Confutatis said:You have misquoted my sentence by removing half of it. Or perhaps you haven't read all of it. You will not succeed convincing me that millions, billions of people can consider themselves part of an institution without sharing the basic creeds of that institution. The idea is simply preposterous.
Agree on what? What are those contentious points you find so obvious and I find non-existent?
That is not an argument, it's just an outburst of anger. I can't reply to it except with another outburst of anger, but I'm not angry.
I didn't say it is, I said it can be. Are you saying it cannot? Are you saying some evil president cannot appeal to the Constitution of his country to send innocent people to jail? Have you never heard of Chile?
I won't enter this debate because it's way too complex, but I'll just say that those religious attrocities you are talking about, if anything, only serve as proof that Christianity is right. All Christians know that.
but I'll just say that those religious attrocities you are talking about, if anything, only serve as proof that Christianity is right.
The reason why i believe in an after life is because God has told me there is. And i trust His word on it.
That is silly. The book that tells you about God is the same book that tells you about the afterlife.
Roman said:Let's bar delusion for this discussion.
The book says a lot of stuff.
Nor is this a discussion of books or Gods. It's a discussion of Creators. Why is that Dualists believe in Creators and Creationists (theists, really) are Dualists? The two, outside of what an old book tells someone, seem to be unconnected.
We create hybrid species, for a purpose, but did we create an afterlife for them? Only if my stomach counts as an afterlife.
If AI is created (really only a matter of time), and then we torch the computer the AI is housed in, does it go to a big heaven in the sky? Did the human creators make any afterlife for computers?
How does death invalidate life? I really don't get the sentiment "it's all for nothing if I die and that's the end of me."
I suppose it's really just further delusions of the human mind, the ever importance of the human self and its endeavors, and anthropomorphizing the universe. I wish Adstar could be aware of the oblivion that was going to consume him when he dies. Too bad he'll just rot.
Don't do that. He doesn't like it.Roman said:anthropomorphizing the universe
Provita said:3) I'll make the same deal I make with all other nonbelievers... if ur right and we go to oblivion, ill buy the drinks... if i win... well... drinks are free up there ... so... sorry
Let's hypothesize there was a creator. If something designed people, or earth, or whatever, why would this mean there's life after death? I see no relationship between a creator and the existence of the soul.
Anyone care to explain?
If a car was given a driver, the driver could still leave.
If a body was given a soul, the soul could still leave.
I think there is a lack of knowledge on what god has actually created when we say "God created me" - where are "you" - when you say hello to someone what part of the body do you address - their nose? their arm? their mole on their cheek? their little toe?Is that the argument you're trying to present...? In either case, I don't see the logic.
I think that the notion of an afterlife is to quell the fear of death. Probably useful when you send people to fight and die for your cause, or to subjugate them by making them believe in the promise that a life of misery and servitude can bring everlasting happiness in death.
when you say hello to someone what part of the body do you address
Not really relevant to discuss on this thread since it proposes that the only problem with the atfer life is that it is not logical...
“ when you say hello to someone what part of the body do you address ”
Assuming all of their senses are intact, I address the person's face - the eyes, ears, and mouth, as that is how they communicate and recognize communication.
and lo and behold the soul does leave the body when we die
original said:No, I don't need to see someone to speak to someone, nor do I need to see them to hear them.
Assuming all of their senses are intact, I address the person's face - the eyes, ears, and mouth, as that is how they communicate and recognize communication.
You are starting from the assumption that "god created the body and the soul" - whereas the thread starts from the assumption that god created the body:lightgigantic said:In other words because god created the body and the soul, there is no reason to consider that the soul can leave the body once it has finished "driving" it for a while.