Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

hinault wrote: »

You accept this premise is possible?

hinault wrote: »

What you accept is of no interest to me

You do realise that this is a discussion forum and not a pulpit ????

nozzferrahhtoo

hinault wrote: »

The Bible teaches that only those who know Jesus and adhere to His teachings will be saved in the afterlife.

And Scientology "teaches" about weird alien civilizations on earth over a period of multiple eons.

Telling us WHO teaches something or WHAT they teach is white noise. The only thing people on this forum are generally in is what the BASIS for the thing being taught is.

And if the sum total of your basis is summed up in the cheap, one liner. cop out. dismissal you flung in your last response to me..... then what we are talking about here is "no basis at all" frankly.

hinault wrote: »

So you accept that there is an afterlife?

hinault wrote: »

What you accept is of no interest to me.

So you come into a thread asking what people "accept" and then when people TELL you what they "accept" you reply claiming what people accept is of no interest to you.

I think that, right there, sums up ENTIRELY what we are dealing with here.

The simple fact is that you have not offered a SHRED of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that even SUGGESTS in the existence of an after life. And, further, you have failed entirely to address a SHRED of the substantiation linking consciousness to the brain.

So you are in a minus position, having not supported your own position OR addressed any of the evidence going against it.

hinault wrote: »

The Bible teaches that only those who know Jesus and adhere to His teachings will be saved in the afterlife.

It may be the case that someone who's never heard of Jesus Christ and His teaching, could have lived a life which conforms to Jesus teachings. You accept this premise is possible?

See above.

Please be more specific in your baseless, unsupported, fictional claims.

If a person who has heard of Jesus still rejects him, but still leads a life according to his teachings, do they get in?

Is dodging and ignoring difficult questions also part of Jesus's teachings?

smacl wrote: »

Do I accept the premise that someone who has never heard of Jesus meet the only those that know Jesus condition? No, its a direct contradiction. FWIW, in Inferno, Dante placed those who led virtuous lives but didn't know Jesus in Limbo, but from what I gather Limbo has gone out of fashion with modern Christians in recent decades.

What you accept is of no interest to me.

Church teaching on vincible and invincible ignorance, in moral theology.

hinault wrote: »

The Bible teaches that only those who know Jesus and adhere to His teachings will be saved in the afterlife.

It may be the case that someone who's never heard of Jesus Christ and His teaching, could have lived a life which conforms to Jesus teachings. You accept this premise is possible?

Do I accept the premise that someone who has never heard of Jesus meet the only those that know Jesus condition? No, its a direct contradiction. FWIW, in Inferno, Dante placed those who led virtuous lives but didn't know Jesus in Limbo, but from what I gather Limbo has gone out of fashion with modern Christians in recent decades.

Hotblack Desiato

Ah, the old "it's true because the bible says so". Dear oh dear.

smacl wrote: »

Not really. You claim the afterlife to be real, which would imply it is real for everyone, even those of different faiths who because of their conflicting beliefs will never get to experience it.

The Bible teaches that only those who know Jesus and adhere to His teachings will be saved in the afterlife.

It may be the case that someone who's never heard of Jesus Christ and His teaching, could have lived a life which conforms to Jesus teachings. You accept this premise is possible?

smacl wrote: »

I would suggest that your version of the afterlife is in fact a personally held belief rather than an objective reality until such time as you can tell us why your beliefs are more valid than those held by others.

See above.

nozzferrahhtoo

hinault wrote: »

The afterlife isn't an hypothesis. The afterlife exists and is real.

At this point you are simply soap boxing your position without actually engaging in ANY level of discussion about it. Or is it that you genuinely think that repetition of an unsubstantiated assertion somehow lends extra weight to that assertion?

hinault wrote: »

However the fact that you disagree that the afterlife exists renders redundant any further exchange between us on this topic.

Not really. Because in every realm of rational discourse when two people disagree, they each try to SUBSTANTIATE their position. And that is the opposite of making further exchange redundant. It is the very foundation of further exchange.

It is YOU making further exchanges redundant by taking the "assert and repeat" MO to discourse that you have displayed so far. Because discourse is impossible with a skipping and repeating record.

hinault wrote: »

Whether their views are mutually incompatible is irrelevant too.

Not really. You claim the afterlife to be real, which would imply it is real for everyone, even those of different faiths who because of their conflicting beliefs will never get to experience it. I would suggest that your version of the afterlife is in fact a personally held belief rather than an objective reality until such time as you can tell us why your beliefs are more valid than those held by others. To suggest otherwise is taking the part of the ostrich in the rather wonderful Flanders and Swann song., obstinate but hardly effective.

Hotblack Desiato

hinault wrote: »

I disagree that it was clear.

Now that we've established that you think there is no afterlife renders redundant any further exchange between us on this topic.

This post concludes our exchange on this thread.

What was redundant was you posting your ridiculous claims in the first place when you have no ability or intention to defend them.

So far, all but one of your posts on this thread are you announcing that you are not going to address any points.
The one that wasn't this is you making sweeping claims that you have yet to support in the slightest.

hinault wrote: »

Well you decided to ask me about the beliefs of muslims and hindus, so admitting that I don't know what they believe in, isn't regardless.

Whether their views are mutually incompatible is irrelevant too.

It is very relevant, you just don't want to address it because you cannot do so.

The are many many examples of afterlifes that are entirely different from your version. They cannot be different interpretations of the same thing and they cannot exist at the same time as yours. The Hindu and Muslim beliefs are just examples (though it should worry you that you claim that an afterlife exists, yet have absolutely no knowledge of other systems.)

You must necessarily reject these other options if you believe in what you had described (Hell, Heaven, purgatory etc).
So we are asking how you can reject these in a way that lets you retain your beliefs.

However, you refuse to address this and it just makes it look like you are unable to address it.

If this is not the case, please answer the question and the others you are ignoring.
If this is the case, why not be intellectually honest and admit as much?

smacl wrote: »

Regardless of your knowledge or lack thereof, there are many incompatible belief systems

Well you decided to ask me about the beliefs of muslims and hindus, so admitting that I don't know what they believe in, isn't regardless.

Whether their views are mutually incompatible is irrelevant too.

hinault wrote: »

I have no knowledge of what muslims or hindus believe. What they choose to believe is their own business as far as I'm concerned.

If they do believe in an afterlife, they would presumably disagree with the atheistic view that there is no afterlife.

Regardless of your knowledge or lack thereof, there are many incompatible belief systems with large numbers of adherents, and very many more that one could imagine which are equally plausible, i.e. not so plausible at all given the total lack of any supporting evidence. As per my previous post, where we have a very large number of equally statistically improbable events, there is no rational reason to assume any given one of them is true. There is also the issue of extreme confirmation bias, insofar as you really want there to be an afterlife as it avoids death and oblivion. Add to that a bunch of people who realise they can manipulate the masses through this belief system and it is no wonder there are so many believers, yet nothing to suggest what they believe to be true.

robindch

Mod:

hinault wrote: »

Save it for politics.ie.

hinault -

A+A is a discussion forum. This means that things are discussed - back and forth, questions asked, positions explained, things questioned and so on. Your posting history in this thread suggests that you're either unwilling or unable to carry on these kind of discussions, so I would suggest that you either learn how to discuss things peaceably, or else, post elsewhere.

Thanking you.

hinault wrote: »

I have no knowledge of what muslims or hindus believe. What they choose to believe is their own business as far as I'm concerned.

If they do believe in an afterlife, they would presumably disagree with the atheistic view that there is no afterlife.

They do believe in an afterlife and they are completely incompatible with the christian version and each other.
For example, the Hindu afterlife includes the concept of reincarnation as different animals and people, which is not described or allowed by the Christian version.

So are the people who believe in afterlifes other than yours wrong? Yes or no?

smacl wrote: »

Your version of the afterlife is part of your belief system. That doesn't make it any more or less real than a young child's belief in the tooth fairy. Putting atheism aside for one moment, what makes your belief in your afterlife more valid that say a Muslim's or Hindu's to the extent that you can say that your's is real and their's is false.

I have no knowledge of what muslims or hindus believe. What they choose to believe is their own business as far as I'm concerned.

If they do believe in an afterlife, they would presumably disagree with the atheistic view that there is no afterlife.

hinault wrote: »

The afterlife isn't an hypothesis. The afterlife exists and is real.

Your version of the afterlife is part of your belief system. That doesn't make it any more or less real than a young child's belief in the tooth fairy. Putting atheism aside for one moment, what makes your belief in your afterlife more valid that say a Muslim's or Hindu's to the extent that you can say that your's is real and their's is false.

hinault wrote: »

I disagree that it was clear.

Not sure how I could have possibly made it any clearer, or how the context overall didn't make it abundantly clear to everyone who read it...

hinault wrote: »

Now that we've established that you think there is no afterlife renders redundant any further exchange between us on this topic.

This post concludes our exchange on this thread.

No, this is you running away because you are unable to answer direct questions.

You claimed that the afterlife is real. At least support this claim if you're unwilling to engage in other discussions.

If you can do that and show the afterlife is real, then I can show you that your afterlife is disgustingly unfair and evil.

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, I was pretty clear:

I disagree that it was clear.

Now that we've established that you think there is no afterlife renders redundant any further exchange between us on this topic.

This post concludes our exchange on this thread.

hinault wrote: »

It wasn't clear that you were speaking hypothetically. Hence my earlier reply to you.

Nope, I was pretty clear:

Oh and then there's the assertions like that that illustrate that if any afterlife does exist. it is disgustingly evil and unfair.

hinault wrote: »

The afterlife isn't an hypothesis. The afterlife exists and is real.

Ok then, please explain how you know this for a fact and please substantiate it.

hinault wrote: »

However the fact that you disagree that the afterlife exists renders redundant any further exchange between us on this topic.

Nope, it can be discussed hypothetically very easily. It can be shown that your afterlife is inherently monstrous and illogical without ever bringing up it's nonexistance.

I believe however you are simply looking for a way out of answering very easy, very direct questions.

Do you believe that sentencing anyone to any kind of torture is ever justified?
If so, then what crimes do you believe justify this?
If not, then how do you conclude that sentencing someone to torture for eternity is just?

Please answer these.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I asked you if you would be substantiating your position and we get....

.... a facetious throw away baiting comment..........

.... a blatant but entirely willful misrepresentation of another users position.........

..... a then basically a re-assertion of the original assertion that you were asked to substantiation in the first place which you are just soap boxing now essentially.

Not exactly an honest start to the conversation from you here huh? Perhaps it is your own "behavior" you need to be focusing your narrative, real or imagined, on here.

I think it is your religion in fact that claims "By their fruits you will know them" and your fruit so far is rotten through.

Save it for politics.ie.

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, I'm talking hypothetically

It wasn't clear that you were speaking hypothetically. Hence my earlier reply to you.

The afterlife isn't an hypothesis. The afterlife exists and is real.

However the fact that you disagree that the afterlife exists renders redundant any further exchange between us on this topic.

nozzferrahhtoo

So I asked you if you would be substantiating your position and we get....

hinault wrote: »

Tell it to the Judge.

.... a facetious throw away baiting comment..........

hinault wrote: »

So you accept that there is an afterlife?

.... a blatant but entirely willful misrepresentation of another users position.........

hinault wrote: »

The behaviour of a person in this life determines their eternal fate in the next life.

..... a then basically a re-assertion of the original assertion that you were asked to substantiation in the first place which you are just soap boxing now essentially.

Not exactly an honest start to the conversation from you here huh? Perhaps it is your own "behavior" you need to be focusing your narrative, real or imagined, on here.

I think it is your religion in fact that claims "By their fruits you will know them" and your fruit so far is rotten through.

Hotblack Desiato

hinault wrote: »

Tell it to the Judge.

Only a despot would appoint himself a judge.

But it's okay, it only exists in your imagination.

hinault wrote: »

So you accept that there is an afterlife?

Nope, I'm talking hypothetically that if one exists, especially under the rules your are claiming, it would be monstrous.

hinault wrote: »

The behaviour of a person in this life determines their eternal fate in the next life.

But the behaviour you have said would earn eternal punishment includes wanting to end your own suffering and the thoughtcrime of not believing in Christianity.

Do you believe that sentencing anyone to any kind of torture is ever justified?
If so, then what crimes do you believe justify this?
If not, then how do you conclude that sentencing someone to torture for eternity is just?

King Mob wrote: »

Could you explain how it's fair for someone to be sentenced to infinite torture for something like ending their own suffering or being guilty of thoughtcrime?

Can you explain how this would be in any way considered a good or just thing if it was even temporal punishment?

So you accept that there is an afterlife?

The behaviour of a person in this life determines their eternal fate in the next life.

hinault wrote: »

Tell it to the Judge.

Could you explain how it's fair for someone to be sentenced to infinite torture for something like ending their own suffering or being guilty of thoughtcrime?

Can you explain how this would be in any way considered a good or just thing if it was even temporal punishment?