Positive Thinking and Belief in an Afterlife

[Technar]

Positive thinking (PT) is a method of health keeping and/or self-perfection. It consists of three main principles:

1. In situation of uncertainty, prefer the positive.
Example: you are walking in the street. Behind your back you hear laughter. You do not know the cause of it, so you ought to think that it is not about you.

2. Avoid the negative.
I.e., negative thoughts, images, words, deeds (both in output and in input).

3. Look for the positive.
I.e., make it your habbit to consciously seek the positive.

In my opinion, belief in an afterlife is a case in exercise of the PT. It is a typical situation of uncertainty: it is unknown if there is an immortal soul or not and, on the one side, aimless suffering is extemely negative and, on the other side, eternal life is extemely positive, so one ought to prefer the latter.

 

[Bebelina]

So which one do you prefer?

 

[Technar]

In this thread I've intended to show, that base for human religious behavior may be quite rational.

To Bebelina:

1. I want to be virtuous.

2. I see in consistency a virtue.

3. I use the scientific method.

So, to be virtuous, I have to accept the scientific-materialistic model of the Universe, according to which there is no supernatural and, consequently, no immortal soul.

I am suffering for Life's immortality. (Please, see the discussion "Long Live Life!") Thus, I am getting both the Supreme Goal and (a kind of) eternal life.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Technar
Positive thinking (PT) is a method of health keeping and/or self-perfection. It consists of three main principles:

1. In situation of uncertainty, prefer the positive.
Example: you are walking in the street. Behind your back you hear laughter. You do not know the cause of it, so you ought to think that it is not about you.*

Why?
What if the people laughing are laughing because you are headed for an open manhole, and they are thinking it is funny just thinking about you falling into it?

*2. Avoid the negative.
I.e., negative thoughts, images, words, deeds (both in output and in input).*

How do plan on making additional prints of your photos?
The photo lab will need your negatives.

*3. Look for the positive.
I.e., make it your habbit to consciously seek the positive.*

Try starting your car with only one cable connected and only to the positive post.
It won't start.

*In my opinion, belief in an afterlife is a case in exercise of the PT.*

No, it is merely practical.
What do you think would follow life if not an "afterlife?, a "beforelife?"

*It is a typical situation of uncertainty: it is unknown if there is an immortal soul or not*

Actually, it is known that there is NOT an immortal soul.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die....
(Ezekiel 18:20, KJV).

*and, on the one side, aimless suffering is extemely negative and, on the other side, eternal life is extemely positive, so one ought to prefer the latter. *

Most actually do.
The problem is that preferring to live does not guarantee living, no matter how "positively" you think.
You could be positively wrong.

*3. I use the scientific method.*

The scientific method?
You mean the method which sounds very reasonable, yet has failed to demonstrate is own effectiveness by failing to follow its own principles?
One of the principles of the scientific method is to use other methods to verify repeatability of results.
What other method has been used to determine that results obtained by the scientific method are valid?

*Thus, I am getting both the Supreme Goal and (a kind of) eternal life.*

A "kind of" eternal life is better known as death.

BTW, Hi Bebelina.

 

[Technar]

tony1, what is your religion?

 

[Raithere]

tony1's misunderstanding of science

Originally posted by tony1
One of the principles of the scientific method is to use other methods to verify repeatability of results.

Um, no. The "other methods" here do not refer to methods other than scientific ones. Such would be an inane statement. Science uses many different methods to verify results but all of these fall within the realm of Science... else it would not be science. The method itself must be reliable and repeatable.

How would one use an unrelable method to dermine validity? It's like using a cooked piece of spaghetti to dig a hole... or perhaps a Christian praying to Zeus for forgiveness.

Your misunderstanding of Science is so basic it's no wonder you don't believe in it's veracity.

~Raithere