is that?
No one spoon feeds you in university. Nor will I spoon feed you here. If you are truly interested in proving the existence of God you may find the proof. If you are only interested in proving that God does not exist you may find only lies and half truths.
If you want the truth you will need a little faith. I wish you God speed in your endeavours0 -
In that quote I see "logically" only once, not a couple of times. If you want to play like that that's your business. I don't mind intelligent word play but deliberately misrepresenting what someone says is a game you are free to play with your pals, but not me, so count me out. And we've switched threads to one I have little interest in.
For me God exists and I see the proof of Him every day. That's one of the things that faith does.
My mistake then on saying "you used logically a couple times". My point still stands however, in that you attempted to use logic there, but whenever it doesn't suit your purposes, you don't let yourself be bound by logical requirements.
This to me means that someone who presupposes a thing to be true will then start seeing it every day. Would you accept this very same 'logic' as valid if a hindu said "For me, Shiva exists, and I see the proof of Shiva every day"?For me God exists and I see the proof of Him every day. That's one of the things that faith does.
If you don't, then you've again committed the logical fallacy of special pleading.
So then you're contradicting what you've said earlier, when you mentioned atheists as only "claiming" to not believe, thus indicating that you don't actually accept as true that some people don't believe what it is you believe.If you have no faith I cannot assist.
Also, this means that you are failing one of the commands supposedly said by Jesus in the bible, in that he commands his followers to convert others.
Not in this case I'm not. I don't understand why you've gone to such pains to outline that you know how to use a dictionary. Are you implying that I don't? One of the definitions of faith that I find in a dictionary is "belief that is not based on proof:"I am not going to spell it out for you. When I was a child and wanted to know what a word meant or how to spell it I was directed to look it up in a dictionary. That taught me two things - 1, how to look up words and 2, how to use a dictionary. I accept you have to have a reasonable knowledge of spelling to use a dictionary but I think you are intelligent enough to get my point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Agree. This is something I do quite frequently. In fact, the reason I read the entire bible was because I wanted to research it.but how to self teach and research.
Did they not teach you in university that if you test your hypotheses, and find out that they are false, you have to correct for any errors, repeat and if you keep getting a false result, that the hypothesis must be discarded?Another thing I learned at university is that you must look at all hypotheses,
Also, I have to remind you, I have mentioned other religions throughout this conversation. Is this not me looking at all hypotheses?
False. Christianity, if you use it as a broad term for all the different denominations, counts about 3 billion people, but what those people mean, understand and think God means to them is different from one person to the next. That leaves 4 billion people, 2 billion of which last I checked were muslim, with the other two counting for all the other religions and those of no religious belief whatsoever (it's late, and I'm not going to look up numbers. I might do it tomorrow)The observation here is that the majority of people in the world believe in God
So if by "God", you mean the divine entity being talked about in the bible, then the fact of the matter is the majority of the world DOESN'T believe in him.
Are you committing another logical fallacy here, the argument from popularity?Why is that?
Correct, they shouldn't. What they do in university is teach you that Thing X is true and give you sound logical reasons, along with evidence for why it's true. They don't punish you for not believing it simply because they say it.No one spoon feeds you in university.
e.g. "Nuclear radiation causes cancerous diseases and death". Well, they don't just say that and then say "If you don't believe that, I'm going to punish you". They teach about radiation, give accounts, photos and video from radiation survivors, etc.
So you're going to continue on making the positive claim about Thing X, but not going to provide sound logical reasons and evidence to back it up?Nor will I spoon feed you here.
Okay.
Blame that on the mods. One of them said that he moved it here because of the discussion we've been having.And we've switched threads to one I have little interest in.
This directly contradicts what you say just belowIf you are truly interested in proving the existence of God you may find the proof.
Since you mentioned earlier you like pulling definitions from dictionaries, this then means you must be bound by what those dictionaries say. I pulled a definition of faith as "belief not based on proof". So which is it? You can't say, in this discussion, both faith and proof. The two are diametrically opposed to each other.If you want the truth you will need a little faith.
If you choose proof, this means that you have to accept your god is falsifiable and that it is okay and reasonable for me not to have a belief in him if ever I or anyone tests the claim and it comes up false.
If you choose faith, then this is an admission from you that there is no evidence for your god claim in reality, and thus nothing for me to use to justify a similar belief.
If you don't accept the definition of faith that I referenced, then this shows you to be the one playing word games, in that you accept only certain definitions in dictionaries, but won't allow the other people in the discussion to do the same.
Now that took me a while to write. Good night, see you around 7pm Tuesday or so.0 -
-
"Once one stops believing in the fantastical, the fabulistic and the imaginary, one rarely goes out and finds something equally fake to replace it."
I find that a hurtful comment.... categorizing what I believe in as fantastical, the fabulistic and the imaginary, equally fake.
And yet hurtful to you or not, the comment remains entirely true. When people divest themselves of an unsubstantiated claim, they do not often go looking for one to replace it.
If you choose to be offended vicariously on behalf of an idea then this is your choice, but I would urge you consider doing otherwise. An attack on an IDEA is not, and is never, an attack on the person who holds that idea.
Alas all too often discourse on this subject IS clouded by people who conflate the two and take an attack of an idea as a personal attack on them. I myself simply do not do so, and I find my life a lot less stressful or infuriating for that choice.Again I find this hurtful and insulting.... you are inferring that believers are weak mentally and weak in intelligence, and you add further insult by saying believers are dishonest.
Alas, while we should make no generalizations, the truth is that some very much are. To themselves, others, or both. I read with great interest for example the results from "The Clergy Project" part run and founded by Daniel Dennett.
This project is a safe house for discourse and assistance for clergy who are in their role as "men of the cloth" but themselves have lost, or never even had, any god belief at all. But they have maintained the lie to themselves, and most particularly to others, all the same.Getting back to the OP.... N.D.Experiences are well documented all over the world
And they are irrelevant to this discussion by definition. The "N" has a meaning you need to focus on. It stands for NEAR. That is to say: The patient did not die. And to my knowledge an experience before an event tells one nothing about events after that event.
Near death experience is simply not evidence for an after life, and is certainly not evidence for a god. Even if it WAS evidence for an after life (which it is not) that still would not be evidence for a god. Because even if you established some kind of after life, this does not by default necessitate a god.
So not only is it not evidence for an after life, it is double not evidence for a god which is what this thread is about. The thread is about the existence of a god, not of an after life. We can of course stay on topic. But I can discuss further why NDE is not evidence of either if you need to.IMO... with regard to NDE.... I sincerely hope I have one....
As do I. But most, if not all, aspects of NDE can be reproduced in other contexts using drugs, meditation methods, and other medical interventions. Feeling you are outside your body, feeling at one with everything, feeling a love for everything or a relevance to everything, and much more are all attainable independently without having to risk death to get there. Perhaps you would enjoy and benefit from exploration of this therefore, rather than waiting to nearly die to get some of it.NDE... they all appear to say the same thing... that Death has no fear for them anymore
Interestingly an NDE is not required for this either. The same change of perspective is described by many people who have simply had a shocking confrontation with their own mortality. Be it from sickness, a near accident, being a survivor in a gun shooting or much more.
Many of us go through life somewhat oblivious to REAL acknowledgement of our mortality. We are vaguely cognizant of the reality of it but we do not confront it in any meaningful or intellectual way.
So when we are forced to confront it by a brush with death, it can be a truly normative and enlightening experience which shifts the focus of many in terms of their perspectives in life and on death.
I would not view a total removal of a fear of death as a good thing though, and it seems from how you present it that you DO. We could discuss that at length too, but if we had a society entirely made up of people with no fear of death.... I would far from see this as good. Would you like, for example, the people with their finger on the button of nuclear armaments to be people who hold no fear of death because they had an NDE and have been left with a happy slappy joy joy view of the subject?
Of course, to make a more on topic reply here however, you are making essentially a utilitarian argument now. Discussing the benefits of thinking there is an after life is in NO WAY evidence there actually is one. It might remove peoples neurotic fear of death and so forth, which is in some ways good and some ways bad, but that says nothing about the truth value of the claim itself. At all. Even a little bit.0 -
I've been skeptical of atheists for a long long time now.
No really, I have checked, they definitely exist.I once thought most were well meaning but misguided people. Thank you for correcting me.
Yes because you can extrapolate the behavior of an entire arbitrary grouping of people, by commenting on that of one single person cherry picked from that group.I also thought that if they arrived in a Christian forum they were there to explore.
Some are. Some are here because they were asked to come over. Others come here just to troll I am sure. Which happens over the "other side" of the fence too so you have no monopoly on this. We just moan less about it I guess over there.Ok, your agenda established. Here the existence of God is a given. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
While that may be true of the forum as a whole, in that it is the standpoint that the majority of posts are made from, I do not think it is true in the specific case of this thread, and it most certainly is not true of philosophy or discourse in general. You are simply making an "Appeal to Population" fallacy here which is to claim that the onus of evidence lies at the feet of the minority view. But this is not true.
Coming from a purely pure discourse view of "We are in this universe, we do not know how or why, lets explore hypotheses to explain it" and given "There is a god and this god put us here" is one such hypothesis: The onus of evidence lies entirely, solely and ONLY at the feet of those who wish to support that hypothesis.
The only onus at the feet of people like me is the onus to openly and honestly read, evaluate and discuss that argument, evidence, data or reasoning if and when it is presented. You have not done so as yet: Therefore I can not do so either.Lacking belief is a bit lame. It's an appeal to ignorance.
Here you misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance because this is not what it means or how to apply it. Appeal to ignorance is NOT when you say "I do not believe X because X is entirely unsubstantiated". Appeal to ignorance is more when you say "Because we do not know X, therefore Y is true".
The appeal to ignorance is where you act like a proposition is true SOLELY because it has not been proven false. Which is essentially what you are trying to do when you ask people to prove there is no god. So, comical that you are accusing others of engaging in the fallacy that you, not they, are the one engaging in.Last resort of the simple I suppose. But if you want to call yourself lacking that is your business.
Now you are just getting into ad hominem and invective territory. There is no need for this, we are all adult here.For me an atheist is someone who wants to live their lives in moral relativism
Then you have simply constructed a false definition for yourself of what it constitutes to be "atheist". It just means a lack of belief that there is a god. It has nothing to do with desires to do, or not do, anything.
Alas it is this kind of rhetoric that clouds mature and meaningful conversation on this topic. Rather than listen to what such people are actually saying or espousing.... you instead invent agendas and biases on their behalf in order to explain away their position without actually having to contend with any aspect of their position.that is if they subscribe to any form of morality at all
Which they do, and you would know this with even a cursory reading of the material they produce in books, papers, articles or forum posts. Various basis for atheist morality have been discussed in this very thread in fact. I can certainly go into great detail and length about it if you wish to ask questions rather than assert falsehoods. I have the time and willingness if you do and am well versed in the topic.As I said this is a Christian forum and the existence of God is a given.
And as I said, this is not true. But at least you are being honest enough to openly admit that your sole support for your claim there is a god, is that you have located yourself in a place surrounded by people who predominantly agree with you.
Would that establishing truth were always so simple. Or simplistic.That is your opinion and you can have it. I have gone through the exercise of questioning the existence of God and can find no evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Therefore God exists.
Then you clearly also believe in unicorns, fairies, trolls, Russells tea pot, life on other planets, alien abductions with anal probing as a prelude to invasion, the efficacy of homeopathy, and that I currently have three heads.Unbelievers tend to believe in something. What do you believe in?
I do not "believe" anything, in so much as what I actually do is place any truth claim I hear or think of on a probability continuum for truth. Claims, such as the existence of a god, that come before me with literally and entirely ZERO substantiation go on the bottom point of that scale. The zero point.
Claims with substantiation get placed along that scale based on the level of substantiation that they offer.
And I then go through life maintaining this view that any truth claim I operate under is based on the likelihood of it being true at that time.
No reason to "believe" or claim to "know" anything is required for this. And in fact this is essentially how the scientific method works too.You have free will. You can choose to reject God if you wish.
Speak for yourself. For me belief is not a choice and never has been. If a claim is unsubstantiated in any way I can not simply choose to believe it. I am not "choosing" to not believe in a god or reject that claim. I simply have no other option than to reject it given it is not substantiated in any way. Much less by you.
The sum total of your defense of the existence of god appears to be to issue idle and vicarious threats against the after life well being of those who do not believe you. And I am unaware of a single case in Human History where the validity of truth claims were established by threats.As for non-belief. I don't believe in non-belief. If. I believe atheists probably don't exist.
Now you appear to be contriving to post nonsense merely for the sake of posting nonsense. If you wish to evidence the existence of them I can happily take you to meet some. Would that it were so simple to resolve with your god.
Atheists are not claiming to believe in nothing per se. They are just claiming not to see any reason to think there is a god.
You appear to want to conflate not believing in god with not believing in anything. Don't do that. It is wrong.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Errrrr but it has. Gravity is because matter warps and bends the space in which it occupies. This is Relativity. We have known it for nearly a century now.
This is more mis-information. I don't know if you're conflating ideas for the sake of simplicity, but relativity doesn't provide any explanation for gravity that's acceptable to modern scientists.
They have people working on these questions!
But it serves the purposes of the benighted to claim knowledge where there is only blindness.0 -
Advertisement
-
e is only blindness.
Or perhaps it benefits you to feign more ignorance on behalf of our species than there actually is. While we might not have closed the book entirely on Gravity, it is also misleading to suggest we do not explain anything about why it is there.
Anything I over simplify I just do so to communicate with the lay man to the subject. I am more than happy to elaborate at any time. We know that Gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass. That is the explanation of gravity. If you dig further then, as with most science, you can keep asking "But why that then..... and why that.... and why that...." and I do not think there is a single area of science where you do not then end up at a "We do not know yet".
But it is certainly misleading to say, as you did, "cience can just explain gravity by observing its effects" because the reality is we have explained more than that. But we have more to do.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement