belief in an afterlife

[c7ityi_]

Your making the flawed assumption that somehow human consciousness is special in the universe.

humans don't even have consciousness, they are inside our consciousness.

Also, 0/infinity is NOT 1. 0 x infinity = 1

multiplying zero is impossible and useless. 0 may become 1 only by infinite division (creation). only zero can be infinite.

that's what this site says: http://www.hatem.com/science (bottom of the page)

And if you think infinity is a real number - please write down just the very first digit.

the first digit of infinity can be any number. maybe not 0 though.

First of all, I only wrote that down to educate someone from a grossly wrong belief to an only minor wrong belief.

youre so nice.

Secondly, numbers aren't defined by digits. Digits themselves are simply powers of some base. I challenge you to write down the first digit of i.

no u cant cuz i is not anumber

 

[cleo]

if there is no after life, why do we strive to be good people? why do we have morals? what would be the point?

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Its quite obvious that the cause is "supernatural" because the "natural" definitions (courtesy of reductionism of course) cannot establish the cause of life.

As usual your inability to use logic results again in your typical fallacious gibberish. Absence of evidence is not evidence of something else.

Absolutely everything we know that exists has a material basis. There is no reason to suspect there can be anything else. You claim there is something else so the onus is entirely on you to show evidence for this mysterious supernatural.

What have you got?

 

[Cris]

lg,

well if you take what exists as the "natural" laws and determine that they are insufficient to determine the existing phenomena, it would make more sense to call it "supernatural" rather than turning a blind eye and trying to cram phenomena that doesn't fit within existing frameworks of knowledge (like saying metabolism causes life)

More BS. When I attempted to explain how things worked you flatly refused to think it through, were unable to demonstrate any understanding of basic science, and showed no inclination to take time to study the basics needed for understanding. You show an entirely dogmatic and totally blinkered fanatical obsession with your superstitious belief.

With that attitude there is really very little point in anyone attempting to debate with you and expect you to engage in reasoned discourse.

 

[Fire]

if there is no after life, why do we strive to be good people? why do we have morals? what would be the point?

This is clearly irrelevant since atheists strive to be good people with morals whilst having no irrational delusional wishful thinking beliefs.

 

[Cris]

cleo,

Welcome to sciforums.

if there is no after life, why do we strive to be good people? why do we have morals? what would be the point?

Why are any of those things dependent on an afterlife?

 

[(Q)]

if there is no after life, why do we strive to be good people? why do we have morals? what would be the point?

If you strive only to be good to get into an afterlife, what is the point of living? And if the afterlife were your only reason for being good, would you expect an atheist to simply kill you for no reason?

Is doing evil the only option an atheist has?

 

[euphrosene]

cleo,

Welcome to sciforums.

Why are any of those things dependent on an afterlife?

Welcome from me too Cleo.

It's been a fascinating read (when I have had the time)...

The 'afterlife' - or rather continuance of life in whatever form it might take is what keeps me going. I feel that the inequities of life will balance out at some point in time and space.

Without that belief, why would anyone give a damn about others? Why not thieve or kill? Why not ignore bigger issues like global discord or climate change - although if you have children, you might feel differently.

As someone said, many of the members here have high morals and that is enough for them. But surely it must irk to see 'sinners' (for want of a better word) get away with their 'sins'?

Also on not particularly accurate language: 'supernatural'.

It's just a word folks.

Although I do believe in my version of God, I do not subscribe to everything LG has said, but I feel he (she?) was trying to explain the, as yet, undiscovered.

Anything that is not a known 'natural' law could be argued to be 'supernatural'.

I know scientists like to be precise but even they can take a small leap of the imagination with that one, no?

It's neither here nor there to me whether anyone else believes or not but I am curious as to how non-believers handle 'issues',

For example, if your child was murdered but the murderer not only got away with it but enjoyed fame and fortune..

Presumably the options are to forgive or to be bitter or maybe to pass on the baton of revenge.

At least a belief in the afterlife or 'continuance of life' could create the means for balance?

Cheers Euphrosene

 

[Fire]

As someone said, many of the members here have high morals and that is enough for them. But surely it must irk to see 'sinners' (for want of a better word) get away with their 'sins'?

Actually I am perfectly ok with the fact that Hitler no longer exists in any way, shape or form.

 

[euphrosene]

If you strive only to be good to get into an afterlife, what is the point of living? And if the afterlife were your only reason for being good, would you expect an atheist to simply kill you for no reason?

..QUOTE]

Precisely, Q. Although I personally do not think it is anything whatsoever to do with being good.

I think the continuance of life (or afterlife if one must) is a form of metaphysical book-keeping

If I did not believe in the continuance of life in some form, I would not want the hassle of living. When there is not the mundane business of earning one's crust, there are other issues like living with bossy governments, wars, climate change and so forth.

Actually, if one had to think about all that crap, I'd follow Marcus Aurelius' advice about 'quitting the house of life'!

So, the 'afterlife' works well for me

 

[euphrosene]

Actually I am perfectly ok with the fact that Hitler no longer exists in any way, shape or form.

Ditto. But to all intents and purposes he was not actually punished, was he?

 

[(Q)]

If I did not believe in the continuance of life in some form, I would not want the hassle of living. When there is not the mundane business of earning one's crust, there are other issues like living with bossy governments, wars, climate change and so forth.

So, the 'afterlife' works well for me

Changing those issues to suit me worked better than submitting and waiting for an afterlife.

Are you at war, now?

 

[euphrosene]

Changing those issues to suit me worked better than submitting and waiting for an afterlife.

Are you at war, now?

Based on your previous responses, your empathy level appears to be rather low. So this response does not surprise.

As for being at war, I am British, and British soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... the former being an illegal war that has not yet been resolved.
'Return fire' is of the suicide bomber variety. Maybe not a conventional war but one none the less.

 

[Cris]

Euphrosene,

Hi,

The 'afterlife' - or rather continuance of life in whatever form it might take is what keeps me going.

Doesn’t that mean that rather than trying to fix current problems with the world you are merely hoping that death will solve everything for you?

I feel that the inequities of life will balance out at some point in time and space.

Why? All evidence tends to indicate that when we don’t make an effort to fix something it nearly always becomes worse.

Without that belief, why would anyone give a damn about others? Why not thieve or kill?

Because we can intelligently reason and observe that life is more comfortable and survivable when we are sociable and cooperative.

Why not ignore bigger issues like global discord or climate change - although if you have children, you might feel differently.

Because global discord affects my current life and might shorten it so it is in my best interest to fix it. Long term climate changes are of less importance since our long term future will not be on this planet.

Also on not particularly accurate language: 'supernatural'.

It's just a word folks.

All words are just words. It is their meanings and concepts that they represent that are of interest.

Anything that is not a known 'natural' law could be argued to be 'supernatural'.

Or any number of other fantasies. None have any credibility unless there is some form of support for them.

I know scientists like to be precise but even they can take a small leap of the imagination with that one, no?

Not if they are good scientists. While they might speculate they are not permitted to conclude until they can support their claims.

.. if your child was murdered but the murderer not only got away with it but enjoyed fame and fortune..

Continue to seek justice.

Presumably the options are to forgive or to be bitter or maybe to pass on the baton of revenge.

Or none of those but instead continue to seek appropriate justice without which our society would break down.

At least a belief in the afterlife or 'continuance of life' could create the means for balance?

No it does not. It creates apathy, i.e. that problems are not worth fixing because perfection will occur once death is achieved. Overall it decreases the chances of survival for the human race.

Looked at more rationally it is the greatest con-trick humans have ever played on themselves. Rather than face the very obvious certainty that death means permanent non-existence, religions have twisted death to mean that it is a glorious gateway to a perfect paradise. Probably the only common factor in every religion is some form of fantasy about cheating the ugliness and permanence of death. And because so many people simply do not want to face death or are frightened by it then this fantasy becomes very appealing and unfortunately the gullible, irrational, and the apathetic swallow it.

 

[(Q)]

Based on your previous responses, your empathy level appears to be rather low. So this response does not surprise.

What does that have to do with anything? You allow yourself to submit to negative feelings of your perceived views of life, claiming the notion of an afterlife justifies that submission. I don't, and that somehow shows me as not having empathy towards your negative feelings? Ridiculous.

As for being at war, I am British, and British soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... the former being an illegal war that has not yet been resolved.
'Return fire' is of the suicide bomber variety. Maybe not a conventional war but one none the less.

Yet, YOU personally are not a war?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
Its quite obvious that the cause is "supernatural" because the "natural" definitions (courtesy of reductionism of course) cannot establish the cause of life.
”
As usual your inability to use logic results again in your typical fallacious gibberish.

actually it was your logic that metabolsim casues life that just crumbled

Absence of evidence is not evidence of something else.

But it does indicate that you have an absence of evidence

Absolutely everything we know that exists has a material basis.

everything that exists has a phenomenal basis - whether the noumenan of such phenomena can be defined by reductionist paradigms is questionable (like for instance the cause of life and the exact nature of consciousness does not fit reductionist paradigms)

There is no reason to suspect there can be anything else.

There is no reason to suspect that anything exists outside of reductionist paradigms?
Given the numerous mysteries presented by reductionism it is not clear on what basis you can make this statement with confidence.

You claim there is something else so the onus is entirely on you to show evidence for this mysterious supernatural.

What have you got?

First of all we have to establish what the channels of communication will be - if you are still fixed on the idea that reductionism is the be all and end all of methodologies (which it appears that you are) in determining reality you will have problems

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
well if you take what exists as the "natural" laws and determine that they are insufficient to determine the existing phenomena, it would make more sense to call it "supernatural" rather than turning a blind eye and trying to cram phenomena that doesn't fit within existing frameworks of knowledge (like saying metabolism causes life)
”
More BS. When I attempted to explain how things worked you flatly refused to think it through,

actually you were the one who slipped into a fit of ad homs

were unable to demonstrate any understanding of basic science, and showed no inclination to take time to study the basics needed for understanding.

all because I refused to go out and purchase dawkins book

Its quite simple really.
If you advocate that metabolsim (mechanistic operations of energy transformation within the body) is the cause of life the practical test for such a theory would be to invest life in dead matter

- at the moment you are attempting to establish the cause (metabolism) in something that already bears witness to metabolism (a living entity) - logic requires that you establish the cause (metabolism) in something that is bereft of the effect (ie a dead body)

You show an entirely dogmatic and totally blinkered fanatical obsession with your superstitious belief.

Actually I just rationally analyzed the premises for you argument (standard philosophical definitions of "cause" and "effect") and found them lacking

With that attitude there is really very little point in anyone attempting to debate with you and expect you to engage in reasoned discourse.

Would you have preferred it if I ad hommed like you?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well if you take what exists as the "natural" laws and determine that they are insufficient to determine the existing phenomena, it would make more sense to call it "supernatural" rather than turning a blind eye and trying to cram phenomena that doesn't fit within existing frameworks of knowledge (like saying metabolism causes life)

At least one would have the possibility of working towards uncovering the "mystery" rather than falsely assuming that it is already understood.
”
And therein lies your erroneous assumption.
Noone has yet claimed to know all the laws, and to be able to explain every thing that has, or will, or could happen.

yet you still get persons like cris who advocate that metabolism is the ultimate cause of life


To quote benjamin wooley

"Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything."

It could well be impossible to get anywhere near knowing many things.
But that should not be a reason to jump on the "supernatural" band wagon.
Everything is natural. We just don't know the detail.

everything is phenomenal - whether the nomenan of such phenomenan can be defined by reductionist paradigms is questionable

Science says "We don't yet know, but a current theory that fits the observed data is...."

LG says "Science doesn't know - therefore it's supernatural!"

- its not clear on what basis you can predetermine the fundamental nature of something (as to which "nature" it belongs) when the said noumenan (consciousness/living force) exists outside the paradigm you are sold out to (molecular reductionism)

 

[lightgigantic]

Lucysnow

'clinging onto the his god of the gaps' you've got that right! He clings to god and the 'supernatural' no matter the discussion exposing the dogma he is completely unaware of.

Sarkus I admire your patience.

by clinging to the idea that reductionist models can explain life you haven't really changed anything - your "reductionist model of the gaps" sounds quite "godlike"

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

“

LG says "Science doesn't know - therefore it's supernatural!"
”
He has not learned anything from history, and the growth of scientific knowledge which disproved a host of commonly held supernatural assumptions of the day, which we now hold as natural.

Conciousness, abiogenesis are things (amongst many others) that may one day be well understood, meaning there won't be people like LG clinging onto his god of the gaps... In the meantime, assuming a supernatural basis behind conciousness and abiogenesis is still a long shot.

Do you advocate that empiricism will one day come to the point of knowing everything or do you advocate that empiricism is contingent on ignorance for its further progress?