Do theists know deep down that there no afterlife?
- Thread starter Oniw17
- Start date
So you disagree with your own statement?
My statement is that your assertion was arrant nonsense.
If you agree with that then you're retracting your assertion, neh?
That says that non-believers are dead.
Hence belief (in Christ) distinguishes life from death: nonsense or not?
Make your mind up:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1529660&postcount=104
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1529660&postcount=104
Keep going.
Those outside of Christ are dead. Your words.
Implying those inside aren't.
So what's the difference between them other than belief?
Or are you just going to continue with unsubstantiated snide one-liners?
Those outside of Christ are dead. Your words.
Implying those inside aren't.
So what's the difference between them other than belief?
Or are you just going to continue with unsubstantiated snide one-liners?
According to you I'm already dead, so no big deal.
Well, I will not ever again address this issue of "qualification" as a requirement to percieve the fundamental existence of such a fundamental entity as a universal god.
My final (and too oft repeated) word is this. There is no currently observed phenomenon in the visible universe that is better explained as the result of a god (including the neurochemically generated "visions" or insights (delusions?)) of "advanced theists", and the most intellectually bankrupt position to take for the as-yet unexplained phenomena of the cosmos is to leap to the absolute certainty of a "god".
No more, no more.
Yes. All. Given that the best understanding we have of the workings of the physical world (including the hardware of the brain - which has the side effect of a self referential feedback mechanism called consciousness) is that it is largely the result of inter and intra atomic interactions.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Theists would use this to attack non-believers (rationalists) but actually it reads like a pretty good description of what science propounds. All of the religious philosophy in the history of humanity has yielded nothing but a generally flawed set of "insights" into humanity and the cosmos.
Supe
---imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
----a cheating propensity .... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc
any of the insights of empiricism, particularly those that fall outside of a directly perceived cause or effect, can find a snug spot on the shelf next to Isaac Asimov
so in other words you are saying no qualification is required?
in other words you grant the status of persons who make positive claims as "neurochemically generated visions" - is that an empirical claim or is merely one that tallies very conveniently with your value system?
then I guess we can also oust such fictional entities as people's minds and the nature of individual consciousness and responsibility (congratulations - you have just turfed out the entire system of reward and punishment from milk monitors to the legal system)
sorry - that's not empirical
are we talking science or science-fiction?
given that empiricism has these four fundamental flaws
---imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
----a cheating propensity .... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc
any of the insights of empiricism, particularly those that fall outside of a directly perceived cause or effect, can find a snug spot on the shelf next to Isaac Asimov
Read? A second ago you were asking me how many I've met. To prevent future hassle kindly get your thoughts and questions in order then get back to me.
Well, it can generally be understood by looking at the word itself:
"after"... "life".
Not to mention it is the standard definition of afterlife: 'A life or existence believed to follow death'.
Come now lg, you of all people can't really argue against standard definitions now can you?
Weee.. use one fantasy to try and lend credence to another fantasy. Keep up the good work :bugeye:
Where is it's relevance to what I said? Oh wait, you're not into that whole "relevance" thing are you?
Hmm, now you agree that afterlives are fantasy.
O.....k :shrug:
Don't be stupid.
Give me a valid alternative.
Indeed. Let me know what happens when you're dead.
-----
Not really, no. If you make a claim that you cannot adequately test, it is fantasy/ imagination. It might ultimately be real, that's not the point - it is simply that an untested/untestable claim has no valid way of making it beyond fantasy status. This goes for gods, heavens and invisible leprechauns.
Not really, no - unless you have some kind of magical ability to see at what exact moment in the process of dying that they have these experiences. Furthermore, these experiences can be given to perfectly fine, normal, not dying people and can be shown that they are mere imagination - a product of the brain, not a heavenly realm:
"By deliberately scrambling a person's visual and tactile senses, it is now possible to give them an "out-of-body" experience.
Two procedures – which are the first to imitate an out-of-body experience artificially – use cameras to fool people into thinking they are standing or sitting somewhere else in a room. They provide the strongest proof yet that people only imagine floating out of their bodies during surgery or near-death experiences.
"The brain can trick itself, and when it is trying to interpret sensory information, the image it produces doesn't have to be a real representation," says Henrik Ehrsson, of the Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK, who designed the first experiment....." Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1142175)
If you would rather assert that it's space fairies, space cities or something else similarly peculiar then that's fine, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Not at all. imagination exists, (in those alive and those just about to die).
Scientists however can say a lot more beyond that. Oh and they can share their findings, support their findings, and do test after test after test to show that their findings are true. Now there's something.
So he has arms so he can hug people. ok.
What things then?
Apparently god has a telepathic link to all humans, so no he clearly doesn't hear as I do.
So why does he have eyes? Apparently he is invisible so light would not be hitting his retina. So how does he see with these eyes?
Would god have an appendix?
Snakelord
“
I take it you have never enquired into the age of the tons of theistic philosophers one can approach
when it comes to approaching philosophers, particularly in quantities of "tons", most people would assume that deals with the written medium - but anyway, if you are fortunate enough to have "met" such persons, all the better.
So which philosophers have you met and how old were they?
atom - Greek atomos indivisible, based on a- not + temnein to cut.
so linguistically the word sub-atomic is also an oxymoron
:shrug:
“
what I did say was
I take it you have never enquired into the age of the tons of theistic philosophers one can approach
when it comes to approaching philosophers, particularly in quantities of "tons", most people would assume that deals with the written medium - but anyway, if you are fortunate enough to have "met" such persons, all the better.
So which philosophers have you met and how old were they?
(to the sound of high school drop out across the world rejoicing)
atom - Greek atomos indivisible, based on a- not + temnein to cut.
so linguistically the word sub-atomic is also an oxymoron
:shrug:
If you find the notion of theory as a foundation for knowledge a fantasy, I suggest you take your counter arguments to a day care centre
ditto above
it was more that the line of logic you called to sink my boat just sunk yours
I'm just suggesting the general direction of your statements
erm - that’s the point - empiricism is NOT a valid alternative - if you can understand that first, perhaps there might be the scope to talk of alternatives
yes, thats certainly seems to be the popular methodology of atheists for inquiring into such things
Last edited:
Great, we're not talking about atoms. Are you asserting to me that the afterlife comes at a stage other than after life?
The day you have something to show otherwise get back to me.
O...k, so give me a valid alternative. You clearly have an issue with using the senses so therefore must be espousing that one uses non-sense. It's a good argument :bugeye:
So, this material world and your life now are the afterlife or will the afterlife come after life?
Snakelord
“
:shrug:
“
and you called on linguistics specifically to indicate it is not true ... do me a lemon
well looks like you are not the one to discuss anything that is dealt with in university curriculums - perhaps we should discuss star trek
I've been trying for the past 1000 posts - every time you contend its not valid because it doesn't correlate with empiricism
:shrug:
or so a person who claims empiricism is valid would no doubt say .....
depends on your consciousness
I stated that the afterlife must come after life given the very definition of the word. (This is like your ghost arguments in the other thread.. a ghost can't be a living person because it's a dead person by definition). If you now reject your own arguments then fine. Have at it.
:shrug: Seems this is all you can fall back on when you can't support your claims. Do me a lemon.
Really? Show me where you offered an alternative. Maybe I just didn't notice amongst all those personal statements concerning me as opposed to the argument.
Explain.
Snakelord
“
one views oneself as the enjoyer of this world (this includes atheists and even some theists)
the other views god as the enjoyer of this world
“
and I stated that sub atoms must not exist given the very definition of the word atom (maybe I was trying to suggest something about linguistics)
the claim was theory plays an important part in practice, and practice plays an important part in values/conclusions - you claim this is not supported?
perhaps you could show me an example where you don't wind up on concluding its false because it doesn't fall within the folds of empiricism?
hey, I'm just following your lead
basically two types
one views oneself as the enjoyer of this world (this includes atheists and even some theists)
the other views god as the enjoyer of this world