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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

1246

Comments

  • #92
    Jonny Blaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 753 ✭✭✭Jonny Blaze


    If the daily mail had a throat, I would punch it.


  • #93
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I wanted to be an Atheist but these days its too much like a religion. Its a belief system were you meet up with other like minded people and discuss how everybody is Wrong. You dont show respect for other peoples beliefs,They have their own books messiah's and even their own music. :rolleyes:

    Cough Cough Cult

    That's a pretty shìt and narrow-minded excuse for not wanting to be an Atheist.

    I like how you did this, though:
    You dont show respect for other peoples beliefs
    Cough Cough Cult


  • #94
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,442 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I wanted to be an Atheist
    There's no such thing as 'an atheist'. You either are or you aren't. There's no membership card or newsletter.

    Unless you'd like to start one...?


  • #95
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I wanted to be an Atheist
    It isn't something you want to be, it is either something you are or you aren't. You either believe in a deity in which case you are a theist, or you don't, and you are an atheist.
    but these days its too much like a religion.
    You attempt to expand on this, and I'll address that momentarily, but before I do, is what is below all you have?
    Its a belief system
    It is the rejection of a proposition. It isn't a belief. You seem to think an atheist has to be someone who says "I believe there is no God" when really it is more like "I have no reason to believe that claim". It is withholding belief until there is evidence to support the belief. At this point, it wouldn't be a belief, it would be knowledge. Of course, the belief can not be demonstrated to satisfy knowledge claims, so hence, atheists.

    If I'm right about your understanding of atheism as more a positive rejection of deities, I'd be closer to it than most. That will be relevant in a little bit.
    were you meet up with other like minded people and discuss how everybody is Wrong.
    I don't meet up with people and discuss how they are wrong. Or are you talking broadly, as in the case of boards where there are forums for stuff? Well, you take anything there are sides, there'll be some amount of this. Go to sports forums and you'll see people advocating for their team. Go to the Gaming section and you'll see people defend their consoles/PC choice.
    You dont show respect for other peoples beliefs
    Of course I don't. If someone has stupid beliefs, I'm going to let them know I think so. With as much tact as I feel the situation warrants. I'd similarly let anti-vax people know what I think.
    They have their own books messiah's and even their own music. :rolleyes:

    Cough Cough Cult
    Uh, no. That book messiahs bit is utter nonsense as a generalization. Dawkins gets a lot of crap from atheists, as does Harris. They're both seen as anti-Islamophobic. Hitchens was respected as an orator, and Dennett doesn't have people hold as strong regard either positively or negatively. Messiahs they ain't.

    As for the broader point about books/music or any creative work, they are products of their time. As a for instance, take film. I'm a big fan of film noir. It arose in the 40s/50s. It wasn't created in a vacuum. The same holds true for people with something to say with a perspective on things. Take music any broad group listens to. There is something, obviously about it that appeals to them. Is it the content of the lyrics? The songs generally? Whatever it is, people find music that speaks to them. Many in turn go on to create music to allow themselves to express themselves, which in turn finds an audience. It's all so trivial as to be irrelevant.


  • #96
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I wanted to be an Atheist but these days its too much like a religion. Its a belief system were you meet up with other like minded people and discuss how everybody is Wrong. You dont show respect for other peoples beliefs,They have their own books messiah's and even their own music. :rolleyes:

    Cough Cough Cult

    I agree the only real position to take is agnostic. Admit that they just don't know if there is (1.) a God or (2.) an after life.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    whats pleasure and pain

    electrical signals


  • #98
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    woodoo wrote: »
    I agree the only real position to take is agnostic. Admit that they just don't know if there is (1.) a God or (2.) an after life.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg5RgI2GeKk


    http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png


  • #99
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    It isn't something you want to be, it is either something you are or you aren't. You either believe in a deity in which case you are a theist, or you don't, and you are an atheist.

    I'm not sure I agree with this. Atheism, especially in modern usage, suggests that you actively believe that there is no God, rather than simply not believe that there is a God.

    The definition of the word isn't especially clear on this to begin with, but to deny the connotations the word holds in the modern world is a little unreasonable. The fact the people who have no belief in a deity are loathe to be associated with the word is evidence of this in itself.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that you are agnostic, but neither theist nor atheist. Since the question of God can never be proven or disproven, it seems daft to hold a position one way or another.


  • #100
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    woodoo wrote: »
    I agree the only real position to take is agnostic. Admit that they just don't know if there is (1.) a God or (2.) an after life.

    Agnosticism is atheism. If you aren't sure if there's a god then you don't believe in one


  • #101
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    COYVB wrote: »
    Agnosticism is atheism. If you aren't sure if there's a god then you don't believe in one

    You are confusing agnosticism with agnostic atheism.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    You are confusing agnosticism with agnostic atheism.

    I assure you, I'm not. If you don't believe it can be known that one way or another that there's a god then, IMO, you aren't an actual believer, ergo you fall back on the natural default position of atheism, which everyone is at birth


  • #103
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    COYVB wrote: »
    Agnosticism is atheism. If you aren't sure if there's a god then you don't believe in one

    Atheism to me means you categorically discount if a God exists. I don't know maybe there is maybe there isn't.


  • #104
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    You are confusing agnosticism with agnostic atheism.

    I'm with this guy - 'Philosopher William L. Rowe states that in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist'.


  • #105
    seanie_c
    Closed Accounts Posts: 295 ✭✭seanie_c


    pushtrak wrote:
    It is the rejection of a proposition. It isn't a belief. You seem to think an atheist has to be someone who says "I believe there is no God" when really it is more like "I have no reason to believe that claim". It is withholding belief until there is evidence to support the belief. At this point, it wouldn't be a belief, it would be knowledge. Of course, the belief can not be demonstrated to satisfy knowledge claims, so hence, atheists.

    The vast majority of Atheists I see on the internet reject the idea of a deity but have no proof one exists or not.

    The kind of logic used by Atheists is, something is either True or False.
    Boolean logic is a completely flawed way of thinking about the universe IMHO.

    I'm someone that rejects all religions but I can't stand a lot of atheists and their dogmatic views on how the universe began.

    Nobody really knows but Atheists like to pretend they have all the answers.


  • #106
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I'm not sure I agree with this. Atheism, especially in modern usage, suggests that you actively believe that there is no God, rather than simply not believe that there is a God.
    You come across as a person who hasn't talked to a great many atheists. I'd advise they should be your first port of call on what is meant by atheist, and what is meant by agnostic. The religious like to use an argument of atheists "hate god" or "don't believe because they want to sin." I think people who find value in such arguments about as cogent in their arguments as young earth creationists.
    I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that you are agnostic, but neither theist nor atheist. Since the question of God can never be proven or disproven, it seems daft to hold a position one way or another.
    If there are people who don't know, then they do not hold a position of the affirmative. The sitting on the fence is understandable in a not wanting to get involved in debates context, but the reality is, I don't think people who are agnostic exist in some superposition where they believe and don't believe in a deity at one time.

    A/gnostic - knowledge
    A/theist - belief


  • #107
    Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo


    What does Terry Wogan think about all this eh?

    Until he weighs in on this subject I'm holding off on any opinion as there is no greater authority than the T Wog.

    He knows all, sees all and has stunning hair, that's how I like my men!


  • #108
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    woodoo wrote: »
    Atheism to me means you categorically discount if a God exists. I don't know maybe there is maybe there isn't.
    No, it isn't discounting a deity. It's not believing in the proposition until evidence to support the claim is provided. If I told you I have a dragon in my bedroom, would you believe it? If you don't, should I call you an adragonist? If someone hears a claim, they ought to want to have a good reason to jump on board with believing it.


  • #109
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You come across as a person who hasn't talked to a great many atheists. I'd advise they should be your first port of call on what is meant by atheist, and what is meant by agnostic. The religious like to use an argument of atheists "hate god" or "don't believe because they want to sin." I think people who find value in such arguments about as cogent in their arguments as young earth creationists.

    Thanks for being condescending, but I have spoken to many an atheist. Which is precisely the reason I don't like being tossed into the same bucket as them
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    If there are people who don't know, then they do not hold a position of the affirmative. The sitting on the fence is understandable in a not wanting to get involved in debates context, but the reality is, I don't think people who are agnostic exist in some superposition where they believe and don't believe in a deity at one time.

    A/gnostic - knowledge
    A/theist - belief

    It's not sitting on the fence, it's accepting the inarguable fact that you don't and indeed can't know one way or another. I don't hold a belief one way or another.


  • #110
    FlashD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭FlashD


    Humble agnostic: I don't know
    Less humble agnostic: I don't know and you don't know
    Least humble agnostic: We can't ever know

    Atheist: Arrogant pr*ck :pac:


  • #111
    seanie_c
    Closed Accounts Posts: 295 ✭✭seanie_c


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    No, it isn't discounting a deity. It's not believing in the proposition until evidence to support the claim is provided. If I told you I have a dragon in my bedroom, would you believe it? If you don't, should I call you an adragonist? If someone hears a claim, they ought to want to have a good reason to jump on board with believing it.

    I understand your point but there is no proof one doesn't exist either so it just means it's a possibility.

    You can't dismiss the idea of some higher civilization being responsible for the creation of our planet and every organism on it.

    Unless of course you believe everything was created randomly?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    take everything wrote: »
    Anyone care to comment on consciousness as an emergent property.
    I'm probably a reductionist at heart but it seems an interesting area. The idea that complexity takes on something more than the simpler components that constitute it.

    I was trying to think of ways to discuss this that wouldn't have me on the keyboard all night but I failed.

    All I can say is that I think you are correct.


  • #113
    Xeyn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭Xeyn


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    No, it isn't discounting a deity. It's not believing in the proposition until evidence to support the claim is provided. If I told you I have a dragon in my bedroom, would you believe it? If you don't, should I call you an adragonist? If someone hears a claim, they ought to want to have a good reason to jump on board with believing it.

    You're wrong I'm afraid. The accepted definition of an atheist is someone who rejects the belief in a deity of deities. An agnostic is someone who is waiting for evidence one way or the other. I also don't see how you can say that you have to be atheist to define the terms.


  • #114
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    seanie_c wrote: »
    The vast majority of Atheists I see on the internet reject the idea of a deity but have no proof one exists or not.
    You can't disprove a negative. For instance, how could one go about trying to challenge the deistic type of deity? One that doesn't intervene? I can think of no way to disprove a being such as that, but a being such as that would matter very little, and isn't particularly credible in the first place. No easy way to dismiss isn't grounds for belief. It has to have something on the positive side to make belief justified.
    The kind of logic used by Atheists is, something is either True or False.
    Boolean logic is a completely flawed way of thinking about the universe IMHO.
    In terms of belief, a person either believes something or doesn't. In terms of diet, a person eats or does not eat a particular type of food. Language reflects these paradigms.
    I'm someone that rejects all religions but I can't stand a lot of atheists and their dogmatic views on how the universe began.
    Dogmatic? Really? From what I see, atheists respond talking about what the evidence seems to suggest, and saying beyond that we do not know. And what we know is constantly being challenged.

    If you take the Higgs Boson. The fact that the Standard Model was reinforced by the finding was a disappointment for many who were working on it. They wanted to find something new and unexpected to lead them to new questions. There isn't dogma in the scientific method, and to think there is demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge on it.
    Nobody really knows but Atheists like to pretend they have all the answers.
    Really? I see atheists say "This is what the evidence suggests, and this is what we do not know" whereas it seems the religious believe that everything was created for our purpsoes, made in image of God, etc etc.


  • #115
    sandmanporto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 622 ✭✭✭sandmanporto


    The symbol for infinity is the figure 8 tilted. Imagine an infinite amount of figure eights at every "imagined" angle constantly rotating to create a sphere. That is my uptake on the universe which does suggest that any possibility is either impossible or possible to disprove or prove the very sphere of not just our existence, but areas in the universe we may never know or may never visit; or perhaps we may? He has a very good open minded theory and I commend him for it.
    As John Candy once said, "It's just a theory". :P
    His theory is a good one. Thanks for posting this.


  • #116
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    seanie_c wrote: »
    I understand your point but there is no proof one doesn't exist either so it just means it's a possibility.

    Yep. Both ideas are equally probable and worth equal consideration because that's how it works when you have two contradictory possibilities.

    seanie_c wrote: »
    You can't dismiss the idea of some higher civilization being responsible for the creation of our planet and every organism on it.

    Unless of course you believe everything was created randomly?

    Exactly this. There are only two options. Aliens and randomness. No other possibility.


  • #117
    seanie_c
    Closed Accounts Posts: 295 ✭✭seanie_c


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You can't disprove a negative. For instance, how could one go about trying to challenge the deistic type of deity? One that doesn't intervene? I can think of no way to disprove a being such as that, but a being such as that would matter very little, and isn't particularly credible in the first place. No easy way to dismiss isn't grounds for belief. It has to have something on the positive side to make belief justified.

    If I had asked a scientist before the discovery of gravity:
    Which is heavier? A feather or a Kg lump of lead.

    Boolean logic would assert the Kg lump of lead is heavier, but does that mean it's True? :)
    Dogmatic? Really? From what I see, atheists respond talking about what the evidence seems to suggest, and saying beyond that we do not know. And what we know is constantly being challenged.

    Yes, I believe they are. :)


  • #118
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    FlashD wrote: »
    Humble agnostic: I don't know
    Less humble agnostic: I don't know and you don't know
    Least humble agnostic: We can't ever know

    Atheist: Arrogant pr*ck :pac:
    That is the accusation leveled at atheists rather than the accusation atheists throw at others.
    seanie_c wrote: »
    I understand your point but there is no proof one doesn't exist either so it just means it's a possibility.
    True that. You are referring to knowledge. Knowledge on this is out of our grasp, so we go with belief. You can't avoid the belief question on the grounds of the knowledge one not being up to snuff. People have a perspective on the belief that is aside from the knowledge, or an outcome of the limited knowledge might be a better way to put it. You (not just you individually) have a belief stance and a knowledge stance.
    You can't dismiss the idea of some higher civilization being responsible for the creation of our planet and every organism on it.
    A higher civilization is a whole other thing than the theism/atheism thing, but it too would have to have evidence to support it to get people to believe it. You wouldn't randomly expect people to accept that assertion just because the assertion just because it was made. You'd understand, I'd expect people wouldn't believe it in the absence of some evidence.
    Unless of course you believe everything was created randomly?
    I don't know but the way I see things is, there had to be something at the start of it all. Now, either this is something that is natural, found within nature, or supernatural, something exterior and superior to nature. God is used as a first cause. It is quite a stretch to just go along with there being some being of these attributes. It is further of a stretch to look at the evolution of life on this planet, and how we are to presume this deity decided to interact with us, with religious texts and allegedly miracles in a far more primitive time. One has a lot of work to do in trying to build a case for why believing in a deity is justified.


  • #119
    seanie_c
    Closed Accounts Posts: 295 ✭✭seanie_c


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Exactly this. There are only two options. Aliens and randomness. No other possibility.

    No, there's only randomness. :rolleyes:


  • #120
    take everything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,858 ✭✭✭take everything


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I was trying to think of ways to discuss this that wouldn't have me on the keyboard all night but I failed.

    All I can say is that I think you are correct.

    I wouldn't mind getting other views about this.
    Not sure if AH is the place.
    It's just something that caught my interest a while back when reading about this stuff. Just something that made me stop and think (and question my typically hard-headed approach) but haven't seen much discussion of it here.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Xeyn wrote: »
    You're wrong I'm afraid. The accepted definition of an atheist is someone who rejects the belief in a deity of deities.
    Go to the Atheism & Agnosticism section and post a thread asking if that is so.
    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Yep. Both ideas are equally probable and worth equal consideration because that's how it works when you have two contradictory possibilities.
    This really must be sarcasm, but I just wanted to get confirmation. Lots of people hold to that perspective seriously, so yeah... It'd be kinda good to get it out there that the above is sarcasm.


Advertisement