Do you believe in life after death??

kemod7
kemod7's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2006-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Humans just happen to have an intellect many times that of any other animal. We also have a frontal lobe, something no other animal has, It's what makes us different from animals. We "think and stuff" because we are INTELLIGENT. Animals do not have the capacity for self-conciousness like we do. That "we must have a purpose of existence" way of thinking has been around since man learned to write. It's what makes us think there is a god. Humans NEED answers, and when they can't find a logical answer for an unanswerable question, they make shit up. So yeah, I don't believe in life after death because we are just a small part of mother nature.

What do you think??

We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking,
if mankind is to survive.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I think you said it very well, my sentiments echo yours.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


2RAW
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I'm to the understanding that in order for us to have an afterlife, we MUST possess a 'soul' or a 'spirit'.
I haven't met one person yet who can explain to me how a 'soul' or a 'spirit' developed from a sperm and an egg.
Have any of you?

You are who you are, not what you are.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

2RAW wrote:

Have any of you?

Not sufficiently or coherently.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


GuentherBacon
Rational VIP!
GuentherBacon's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I was once part of a Paranormal Investigators group called PRISM (Paranormal Research and Investigative Studies Midwest). My understanding, during this time and still even today, is that when we die, we are dead and we rot in the ground, so I am a skeptic when it comes to ghosts.

Scientifically, I theorize that John Dalton's first law of thermodynamics would allow for the existence of ghosts, but I could never prove it one way or another, which is why it kept me interested.

Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
The Book Of Satan IV:3, The Satanic Bible


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

What is life anyways? Life is the exception of death.

Life after death? Am I in the same boat for hoping death after life after death after life?

I'm a dipshit.


GuentherBacon
Rational VIP!
GuentherBacon's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
What is life anyways? Life is the exception of death.

Life after death? Am I in the same boat for hoping death after life after death after life?

Whatever boat you're in needs to be hit with a torpedo and capsized. Death is the absence of life, not the exception of death. Not only is that illogical, but certainly a nihilistic point of view.

As for the second sentence, it sounds like too much use of circular logic to really have a point anyway.

Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
The Book Of Satan IV:3, The Satanic Bible


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

GuentherBacon wrote:

Whatever boat you're in needs to be hit with a torpedo and capsized. Death is the absence of life, not the exception of death. Not only is that illogical, but certainly a nihilistic point of view.

As for the second sentence, it sounds like too much use of circular logic to really have a point anyway.


You say death is the absence of life as if you knew this... and if you know this, then I will know you have not taken it upon yourself to see this... truth, with a different perspective.

The second sentence can be considered circular, hardly logic, and more precisely cylclical.

I'm a dipshit.


Devon
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I believe that when we die, well, we die. It's the same as being knocked unconscious; you have no idea what is happening, or have any thoughts at all. It's just an end.

For most people this is a frightening concept, but honestly, you're not going to know the difference when it happens. Can I prove this? Of course not, but it makes the most sense out of any explanation, once you subtract the emotional need for an afterlife.


notsaved
notsaved's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2006-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Re: Do you believe in life after death??

kemod7 wrote:
Humans just happen to have an intellect many times that of any other animal. We also have a frontal lobe, something no other animal has, It's what makes us different from animals. We "think and stuff" because we are INTELLIGENT. Animals do not have the capacity for self-conciousness like we do. That "we must have a purpose of existence" way of thinking has been around since man learned to write. It's what makes us think there is a god. Humans NEED answers, and when they can't find a logical answer for an unanswerable question, they make shit up. So yeah, I don't believe in life after death because we are just a small part of mother nature.

What do you think??

What can I say. You nailed it quite well old mate!

I am an atheist because I do not believe in any Gods or anything related to the imaginary subjective supernatural realm that does not exist outside the mind. -- NotSaved


pavlos
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-03-24
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

You say death is the absence of life as if you knew this...
can you show us another way
Gravity wrote:
and if you know this, then I will know you have not taken it upon yourself to see this... truth, with a different perspective.
and how do we go about doing that.
do we have to wear a straight jacket and run around, screaming.

theres no silicon heaven, but where do all the calculators go.


GuentherBacon
Rational VIP!
GuentherBacon's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
GuentherBacon wrote:

Whatever boat you're in needs to be hit with a torpedo and capsized. Death is the absence of life, not the exception of death. Not only is that illogical, but certainly a nihilistic point of view.

As for the second sentence, it sounds like too much use of circular logic to really have a point anyway.


You say death is the absence of life as if you knew this... and if you know this, then I will know you have not taken it upon yourself to see this... truth, with a different perspective.

The second sentence can be considered circular, hardly logic, and more precisely cylclical.

I note that you use words to describe my shortcomings, but beat around the bust because you can't actually tell me what they are.

Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
The Book Of Satan IV:3, The Satanic Bible


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

pavlos wrote:
Gravity wrote:

You say death is the absence of life as if you knew this...
can you show us another way

... life is the absence of death? Could dark be the absence of light? Or light be the absence of dark? As if we knew which was something and which one was nothing... We call one nothing so that the other can be something, life, yet we are more dead than we are alive, could it be? I don't know...
Quote:
Gravity wrote:
and if you know this, then I will know you have not taken it upon yourself to see this... truth, with a different perspective.
and how do we go about doing that. do we have to wear a straight jacket and run around, screaming.

Perhaps, for one must know insanity if they are to claim sanity.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

GuentherBacon wrote:

I note that you use words to describe my shortcomings, but beat around the bush because you can't actually tell me what they are.

I apologize, I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. I can't tell you what your shortcomings are? I think that is what you meant.

I know this is the Rational Response board, and that many of you guys consider "Watch him dodge and dive!" a rational response, so I will be more lenient with you.

I suggested that perhaps when we are dead, we are simply awaiting life again, reincarnation was a possibility, although I cannot tell you why it was the possibility I should give on that particular day, at that particular moment. Thus the 'word' cyclical, if that is what you meant by words. And it isn't logic. Again, I understand this is the rational responders board so rational means logic and it appears that this is the defense mechanism of your choice, just as the scientist hides behind the science, religious behind the religious, the logicians behind their logic.

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
Again, I understand this is the rational responders board so rational means logic and it appears that this is the defense mechanism of your choice, just as the scientist hides behind the science, religious behind the religious, the logicians behind their logic.

I don't think it is a defense mechanism to describe well, common sense logic. I don't believe religious people are hiding either, religious people are brainwashed into thinking a certain "absolute" truth WITHOUT using logic, but instead, faith. Scientists, Logicians use known empirical evidence and their brain to describe the reality which sourrounds them. Sceintists and logicians don't believe in absolutes where as the religious do. But none the less, it's not hiding.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian
Posts: 33
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I'm sorry folks, I don't give a licks credance to it at all. Science says that when the body dies, it dies which means the orgain that kept all the nurons together have decomposed. A collection of thoughts with no brain holding them? Too hokie for me.

It is concievable that your decayed body will be concumed by bacteria and that will become food for something else that is living and passed on to another living organism. But, that is all we know.

Ghosts are mythology and the claims of such, although have been around since early humans, only means that what these people see they didn't see as natural and incerted a comic book super natural false answer to it. They were too afraid to see it for what it was. A halucination based on superstition.

Come on folks? A disimbodied life with no skin, no organs, no brain? Just a cloud shaped like a human? Way too far fetched to me.

[b]FREETHOUGHT MEDIA AND INFIDEL GUY BRING YOU LOTS OF NEW RADIO HOSTS THE RATIONAL REDNECK,RATIONAL RESPONDERS, SILKY SHREW, BIBLE GEEK, OLD TIME ATHEIST HOUR AND MUCH MUCH MORE, BUY THEIR SHOWS AND DONATE TO ALL THESE SITES, HELP SPREAD THE VOICE OF RE


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

I don't think it is a defense mechanism to describe well, common sense logic. I don't believe religious people are hiding either, religious people are brainwashed into thinking a certain "absolute" truth WITHOUT using logic, but instead, faith. Scientists, Logicians use known empirical evidence and their brain to describe the reality which sourrounds them. Sceintists and logicians don't believe in absolutes where as the religious do. But none the less, it's not hiding.

It may not be a defense mechanism, but many people hide behind them. Religious people are brainwashed, yes, more than likely, but then you tell me "common sense logic" and empirical evidence doesn't contribute to ... logical brainwashing? ... How can rational responders rationalize that?

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:

I don't think it is a defense mechanism to describe well, common sense logic. I don't believe religious people are hiding either, religious people are brainwashed into thinking a certain "absolute" truth WITHOUT using logic, but instead, faith. Scientists, Logicians use known empirical evidence and their brain to describe the reality which sourrounds them. Sceintists and logicians don't believe in absolutes where as the religious do. But none the less, it's not hiding.

It may not be a defense mechanism, but many people hide behind them. Religious people are brainwashed, yes, more than likely, but then you tell me "common sense logic" and empirical evidence doesn't contribute to ... logical brainwashing? ... How can rational responders rationalize that?

well. the definition of brainwashing is: forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs. I don't think the Rational Respondse Squad is forcing their attitudes or beliefs on anyone. They simply refute what is not logical. I also think that logical brainwashing is an oxymoron. Logic describes material truth. And material truth is indisputable. I will rephrase that scientests and logicians dto believe in some absolute truths, but these are truths that have withstood the test of scrutiny and time without change; IE, a chair will always be a chair. It is not imaginary, it is not metaphysical, it is material it is there. Your brain is your brain...a pencil is a pencil and I guarantee you there is no monster underneath my bed no matter how afraid I may be of that idea. That is indisputable. Tell me how that would be brainwashing, to refute all evidence regarding a monster under your bed. You are just exposing the truth and refuting a metaphisical argument which has no basis or proof.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

well. the definition of brainwashing is: forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs. I don't think the Rational Respondse Squad is forcing their attitudes or beliefs on anyone. They simply refute what is not logical. I also think that logical brainwashing is an oxymoron. Logic describes material truth. And material truth is indisputable. I will rephrase that scientests and logicians dto believe in some absolute truths, but these are truths that have withstood the test of scrutiny and time without change; IE, a chair will always be a chair. It is not imaginary, it is not metaphysical, it is material it is there. Your brain is your brain...a pencil is a pencil and I guarantee you there is no monster underneath my bed no matter how afraid I may be of that idea. That is indisputable. Tell me how that would be brainwashing, to refute all evidence regarding a monster under your bed. You are just exposing the truth and refuting a metaphisical argument which has no basis or proof.

First, material truth, do you have a bottle of it or something? Logic is not material truth, analytic philosophy is really just a set of metaphors brought together and defined precisely, they are shells of words. To say all bachelors are unmarried is true, how can it be false? But it has nothing to do with material truth, because we defined bachelor and unmarried to be synonymous of each other, that bachelor be defined based on the being married. As for this material truth you speak of, I again ask, do you have a bottle of it, or are you going to keep pretending that logic isn't anthropomorphically designed and bottled with human bottles. Then I would ask where you get this leap of faith to trust man from?

That being said, most arguments have no basis, no proof. This is good. This means we can't wander around waving our new god around, science and logic. That these too are refutable, this means we are in a constant state of questioning. We don't know, we never will, but we always search. Is it pointless to search for something we will never find? No, definitely not, it may not be logical, but logic is not man's god anymore.

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:

First, material truth, do you have a bottle of it or something? Logic is not material truth, analytic philosophy is really just a set of metaphors brought together and defined precisely, they are shells of words. To say all bachelors are unmarried is true, how can it be false? But it has nothing to do with material truth, because we defined bachelor and unmarried to be synonymous of each other, that bachelor be defined based on the being married. As for this material truth you speak of, I again ask, do you have a bottle of it, or are you going to keep pretending that logic isn't anthropomorphically designed and bottled with human bottles. Then I would ask where you get this leap of faith to trust man from?

That being said, most arguments have no basis, no proof. This is good. This means we can't wander around waving our new god around, science and logic. That these too are refutable, this means we are in a constant state of questioning. We don't know, we never will, but we always search. Is it pointless to search for something we will never find? No, definitely not, it may not be logical, but logic is not man's god anymore.

Ha...if I show you a bottle, can you deny it's existence? It can be an empty bottle, but a bottle none the less. Would you say, this bottle is a projection of a metaphysical world for us to see, ie, is this bottle not even there? no..of course not...it is indeed here. material truth. However, having said that...I am not a logician. I never even took a course in logic, and I'm not a philosophist either, however I am a scientist and let me tell you this, in science the way we prove or disprove hypothesis is by material testing and observation, which I would assume, uses logic in order to make sense of what we are testing and observing. If I want to test the idea that there is a gas in an empty bottle there are ways to do so. And yes...there is gas, that's a material truth. Right? I can prove it by showing you. physical hard evidence...

As far as logic bein anthropogenic, I say of course it is..it has to be..otherwise how could us humans use it. Logic (in the philosophical sense) has been used for argumentative purposes..sets of rules designed to keep an argument concise and straightforward. Logic, is making sense..of things..and it has to be anthropogenic, I don't see monkeys or dogs use logic to make their points..and logic and science are not human's god...never was never will be and no one ever claimed them to be, but I guess you.

Science is this constant state of questioning. Which is good, otherwise we'd be stuck with God and fables as the absolute truth wihtout questioning.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

Ha...if I show you a bottle, can you deny it's existence? It can be an empty bottle, but a bottle none the less. Would you say, this bottle is a projection of a metaphysical world for us to see, ie, is this bottle not even there? no..of course not...it is indeed here. material truth. However, having said that...I am not a logician. I never even took a course in logic, and I'm not a philosophist either, however I am a scientist and let me tell you this, in science the way we prove or disprove hypothesis is by material testing and observation, which I would assume, uses logic in order to make sense of what we are testing and observing. If I want to test the idea that there is a gas in an empty bottle there are ways to do so. And yes...there is gas, that's a material truth. Right? I can prove it by showing you. physical hard evidence...

As far as logic bein anthropogenic, I say of course it is..it has to be..otherwise how could us humans use it. Logic (in the philosophical sense) has been used for argumentative purposes..sets of rules designed to keep an argument concise and straightforward. Logic, is making sense..of things..and it has to be anthropogenic, I don't see monkeys or dogs use logic to make their points..and logic and science are not human's god...never was never will be and no one ever claimed them to be, but I guess you.

Science is this constant state of questioning. Which is good, otherwise we'd be stuck with God and fables as the absolute truth wihtout questioning.


I too am a scientist. And I tell you this: Science has not proven material truth. Science, can only prove science, in the scope of science. That is, physical science is not the study of existence, but the study of physical nature. What is beyond the universe is beyond science- and what is beyond science may not be beyond existence. Thus, we can not use methodological naturalism on what may be beyond science, however, we cannot assume there is nothing there.

As for logic being anthropomorphically designed, it is set for our minds only. So unless our minds are the only ways of seeing things, they cannot be material truths. Perhaps the monkey and the dogs see something else that we cannot.

This material truth you speak of... this gas in the bottle, is it nothing more than a sensation, a perception?

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

I too am a scientist. And I tell you this: Science has not proven material truth. Science, can only prove science, in the scope of science. That is, physical science is not the study of existence, but the study of physical nature. What is beyond the universe is beyond science- and what is beyond science may not be beyond existence. Thus, we can not use methodological naturalism on what may be beyond science, however, we cannot assume there is nothing there.

As for logic being anthropomorphically designed, it is set for our minds only. So unless our minds are the only ways of seeing things, they cannot be material truths. Perhaps the monkey and the dogs see something else that we cannot.

This material truth you speak of... this gas in the bottle, is it nothing more than a sensation, a perception?

But now you are assuming there is something beyond the universe. A priori argument. Why would you assume there is soemthing outside of the natural? what reason would you have, besides faith and fear of some sort of creator's retribution to have belief that there is something outside fo the natural being.

Our minds are designed to decipher what our senes percieve, although tihis is not flawless...it is what it is and logic follows that. Logic is flawed, I agree but it's better than blind faith.

Gas in a bottle is not a mer sensation, it is there...I can prove it. I can show you...so I don't get your drift.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

But now you are assuming there is something beyond the universe. A priori argument. Why would you assume there is soemthing outside of the natural? what reason would you have, besides faith and fear of some sort of creator's retribution to have belief that there is something outside fo the natural being.

Our minds are designed to decipher what our senes percieve, although tihis is not flawless...it is what it is and logic follows that. Logic is flawed, I agree but it's better than blind faith.

Gas in a bottle is not a mer sensation, it is there...I can prove it. I can show you...so I don't get your drift.


No reason. That is the purest form of knowledge, nothing. Kant got it wrong, Socrates almost got it right. We can make best guesses at best. I can say this gas in a bottle is real with all my might, but I can not say it is undeniable proof unless I abolish that faculty in my brain that denies things. Suddenly the natural is just as real as the unnatural, it is arbitrary to put all the faith in the perceptions so I leave my faith completely out of it (that is a lie, I do have faith in my ability to continue thinking).

You too admit that Logic is flawed, but you say it is better than blind faith. Perhaps you also meant faith without tainted glasses- faith in the human perception. Well, I tell you to try and take off the human glasses and see how blind we really are.

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:

But now you are assuming there is something beyond the universe. A priori argument. Why would you assume there is soemthing outside of the natural? what reason would you have, besides faith and fear of some sort of creator's retribution to have belief that there is something outside fo the natural being.

Our minds are designed to decipher what our senes percieve, although tihis is not flawless...it is what it is and logic follows that. Logic is flawed, I agree but it's better than blind faith.

Gas in a bottle is not a mer sensation, it is there...I can prove it. I can show you...so I don't get your drift.


No reason. That is the purest form of knowledge, nothing. Kant got it wrong, Socrates almost got it right. We can make best guesses at best. I can say this gas in a bottle is real with all my might, but I can not say it is undeniable proof unless I abolish that faculty in my brain that denies things. Suddenly the natural is just as real as the unnatural, it is arbitrary to put all the faith in the perceptions so I leave my faith completely out of it (that is a lie, I do have faith in my ability to continue thinking).

You too admit that Logic is flawed, but you say it is better than blind faith. Perhaps you also meant faith without tainted glasses- faith in the human perception. Well, I tell you to try and take off the human glasses and see how blind we really are.

I say this... if what you say is true...that we need to take off the "tainted glasses" then obviously you are all knowing. You now have taken the role of God. Because you are now telling me that the truth we see is only limited by our human experience. My question to you..how do you know this? How can you be so sure.. that there is something outside our senses?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

I say this... if what you say is true...that we need to take off the "tainted glasses" then obviously you are all knowing. You now have taken the role of God. Because you are now telling me that the truth we see is only limited by our human experience. My question to you..how do you know this? How can you be so sure.. that there is something outside our senses?

My point was that the tainted glasses represented the human ability to perceive the world.If you haven't noticed, humans like to have this notion that god looks just like them- they think only in terms of human words, of human logic, of human emotions. If a goat were to think differently, would it be more correct? Would then the gods and satyrs be swapped?

My point is that when you take away our natural tendency to think in terms of ourselves, you realize that we really do not know anything. We do not logically possess the power the imagine infinite bounds, so we need a creator. I guess you can say our intuition has gone to shit.

How can I be so sure that something is outside your senses? Did I not just say that I do not know, but assuming truth is only a quality of the sensible seems just as arbitrary as assuming that we are living within a subjective dream? There are many critiques of reason and logic out there (not meaning Kantian).

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

My point was that the tainted glasses represented the human ability to perceive the world.If you haven't noticed, humans like to have this notion that god looks just like them- they think only in terms of human words, of human logic, of human emotions. If a goat were to think differently, would it be more correct? Would then the gods and satyrs be swapped?

My point is that when you take away our natural tendency to think in terms of ourselves, you realize that we really do not know anything. We do not logically possess the power the imagine infinite bounds, so we need a creator. I guess you can say our intuition has gone to shit.

How can I be so sure that something is outside your senses? Did I not just say that I do not know, but assuming truth is only a quality of the sensible seems just as arbitrary as assuming that we are living within a subjective dream? There are many critiques of reason and logic out there (not meaning Kantian).

Anthropogenic and anthropmorphic tendencies are human nature, I agree which is why I respond to and believe in nothing but empirical evidence because as you a say, we're only humans. Assuming that there is no way for humans to know whether there is a god/world/extra-humanistic entitiy, ie..the supernatural, I will not default to that idea just because there is no way of me knowing, due to my limited human experience. Allowing yourself to "default" to the idea that since we're "limited by our human experience we have to believe in the supernatural", leads to a very detrimental human experience and society as history has shown. So I look at the reality of the world as I see it with my eyes, I look at the history of the world and of my own human experience and make sense of it...religion, and god are slowly choking the life out of this earth, they supress thought and speech. And frankly, you can argue the many philosophical points you want...but as my quote below says...philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned. I will default to the safe humanistic side of things. Because, that is after all, all I know; ie emprical evidence and history.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

hey somebody did their intro cousre in philosophy and dropped some terms that are not even used correctly.

Quote:
To say all bachelors are unmarried is true, how can it be false? But it has nothing to do with material truth, because we defined bachelor and unmarried to be synonymous of each other, that bachelor be defined based on the being married

no they are no synonymous. Fire is hot are all hot things fire, no. Bachelors are unmarried are all unmarried things bachelors? no. It is not A=B and B=A Because A and B are not things they are conditions, the words to not pick out objects but objects with conditions.

If I said A = B and C = B does that mean A = C? No not if A B and C pick out catagories or conditions. If they are primary qualities like numbers then yes. 4=2+2 =6-2. True. All dogs are animals and all cats are animals does not meas all animals are dogs and cats.

Its not just word sets and rules, math can be abstract on in as it can be hypothedical. But when you say 2 plus 2 is 4 the 2 picks out something real and meterial in the world that ther eis two of or two conditions of. I have two hands etc.

But objects pre-date the conditions for the conditions are about the objects.

Quote:
... life is the absence of death? Could dark be the absence of light? Or light be the absence of dark? As if we knew which was something and which one was nothing... We call one nothing so that the other can be something, life, yet we are more dead than we are alive, could it be? I don't know...

Yellow is not the absence of not yellow. Yellow is yellow as in it is a frequency of light. The something is the one whitch is empirical and has effects. Consintrate a bean of light and make heat or even a fire etc. Darkness is the non-thing. It doesn't even matter because the example does not even hold with the life example. Life is not a thing it is a particular condition of a thing. On the most simple level steam is not just H2O it is H2O above a certain tempature. If we nothing of liquid water or Ice we would still call it steam. Polar Contrast is not the only way to know things. Taoism is (can be)a religion too and that is one of its holes.

Quote:
I suggested that perhaps when we are dead, we are simply awaiting life again, reincarnation was a possibility, although I cannot tell you why it was the possibility I should give on that particular day, at that particular moment

When we are dae we... just what is that we picking out? Is it not putting the cart before the horse to just assume their is a "we" some kind of life waiting thing (a soul or ghost maybe) that is awaiting to become what reincarnated and that would be what, inside a moving body again?

is there a "we" some agent that waits around to animate things after its vessal have been damaged? This is nonsense. It has no philosophical or rational basis. It is a matter of faith and imaginaiton. And its basis is the assumption of a an (unfactually and illogicaly) invented animating agent.

Quote:
Science has not proven material truth. Science, can only prove science, in the scope of science. That is, physical science is not the study of existence, but the study of physical nature

contradiction. You are assuming the metaphysical exist. And then trying to jump from because it might exist that would somehow negate the existence of meterial. Physical nature is what existence is and opperates. All things change according to unchanging laws. Thats the principle of uniformity. Which you believe in or you would not be able to type any words for with no logic or reason or knowledge of physical nature then why even believe your key board types messages just because it did yesterday. Hell why even believe it isn't an alein or that when you touch it you will fall inside a giant hole. Because all those tings are possible when you do away with physical nautre its uniformity, laws, and empirically demostratable histories.

Quote:
As for this material truth you speak of, I again ask, do you have a bottle of it, or are you going to keep pretending that logic isn't anthropomorphically designed and bottled with human bottles. Then I would ask where you get this leap of faith to trust man from?

The bottle is the meterial truth and the truth of meterial is the meterial.

Quote:
are you going to keep pretending that logic isn't anthropomorphically designed and bottled with human bottles. Then I would ask where you get this leap of faith to trust man from?

anthropromorphic does not mean anything that comes form people. It means modeled after people, such as a god or a vampire or a humanoid alien creature. A lot of our science come from matchines. Of course we being people are the final "lends". Pragmatically speaking you live in the universe you can ot even say there as a place "outside" the universe which may be infinate. Do want to deny with intellectual honesty physical science? Do you want to thorw gas on a fire in your house instaed of water because all that logic and testable physical science is mere metaphor after all and an unknown nonmeterial agent might change the rules and the fire will build things in my house rather than burn them. Of course if you burn you might just be riencarnated anyway. lol

this is such crap there is no sincereness in these claims. you believe in logic when it suits you.

Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.

www.anti-neocons.com or www.Rys2sense.com


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Ry wrote:
hey somebody did their intro cousre in philosophy and dropped some terms that are not even used correctly.

no they are no synonymous. Fire is hot are all hot things fire, no. Bachelors are unmarried are all unmarried things bachelors? no. It is not A=B and B=A Because A and B are not things they are conditions, the words to not pick out objects but objects with conditions.

If I said A = B and C = B does that mean A = C? No not if A B and C pick out catagories or conditions. If they are primary qualities like numbers then yes. 4=2+2 =6-2. True. All dogs are animals and all cats are animals does not meas all animals are dogs and cats.


Yikes. I didn't mean the if and only if conditional statement. By synonymous, I meant similar in definition, that is all. Bachelor is based on the status of being unmarried or married. It is not the only condition, no. It is a necessary condition to also be a male. And now we are defining bachelor, which I really do not feel like doing. My whole point was that analytic truths are merely matters of definition and deductive logic. They do not serve much purpose.

Quote:
Its not just word sets and rules, math can be abstract on in as it can be hypothetical. But when you say 2 plus 2 is 4 the 2 picks out something real and meterial in the world that ther eis two of or two conditions of. I have two hands etc.

But objects pre-date the conditions for the conditions are about the objects.


You'd be interested in Kant's critique of pure reason. However, the book is hard to understanding, at Kant's fault. Kant's prolegomena is a better source (I've sourced it).

Quote:

Yellow is not the absence of not yellow. Yellow is yellow as in it is a frequency of light. The something is the one whitch is empirical and has effects. Concentrate a beam of light and make heat or even a fire etc. Darkness is the non-thing. It doesn't even matter because the example does not even hold with the life example. Life is not a thing it is a particular condition of a thing. On the most simple level steam is not just H2O it is H2O above a certain tempature. If we nothing of liquid water or Ice we would still call it steam. Polar Contrast is not the only way to know things. Taoism is (can be)a religion too and that is one of its holes.

Yet you are right, a quality of a thing could be that which is full, or empty. Is this glass half-full, or half-empty? It is semantics, that we should digress into this, and then we realize, it was also semantics, that made us think like this.

Quote:
I
When we are dae we... just what is that we picking out? Is it not putting the cart before the horse to just assume their is a "we" some kind of life waiting thing (a soul or ghost maybe) that is awaiting to become what reincarnated and that would be what, inside a moving body again?

is there a "we" some agent that waits around to animate things after its vessal have been damaged? This is nonsense. It has no philosophical or rational basis. It is a matter of faith and imaginaiton. And its basis is the assumption of a an (unfactually and illogicaly) invented animating agent.


I don't understand exactly what you are saying, it might just be your grammar though. This agent you speak of could simply be the agent of life, just as death is the agent of dying, life can be the agent of living. Just as nature says, that which lives shall die, could it be true that, that which dies lives? Of course, I'm not one to say much of nature, other than that she is tricky and laced with secrets we will never uncover.

Quote:

contradiction. You are assuming the metaphysical exist. And then trying to jump from because it might exist that would somehow negate the existence of meterial. Physical nature is what existence is and opperates. All things change according to unchanging laws. Thats the principle of uniformity. Which you believe in or you would not be able to type any words for with no logic or reason or knowledge of physical nature then why even believe your key board types messages just because it did yesterday. Hell why even believe it isn't an alein or that when you touch it you will fall inside a giant hole. Because all those tings are possible when you do away with physical nautre its uniformity, laws, and empirically demostratable histories.

It is hardly a contradiction, what you are trying to get it as that I begged the question. And I could also say, no, I did not beg the question, rather I asked it. No physical law states that all existence shall abide by a certain law. This may seem like a bold statement, but I have the background to say it, and we can let that be at that. Rather, physical laws are laws that physical beings abide by, matter, things (if things be so defined as being phenomenal- i.e. touchable or physical), energy, etc. Physics does not extend to metaphysics. To assume the metaphysical exists would be foolish, yes. To assume the metaphysical does not exist, is also foolish. But you may define foolish as doing a thing without reason, and you may define reason as something you can touch, and then you would definitely be the commendable responder of rationality, rationalization, yet I will pass by you and think, "it is a shame that we should stop asking questions to each other."

Quote:

The bottle is the material truth and the truth of material is the material.

Not good enough. Can you present this? Or just stipulate?

Quote:

anthropromorphic does not mean anything that comes form people. It means modeled after people, such as a god or a vampire or a humanoid alien creature. A lot of our science come from matchines. Of course we being people are the final "lends". Pragmatically speaking you live in the universe you can ot even say there as a place "outside" the universe which may be infinite. Do want to deny intellectual honesty physical science? Do you want to thorw gas on a fire in your house instaed of water because all that logic and testable physical science is mere metaphor after all and an unknown nonmeterial agent might change the rules and the fire will build things in my house rather than burn them. Of course if you burn you might just be riencarnated anyway. lol

I hate to argue definitions of words, so I will just define anthropomorphism now and end the debate- anthropomorphism: the representation of a concept (logic, or another example, god) created having an attribution of human qualities. That settles that.

Do I want to deny intellectual honesty with physics? No. If I did, I would have done it before I got halfway done with my physics degree.

Quote:
this is such crap there is no sincereness in these claims. you believe in logic when it suits you.

Astute. I hope you will find the same freedom some day too.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

Anthropogenic and anthropmorphic tendencies are human nature, I agree which is why I respond to and believe in nothing but empirical evidence because as you a say, we're only humans. Assuming that there is no way for humans to know whether there is a god/world/extra-humanistic entitiy, ie..the supernatural, I will not default to that idea just because there is no way of me knowing, due to my limited human experience. Allowing yourself to "default" to the idea that since we're "limited by our human experience we have to believe in the supernatural", leads to a very detrimental human experience and society as history has shown. So I look at the reality of the world as I see it with my eyes, I look at the history of the world and of my own human experience and make sense of it...religion, and god are slowly choking the life out of this earth, they supress thought and speech. And frankly, you can argue the many philosophical points you want...but as my quote below says...philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned. I will default to the safe humanistic side of things. Because, that is after all, all I know; ie emprical evidence and history.

I think soon you will understand the only reason why I let it be known that I am a theist, that is to show that all theists are not ignorant and that blanket statements and hasty generalizations are bound to fail. That god does not choke the world, but people do. With that said, I will never tell anybody to believe in the supernatural, rather, that it may exist, and that you may be wrong.

With that said, I tell you, you know nothing of empirical evidence. You believe it. It is necessary to destroy all foundations if you want to truly become a philosopher. And from the skepticism, the view of the world shall be born, until you finally accept what you understand to be reality. And god said, let there be light, and you seen again. Then came the oceans, and you swam. And on the last day, you rested, for you were vindicated as a god among men.

Not all of us are able to be gods, and in our theistic war, we choke ourselves, choke the world. Unable people, that is your enemy, not theistic adherents.

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

I think soon you will understand the only reason why I let it be known that I am a theist, that is to show that all theists are not ignorant and that blanket statements and hasty generalizations are bound to fail. That god does not choke the world, but people do. With that said, I will never tell anybody to believe in the supernatural, rather, that it may exist, and that you may be wrong.

With that said, I tell you, you know nothing of empirical evidence. You believe it. It is necessary to destroy all foundations if you want to truly become a philosopher. And from the skepticism, the view of the world shall be born, until you finally accept what you understand to be reality. And god said, let there be light, and you seen again. Then came the oceans, and you swam. And on the last day, you rested, for you were vindicated as a god among men.

Not all of us are able to be gods, and in our theistic war, we choke ourselves, choke the world. Unable people, that is your enemy, not theistic adherents.

I think I know why you let it be known that you are a theist. You want to prove a point, which is fine. I look at religion from a societal point of view. Let me make that clear. To prove that not all religious or theist people are ignorant is meaningless, when it comes to the societal problems, repressions and hypocrisy that religion has shown us through history. There are MANY rational theists out there, very smart ones, I know a few of them, but they, usually are on the my side when it comes to societal issues. They too, understand the dangers of religion. I know you're here to make a point, but that point is moot. I'll tell you why, because in the end, no matter how non-ignorant you want us to think you are (or in that case how non-ignorant you really are), it will not change how religion is affecting the millions of people in the world and it will not change the history of religion. I don't doubt you're smart. And I'm not even sure you're really a theist, but playing "devil's advocate" so to speak.

I agree with the statement that god doesn't choke the world, people do. Becuase, ha...alas, god doesn't exist. That is what I had meant anyway. It is people who use this idea of god in the form of religion, that choke the world. You speak from a philosophical and ideological standpoint; which I reject, empirically. I do not know much philosphy to argue with you on the subject, as said before, I'm not a theorist or a philosophist. But that does not mean I do not understand basic facets of reality and/or theory.

I believe empircal evidence, because empirical evidence is observable; testable and has withstood the test of time. Where as religion has not...it keeps changing but, not based on evidence, rather, ideology. Pagan religions, eastern religions, even within the tenets of one religion it has split along ideological lines; how many different factions of islam and xtianity and judaism do you have? (rhetorical question) all hating each other etc....
Back to the point.. my aim is to not become a philosopher as, perhaps, you are..which is why you are here debating; or just being an "asshat" to prove a point.

Theists are not necessarily our enemy, I agree. It is religion. It is what people have become BECAUSE of religion. And with every action comes a reaction, hence us, outspoken atheists. Religion has become so extreme and detrimental that the only way to subdue it is to destroy the idea behind it all, the one unifying aspect of all religion: god. The few good apples left, are a minority in the grand scheme of things. I told a rational theist just the other day, if theism stemmed from your kind of ideologies. There would be no need for people like me, outspoken atheists to fight theism.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

I think I know why you let it be known that you are a theist. You want to prove a point, which is fine. I look at religion from a societal point of view. Let me make that clear. To prove that not all religious or theist people are ignorant is meaningless, when it comes to the societal problems, repressions and hypocrisy that religion has shown us through history. There are MANY rational theists out there, very smart ones, I know a few of them, but they, usually are on the my side when it comes to societal issues. They too, understand the dangers of religion. I know you're here to make a point, but that point is moot. I'll tell you why, because in the end, no matter how non-ignorant you want us to think you are (or in that case how non-ignorant you really are), it will not change how religion is affecting the millions of people in the world and it will not change the history of religion. I don't doubt you're smart. And I'm not even sure you're really a theist, but playing "devil's advocate" so to speak.

Do not get me wrong- I am not for organized thought- I am not for herd mentality, and this is what organized religion is. However, you will not hear me defend religion, but rather, theism. And if you would look less sparingly at your forum pals, you would see that it is theism in general that gets the wrap. Why, it is the first "irrational precept" to believe in god(s). As if, lacking belief in god is necessary for rational thought, and as if rational thought was greater than abstract thought. I can assure, this is one of the few times you can trust me, I consider myself a theist, however I believe in a god in a completely unconventional way, that only Carl Jung has come close to- so one with a different definition of theism may consider me atheist, as I have become to the monotheistic religions.

Quote:
I agree with the statement that god doesn't choke the world, people do. Becuase, ha...alas, god doesn't exist. That is what I had meant anyway. It is people who use this idea of god in the form of religion, that choke the world. You speak from a philosophical and ideological standpoint; which I reject, empirically. I do not know much philosphy to argue with you on the subject, as said before, I'm not a theorist or a philosophist. But that does not mean I do not understand basic facets of reality and/or theory.

This is one thing I have tried to overcome, one need not read to become a philosopher, only to become a philologist. The basic facts of reality, however, is broken down in the realm of philosophy. The idea of god does not choke, rather the religious choke. The idea of god is a painting, a side-effect in the least, really. Much of what the common religious theist attributes to god can be broken down psychologically as something having absolutely nothing to do with god. The biblical god is nothing more than a fictional character living in a poem. When this biblical god is animated by the religious, with their holy paintbrushes, the picture that is painted comes from themselves, their inner conciousness, and unconciousness, their desires, their thoughts, their hopes, their dreams, etc. This painting in turn is set loose on reality, and on society, and their desire for herd mentality attempts to remove the people's paintbrushes from them. But the religious' god, their painting, is nothing more than a painting that we do not find artistic enough. You can criticize the painting, yes, this is too easy, usually one can open a bible to do this, just to show how non-biblical the Christian really is. But if you wish to solve the problem of religion, you need not look to the painting, but to the painter.

Quote:
I believe empircal evidence, because empirical evidence is observable; testable and has withstood the test of time. Where as religion has not...it keeps changing but, not based on evidence, rather, ideology. Pagan religions, eastern religions, even within the tenets of one religion it has split along ideological lines; how many different factions of islam and xtianity and judaism do you have? (rhetorical question) all hating each other etc....
Back to the point.. my aim is to not become a philosopher as, perhaps, you are..which is why you are here debating; or just being an "asshat" to prove a point.

But to prove a point would be hypocritical of me, to suggest a wrong, that is my deed. That is why my reputation is an asshat, that is, because you will rarely hear me agree with you, but rather, disagree with you. And to those shallow enough to not understand my disagreements, I shall be an asshat, as I can be nothing more. Higher culture is necessarily misunderstood.

Quote:
Theists are not necessarily our enemy, I agree. It is religion. It is what people have become BECAUSE of religion.

Let us play these games, and look at this sentence with a ... rational, eye. To say people have become something, because of something else, is to suppose that the something else is the cause of the something. Example, you die, because of the venom from a snake bite. But look again at religion, is it venom? Or does it contain venom? I hope you would say the latter, than we are to refit our analogy, you die, because of a snake, where the snake is analogous to religion, and the venom inside, all the despisable attributes of religion that infect, as you would say it. But keep in mind, that not all snakes bite and kill, so you have to redo your analogy, you die, because of a snake that happened to bite you. Now you can say, people are poisoned, because of their snake bite injecting venom.

But is religion analogous to a snake biting a human and injecting poisons? I would say not, I would say religion is rather, man biting man and injecting poisons. Suddenly the analogy breaks apart, what people have become BECAUSE of religions, and religion has happened BECAUSE of what people have become. I do not feel the need to explain the circular logic to you (I do love playing with fallacy however). Rather, I say your statement is not correct, rather, it is what people have become BECAUSE of people's venom. And then I tell you, this last statement has no religion in it, so it is also true that you too have venom in you, as do I, as do we all. That venom is called human. It is in some humans' nature that religion should become their vessel for poison. It is others' nature that other vessels should be used to spew poison, and atheism/lack-of-religion, is no escape.

Quote:
And with every action comes a reaction, hence us, outspoken atheists. Religion has become so extreme and detrimental that the only way to subdue it is to destroy the idea behind it all, the one unifying aspect of all religion: god. The few good apples left, are a minority in the grand scheme of things. I told a rational theist just the other day, if theism stemmed from your kind of ideologies. There would be no need for people like me, outspoken atheists to fight theism.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

However, you will not hear me defend religion, but rather, theism. And if you would look less sparingly at your forum pals, you would see that it is theism in general that gets the wrap. Why, it is the first "irrational precept" to believe in god(s). As if, lacking belief in god is necessary for rational thought, and as if rational thought was greater than abstract thought.

If billions of people on Earth believed the Earth was made of felt and recycled paper, than that would probably top the list. Instead we see billions of people believing in an invisible man in the sky, with the same amount of proof... NONE. We never said that all theists are irrational as it pertains to anything other than belief in god. Belief in god is irrational, this doesn't mean all people who believe in god are incapable of rational thoughts as it pertains to anything else, it simply means that their belief in god is irrational.

Where do you stop? You believe in an invisible man in the sky... do you also believe that invisible stars are penetrating Earths' atmosphere daily while little green men fly their helicopters at 60,000 feet and shoot those stars down with little pellet guns? If not, why not? You have the same amount of proof for both claims.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Sapient wrote:

If billions of people on Earth believed the Earth was made of felt and recycled paper, than that would probably top the list. Instead we see billions of people believing in an invisible man in the sky, with the same amount of proof... NONE. We never said that all theists are irrational as it pertains to anything other than belief in god. Belief in god is irrational, this doesn't mean all people who believe in god are incapable of rational thoughts as it pertains to anything else, it simply means that their belief in god is irrational.

Where do you stop? You believe in an invisible man in the sky... do you also believe that invisible stars are penetrating Earths' atmosphere daily while little green men fly their helicopters at 60,000 feet and shoot those stars down with little pellet guns? If not, why not? You have the same amount of proof for both claims.


Heh, you should know better to guess my deity as an anthromorphic entity in the sky devoid of all visibility!

Man is defined by his actions, not by his beliefs. I tell you, judge others not by their beliefs, but by their actions.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

Heh, you should know better to guess my deity as an anthromorphic entity in the sky devoid of all visibility!

So, where is your god visible?

Quote:
Man is defined by his actions, not by his beliefs.

This is not always true. Men who believe that rats are constantly gnawing at their feet don't see the light of day from inside the walls of their mental institution, while everyone on the outside defines them as insane. What were saying is, in some respects, there is no difference with theism.

Quote:
I tell you, judge others not by their beliefs, but by their actions.

Judging isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't write someone off for their irrational beliefs, I recognize them and try to help them drop said beliefs(hence our show). ESPECIALLY if their actions are virtuous and desireable.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

Do not get me wrong- I am not for organized thought- I am not for herd mentality, and this is what organized religion is. However, you will not hear me defend religion, but rather, theism. And if you would look less sparingly at your forum pals, you would see that it is theism in general that gets the wrap. Why, it is the first "irrational precept" to believe in god(s). As if, lacking belief in god is necessary for rational thought, and as if rational thought was greater than abstract thought. I can assure, this is one of the few times you can trust me, I consider myself a theist, however I believe in a god in a completely unconventional way, that only Carl Jung has come close to- so one with a different definition of theism may consider me atheist, as I have become to the monotheistic religions.

Define your theism, if you would.

Gravity wrote:

This is one thing I have tried to overcome, one need not read to become a philosopher, only to become a philologist. The basic facts of reality, however, is broken down in the realm of philosophy. The idea of god does not choke, rather the religious choke. The idea of god is a painting, a side-effect in the least, really. Much of what the common religious theist attributes to god can be broken down psychologically as something having absolutely nothing to do with god. The biblical god is nothing more than a fictional character living in a poem. When this biblical god is animated by the religious, with their holy paintbrushes, the picture that is painted comes from themselves, their inner conciousness, and unconciousness, their desires, their thoughts, their hopes, their dreams, etc. This painting in turn is set loose on reality, and on society, and their desire for herd mentality attempts to remove the people's paintbrushes from them. But the religious' god, their painting, is nothing more than a painting that we do not find artistic enough. You can criticize the painting, yes, this is too easy, usually one can open a bible to do this, just to show how non-biblical the Christian really is. But if you wish to solve the problem of religion, you need not look to the painting, but to the painter.

But you yourself said that we are seeing everything through human "tainted" glasses, which would in essence then make philosphy tainted. Because it was thought up by humans.

As far as the painting metaphor...ok?? none the less, all idealistic metaphor. But I get your drift, even though I think you argument is verbose.

Gravity wrote:

But to prove a point would be hypocritical of me, to suggest a wrong, that is my deed. That is why my reputation is an asshat, that is, because you will rarely hear me agree with you, but rather, disagree with you. And to those shallow enough to not understand my disagreements, I shall be an asshat, as I can be nothing more. Higher culture is necessarily misunderstood.

I think by already setting the rule that you would rarely agree with me/us/whoever, you are in a sense, predetermining and prejudging, everyone here are you not? Is not the power of dialogue to try to understand? Both in agreement or disagreement? The reason why this thread is even here, is to have discussion. The point being, if you want us to understand your arguments..than explain ahead..

Gravity wrote:

Let us play these games, and look at this sentence with a ... rational, eye. To say people have become something, because of something else, is to suppose that the something else is the cause of the something. Example, you die, because of the venom from a snake bite. But look again at religion, is it venom? Or does it contain venom? I hope you would say the latter, than we are to refit our analogy, you die, because of a snake, where the snake is analogous to religion, and the venom inside, all the despisable attributes of religion that infect, as you would say it. But keep in mind, that not all snakes bite and kill, so you have to redo your analogy, you die, because of a snake that happened to bite you. Now you can say, people are poisoned, because of their snake bite injecting venom.

But is religion analogous to a snake biting a human and injecting poisons? I would say not, I would say religion is rather, man biting man and injecting poisons. Suddenly the analogy breaks apart, what people have become BECAUSE of religions, and religion has happened BECAUSE of what people have become. I do not feel the need to explain the circular logic to you (I do love playing with fallacy however). Rather, I say your statement is not correct, rather, it is what people have become BECAUSE of people's venom. And then I tell you, this last statement has no religion in it, so it is also true that you too have venom in you, as do I, as do we all. That venom is called human. It is in some humans' nature that religion should become their vessel for poison. It is others' nature that other vessels should be used to spew poison, and atheism/lack-of-religion, is no escape.

ok.....I don't think that your fallacy and circular logic example is even an issue...so the point is that we are humans and that is the problem. No matter what or how we think...we are the fallacy of the universe..then, I ask you, how is your theism any better than our atheism?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Sapient wrote:

So, where is your god visible?

You are not ready to hear my theism.

Quote:
This is not always true. Men who believe that rats are constantly gnawing at their feet don't see the light of day from inside the walls of their mental institution, while everyone on the outside defines them as insane. What were saying is, in some respects, there is no difference with theism.

Bad analogy, if it was one. And you may have a point, I will have more respect for a man who imagines rats gnawing at his feet, yet is still able to function, than just a man who functions, but then this is just his action placed in the contrast of disability, which means you didn't have that point.

Quote:
Judging isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't write someone off for their irrational beliefs, I recognize them and try to help them drop said beliefs(hence our show). ESPECIALLY if their actions are virtuous and desireable.

Who said judging was bad? My point is, don't judge people on their beliefs (and rationality is an attribute of a person, not an attribute of a belief, hence rational people do not believe irrational things- you may say it is irrational to believe something, but not simply that a belief is irrational itself) but by their actions.

Of course if you want to weasel this one out, you can say that someone who is crazy should have been noted as crazy before he murdered half the town, i.e. judged by his thoughts before they turned into actions. Of course, this is a far more complicated discussion that deserves it's own discussion.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

Define your theism, if you would.

God is war. Among the collective unconcious of the world, we naturally have piece with this war, we claim war on god. In the act, we become gods, and realize we've been gods all along. The collective unconcious is the defining bit to reality, in which all humans are connected and receive their sense of reality, while most take the role of ignorant gods. My best guess is that reincarnation is an intimate piece of the puzzle, not so much because we come back to life, but more that we never necessarily die. We are of one being, in my opinion- owing to the natural psychology of such complex minds that all should adhere to similar intuition. Strangely enough, my newest source of theism has been the bible, however. The Abrahamic God said, let there be light... if I am correct, in that few of us are god, it is symbolic of, "let there be reality" - the simple axiomatic beginning of the world we would know. -I don't mean so much the beginning of time, just the breakdown of all things we have come to be brainwashed with by perception, and the absolute pure defining of reality. The story I read today, the tower of babel, involves dripping arrows falling from the sky. However, these are merely abstractions from the bible, which is simply a taking a look at the psychology of human antiquity. The gods of Olympus were also gods of war, and humans projected their inner selves on them- as we naturally anthropomorphically define gods. I do not mean to say war in the sense as WWII, I mean to say the sense of war as in disagreement with god. For if an omnipotent omniscient being ever existed, and it created us the way it did, and we were to speak with it, how do we know that this god is not an illusion? Not a lie? Is a god? And when this being tells us "No," we can naturally say, "I disagree." - And that is a snippet of it- which will probably change by next week, as most my beliefs do.

Quote:
But you yourself said that we are seeing everything through human "tainted" glasses, which would in essence then make philosphy tainted. Because it was thought up by humans.

Very clear observation.

Quote:
As far as the painting metaphor...ok?? none the less, all idealistic metaphor. But I get your drift, even though I think you argument is verbose.

You are lucky to see me write with verbosity, I favor brevity.

Quote:
I think by already setting the rule that you would rarely agree with me/us/whoever, you are in a sense, predetermining and prejudging, everyone here are you not? Is not the power of dialogue to try to understand? Both in agreement or disagreement? The reason why this thread is even here, is to have discussion. The point being, if you want us to understand your arguments..than explain ahead..

You will hear me criticize logic a lot, yet I am still fond of dialectic, how is this so?

Quote:
ok.....I don't think that your fallacy and circular logic example is even an issue...so the point is that we are humans and that is the problem. No matter what or how we think...we are the fallacy of the universe..then, I ask you, how is your theism any better than our atheism?

It isn't. I am not here to convince you that theism is right, rather I am here to convince you that you may be wrong- especially in the irrational precept of theism or faith.

My point was that religion isn't the problem, rather the faculty within us willing to accept religion and let it dominate. The same faculty doesn't only feed on the religious though- so finally, you may see why I only consider fools to believe atheist vs. theist.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:
then, I ask you, how is your theism any better than our atheism?

You will never hear me criticize people for atheism, rather, for their reasons of being atheist. The same for theism. The same for agnosticism (and I do not care if you wish to argue that agnostics are one or the other because this battle is only a battle of accepting definitions and pragmatics/semantics).

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
Sapient wrote:

So, where is your god visible?

You are not ready to hear my theism.

:roll:

Quote:

My point is, don't judge people on their beliefs (and rationality is an attribute of a person, not an attribute of a belief, hence rational people do not believe irrational things- you may say it is irrational to believe something, but not simply that a belief is irrational itself) but by their actions.

Did you just say rational people don't believe irrational things? If so, that would make you irrational... as theism, is not rational.

On a lighter note... great job on the quote boxes. Better than myspace, eh? Also, we haven't unbanned "Gravity" from the chat room, as we have to alter the code in order to get it to work (on our list of things to do), feel free to annoy us with your "bobdole" account in the chatroom, whenever.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Sapient wrote:
Did you just say rational people don't believe irrational things? If so, that would make you irrational... as theism, is not rational.

Oh no.

"On a lighter note... great job on the quote boxes. Better than myspace, eh? Also, we haven't unbanned "Gravity" from the chat room, as we have to alter the code in order to get it to work (on our list of things to do), feel free to annoy us with your "bobdole" account in the chatroom, whenever."

I used to post on a phpBB forum like this, so I have been aware with how horrible MySpace is. And it is cool, I doubt I will have much time for your chat again, as last week I only had time because of spring break.

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:

God is war. Among the collective unconcious of the world, we naturally have piece with this war, we claim war on god. In the act, we become gods, and realize we've been gods all along. The collective unconcious is the defining bit to reality, in which all humans are connected and receive their sense of reality, while most take the role of ignorant gods. My best guess is that reincarnation is an intimate piece of the puzzle, not so much because we come back to life, but more that we never necessarily die. We are of one being, in my opinion- owing to the natural psychology of such complex minds that all should adhere to similar intuition. Strangely enough, my newest source of theism has been the bible, however. The Abrahamic God said, let there be light... if I am correct, in that few of us are god, it is symbolic of, "let there be reality" - the simple axiomatic beginning of the world we would know. -I don't mean so much the beginning of time, just the breakdown of all things we have come to be brainwashed with by perception, and the absolute pure defining of reality. The story I read today, the tower of babel, involves dripping arrows falling from the sky. However, these are merely abstractions from the bible, which is simply a taking a look at the psychology of human antiquity. The gods of Olympus were also gods of war, and humans projected their inner selves on them- as we naturally anthropomorphically define gods. I do not mean to say war in the sense as WWII, I mean to say the sense of war as in disagreement with god. For if an omnipotent omniscient being ever existed, and it created us the way it did, and we were to speak with it, how do we know that this god is not an illusion? Not a lie? Is a god? And when this being tells us "No," we can naturally say, "I disagree." - And that is a snippet of it- which will probably change by next week, as most my beliefs do.


At first, it sounded much like Jihad you were talking about. A struggle within so to speak. I have to say, this is indeed different a more philosophical thiestic defintion than I am used to hearing.

Gravity wrote:

You are lucky to see me write with verbosity, I favor brevity.

I must have sparked something then eh?

Gravity wrote:
You will hear me criticize logic a lot, yet I am still fond of dialectic, how is this so?

Well you can still be fond of something yet criticize it, perhaps your criticism is the reason why you're so fond of dialectics?

Gravity wrote:
It isn't. I am not here to convince you that theism is right, rather I am here to convince you that you may be wrong- especially in the irrational precept of theism or faith.

I believe our difference lies in our philosophies. I'm starting to understand your view, maybe, and I believe that perhaps its linguistics that may be at fault here, ie the irrationality of theism.

Gravity wrote:
My point was that religion isn't the problem, rather the faculty within us willing to accept religion and let it dominate. The same faculty doesn't only feed on the religious though- so finally, you may see why I only consider fools to believe atheist vs. theist.

A false paradigm.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

At first, it sounded much like Jihad you were talking about. A struggle within so to speak. I have to say, this is indeed different a more philosophical thiestic defintion than I am used to hearing.

I still have some things I need to figure out, for one, my extreme lack of psychology knowledge. I have other questions as well, with a collective unconcious, it may seem that if everyone on the earth were to be sad, then you would too, rather I disagree with this. Perhaps emotion, and ultimately, faculty, is spared, or even quantized. As well, some of it is just stipulation, I hope to find evidence so I am not just crawling in the dark. Another hurdle is individuation, or the famous Schopenhauren term, principium individuationis, there has to be to an extent, since I also uphold the existential doctrine that existence precedes essence - to an extent. So, I am far from done, but, I am also far from having the time to study now. So what I have now is random thoughts waiting for me at bus stops and stumbling solace as I commute between classes.

I'm a dipshit.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:

At first, it sounded much like Jihad you were talking about. A struggle within so to speak. I have to say, this is indeed different a more philosophical thiestic defintion than I am used to hearing.

I still have some things I need to figure out, for one, my extreme lack of psychology knowledge. I have other questions as well, with a collective unconcious, it may seem that if everyone on the earth were to be sad, then you would too, rather I disagree with this. Perhaps emotion, and ultimately, faculty, is spared, or even quantized. As well, some of it is just stipulation, I hope to find evidence so I am not just crawling in the dark. Another hurdle is individuation, or the famous Schopenhauren term, principium individuationis, there has to be to an extent, since I also uphold the existential doctrine that existence precedes essence - to an extent. So, I am far from done, but, I am also far from having the time to study now. So what I have now is random thoughts waiting for me at bus stops and stumbling solace as I commute between classes.

I'm assuming you're a philosphy major?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

LeftofLarry wrote:

I'm assuming you're a philosphy major?

Physics. Philosophy is my life, not my work.

I'm a dipshit.


doubledoh
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
life after death is unneccessary

In 20-30 years, Ray Kurzweil and his scientist buddies reckon that they will be able to prolong life indefinately with science and technology alone using nanotechnology and gene "therapies". Once we hit that point, "god" and "afterlives" will become unnecessary to the human psyche as science ironically itself will finally transform into the god we have been hoping existed from the beginning.

I think as soon as people are generally much happier and don't have to fear death or pain quite as much, religious beliefs will subside. It is a statistical fact by the way, that the more advanced and free a society, the less religious it is:

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

As a previous poster noted, people are religious because they don't have answers. Science will provide us with those answers eventually...and religion will (hopefully) disappear.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

It is interesting to see what kind of implications would come if they were able to stop aging. Honestly, I think it is all a hoax, almost like how we were supposed to have food in pill form by now.

Even if it happens, then what? Everyone lives forever and we blow up the world through overpopulation? Special people live longer than non-special people, and dictatorships pop up everywhere until we regress into less advanced political systems?

Even a world without religion, I doubt this would be beneficial. Rather, a world without people to fight religion is what I am against. If there is no religion, then how can people fight it?

I'm a dipshit.


RossCaleb
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Gravity, people can always fight an ideal. Whether or not it still exists today, I'm pretty sure we're, the majority of us, against the stupidity of Scientology. Wait...that one's still around. Ok let me find something that's -already- been done away with... Ah yes, the monarchy. We all still fight against losing control of the power that we consent control to, right? No? Yeah, ok, so the majority of "the people" really isn't working on that one, but... Damn, I can't find a good example.

Just take the meaning of my words and not the words of my meaning, ok?
Ooh look at that, I made a chiasmus. Go me.
I forgot what I was saying...thank the stars for Topic Review!!

Ah yes. Don't worry, guys and girls, I promise you that when I am chosen as one of the extreme few to live forever, I will be a fair God. I'll be like the Christian God! (some of you, the smart ones, are trembling in fear at that thought. a Christian God that actually exists?! damn that's frightening. we all know why, right? cus it's kinda late...I don't really need to go into all that)

I always thought that if you want to change the world then you have to start with yourself. So if the heads of state want to end terrorism, they should go ahead and kill themselves. - Anti-Flag


Atheist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I suggest we weigh the evidence between thoughts being a simple collection of chemical processes within the brain, and the idea that thoughts are part of a soul, eternal mind, spirit or what ever you want to call it.

Science has shown us that thoughts are caused by the brain's activity. When you destroy certain parts of the brain, certain functions such as: speaking, hearing, reasoning, memory, ect. are lost. Each function is either controlled by automatic responses of the tissue, cells, chemicals or the brain telling the tissue to do something. To speak the brain works by making the vocal cords work along with your lungs tongue and mouth to form coherent conversation. The ability to speak can be taken away if that portion of the brain is destroyed. Memories are just tracks created through the neurons that have been engrained so that they stay their, and when we remember them our brain is just running through that track of nuerons. Sort of like replaying the event. The brain is much more complex than this; however, I don't feel like explaining all of that...

Sooo... What evidence is there for thoughts being linked or caused by souls, spirits, ect? Even more, what evidence is there for those things even existing at all?

I haven't seen any evidence... could anyone whom believes in that please show me the evidence you claim to have for those things?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan


Elta31
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-04-22
User is offlineOffline
No afterlife for me...

So, the belief in reincarnation is an absurdity that flourishes in societies where material goods are hard to come by or there is a lower standard of living. Why strive for anything in this life since when I die, I will become a reincarnated King or ruler of a distant country ad infinitum, ad nauseum? That seems to be the attitude in those situations and is just as dangerous as the belief in Heaven to me. It's funny that those that hold on to the utter fiction of reincarnation are often poor themselves yet ignore the fact that their ancestors also believed in reincarnation as well of having good "karma" but fail to progress out of a life of servitude and poverty. If my father was a good person and his father as well, why am I still starving and living in an area without access to clean water? Gee, these religious doctrines might not be the right choice after all...
NOBODY has been able to prove that the mind survives in some way after death since the human brain is physical and there is no "spirit" that lives inside of it. What of all of these so called "souls" that end up in bodies that suffer from extreme mental retardation? Do they just sit inside of the body while the human that they are inhabiting shits himself and pisses on the floor? How productive. How boring would it be if you had to spend an eternity ANYWHERE without ever falling asleep, which I assume is what Heaven would be like for all believers. How exciting! At the end of a long, hard day sleep is surely welcomed by the majority of the population so I imagine at the end of a long life, an eternal sleep is something that I personally will welcome with open arms. Good evening.


Smallstothewall
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

I hope that there is some type of consciosness after death

Highly unlikely...but no one knows so no one can be sure


Atheist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe in life after death??

Life after death... thoughts after death... I can't say I really want that so much. Living forever is just not that appealing to me. I would like to live far longer than humans currently do, but forever is a really really long time. Living forever really has no coherence. Living an extremely long time does, but I think when people think about living forever, they are actually conceptualizing a living a really long time rather than a never-ending eternity.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan