This youtube video will make you think...

[psyadam]

zdave wrote

If someone told you they had a near-death experience and saw absolutely nothing at all, would that support the lack of existence of heaven and/or hell?

I suppose it would support the atheist position. From what I hear, this is quite common, more common than having a spiritual experience. So the more non-spiritual near-death experiences, the better the atheist's position, I would feel.

[psyadam]

Irreligious wrote

Why should Sol call it that? He's an atheist. Besides, it's your proposition.

Are you calling this alleged ultimate arbiter God?

I am an agnostic that leans theist. My position is that I have a lot of trouble believing in "God" because I am also an Ignostic, in that I tend to believe that the definition of God being an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is very problematic--there are lots of logical problems with this. What makes me lean theist is not that I believe in God, I don't (my "call it God" comment was more to poke fun than anything else), but I feel like there is strong enough evidence in near-death experiences to support a belief in an afterlife.

edit: I do think it would be nice if people who were more "good" got to enjoy a better afterlife. That is all I was saying in my previous few posts.

edit: I guess it would be nice if such a entity as that Christian God did exist if only to serve the purpose of judging people's lives when they die so as to determine a fair punishment or reward. I don't think any human would be up to that particular task. Maybe a committee would be better tailored to that task, if "God" couldn't do it.

[psyadam]

Kinich Ahau wrote

No not crazy, you just accept descriptions that sound nice and reasonable to you. What do you call this religion where you cherry pick the bits you like?

I hate religion as much as you guys do. I have my own personal beliefs. I do not and will never go to a church and have someone tell me what to believe.

[Irreligious]

psyadam wrote

I am an agnostic that leans theist. My position is that I have a lot of trouble believing in "God" because I am also an Ignostic, in that I tend to believe that the definition of God being an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent is very problematic--there are lots of logical problems with this. What makes me lean theist is not that I believe in God, I don't (my "call it God" comment was more to poke fun than anything else), but I feel like there is strong enough evidence in near-death experiences to support a belief in an afterlife.

It sounds like you want to be saved from the apparent oblivion of death, and the only way you can envision achieving that is if something supernaturally powerful and, presumably, intelligent enough can deliver you from death.

psyadam wrote

edit: I do think it would be nice if people who were more "good" got to enjoy a better afterlife. That is all I was saying in my previous few posts.

Yes, we know. It's pretty much all you have to say when you post here, which is fine, but what are you expecting others here to say about your personal wishes?

You are as free as millions of other people to believe that you deserve to live again, and more happily, after you die. You don't need any evidence if you have faith. Do you have enough faith to believe that an unseen, ultimate arbiter will judge you good enough to live happily ever after?

[West491]

Irreligious wrote

Do you have enough faith to believe that an unseen, ultimate arbiter will judge you good enough to live happily ever after?

Very good question. I await the answer.

[Irreligious]

psyadam wrote

edit: I guess it would be nice if such a entity as that Christian God did exist if only to serve the purpose of judging people's lives when they die so as to determine a fair punishment or reward. I don't think any human would be up to that particular task. Maybe a committee would be better tailored to that task, if "God" couldn't do it.

What would a "Christian God" be, exactly? A man with unlimited powers of manipulation and the ultimate power to judge?

How is that different from an exceedingly powerful tyrant? Though, I suppose, if this allegation had the power to rule in your favor and give you what you want, it wouldn't matter much what he is supposed to be, eh? A committee of powerful men would do, in a pinch, so long as they had the power to save you from presumed oblivion, right?

Apart from your fear of not existing-- and, admittedly, there are probably few folks who relish the thought of their own inevitable and, presumably, permanent demise-- I still don't understand why you think you're owed another life.

Why does anyone, including you, deserve to live forever?

[Sol]

psyadam wrote

not sure. Perhaps you could call the thing that decides "God"?

Not sure ? Not really the well informed source I took you for then....

What thing decides god ? what do I call ?

Did I miss a memo or a meeting perhaps, has a call centre been set up.
Do I access the thing through a ouija board, or a session with a new age gravel dangler ?

What are you blithering on about man ?

[Sol]

psyadam wrote

.......waffle........
but I feel like there is strong enough evidence in near-death experiences to support a belief in an afterlife............
...more waffle with a touch of extra waffle...

You feel like there is strong evidence... so you feel the evidence like some sort of Jedi mind ninja. m'kay. I savvy

NDEs, OOBEs, and astral feckin' projection bollox support only one theory.

How susceptible our poor, monkey neurology, is to suggestion.

After I die I will have no experiences or feelings, do you know why ?

COS I'LL BE FUCKIN DEAD !!!!! that's why.

[Eternal]

Sol wrote

COS I'LL BE FUCKIN DEAD !!!!! that's why.

What! you mean your soul won't travel down a dark tunnel towards a light with a little garden gate and all your loved ones waiting. Say it isn't so. You cold heartless beast, how am I supposed to continue with my existence knowing that there is no evidence for the beautiful place my family are in, or that when I die I won't be joining them for a game of darts and a few pints.

Hang on a minute, I suppose I could honour their memory by celebrating the one life that we know they did have and do their hopes and aspirations justice by living my life to it's fullest, as I know they would have wanted if they were still here.

P.S. I love your new accent.

[psyadam]

Irreligious wrote

It sounds like you want to be saved from the apparent oblivion of death, and the only way you can envision achieving that is if something supernaturally powerful and, presumably, intelligent enough can deliver you from death.


Yes, we know. It's pretty much all you have to say when you post here, which is fine, but what are you expecting others here to say about your personal wishes?

You are as free as millions of other people to believe that you deserve to live again, and more happily, after you die. You don't need any evidence if you have faith. Do you have enough faith to believe that an unseen, ultimate arbiter will judge you good enough to live happily ever after?

If there is an afterlife, I would think there is a good chance that whether the arbiter is God or a supercommittee or whatever I might be judged for the things that I have done in this life. So I'd like to try and live a good life. Not just because of that belief, but also because of altruism. Contrary to what atheists believe, I don't think atheists are more atruistic than theists or agnostics.

[psyadam]

Irreligious wrote

What would a "Christian God" be, exactly? A man with unlimited powers of manipulation and the ultimate power to judge?

How is that different from an exceedingly powerful tyrant? Though, I suppose, if this allegation had the power to rule in your favor and give you what you want, it wouldn't matter much what he is supposed to be, eh? A committee of powerful men would do, in a pinch, so long as they had the power to save you from presumed oblivion, right?

Apart from your fear of not existing-- and, admittedly, there are probably few folks who relish the thought of their own inevitable and, presumably, permanent demise-- I still don't understand why you think you're owed another life.

Why does anyone, including you, deserve to live forever?

I guess all I can say is that I would like to survive death and I think out of body experiences are enough for me to have hope that there is life after death. I don't think that some people will live forever and some won't--just that some people will go to happier existences than others.

[lostsheep]

psyadam wrote

If there is an afterlife, I would think there is a good chance that whether the arbiter is God or a supercommittee or whatever I might be judged for the things that I have done in this life. So I'd like to try and live a good life. Not just because of that belief, but also because of altruism. Contrary to what atheists believe, I don't think atheists are more atruistic than theists or agnostics.

I don't think atheists are any worse or better than theists or agnostics, in general, which is one reason I'm an atheist/agnostic.

psyadam wrote

I guess all I can say is that I would like to survive death and I think out of body experiences are enough for me to have hope that there is life after death. I don't think that some people will live forever and some won't--just that some people will go to happier existences than others.

I don't blame you for hoping. I hate the thought of oblivion. But just because you want something to be doesn't make it so.

Although...I am thinking about the perspective that a religious friend shared with me, and perhaps this will work for you: she says that believing in an afterlife makes her happy, and if she is wrong then she will never know.

[Irreligious]

psyadam wrote

Contrary to what atheists believe, I don't think atheists are more atruistic than theists or agnostics.

What atheists believe this? And since when are atheists required to believe anything?

Not sure if anybody has let you in on this, psyadam, but atheists are not defined by what they believe. Individually, they're free to believe all sorts of things that may, in fact, be contrary to what other atheists believe.

Indeed, the only thing that defines atheists is their lack of belief in a diety. That's about the only required commonality amongst them. Otherwise, they are free to believe that atheists are more altruistic than theists or agnostics. Or not. They're free to believe that blonds are more sexy than redheads, or cats make better pets than dogs. Or not.

Atheism is not a religion or an ideology or a political party or a movement or a club. It's a single position on one question: Do you believe in the existence of a God or gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, not a chauvinist toward other atheists or a hater of religious people. If we so choose, atheists are allowed to see other people as individuals and not reflexively judge these other people based solely on the label that they elect to append to themselves.

For the record.

[Noodle]

An afterlife seems unlikely to me because you are your brain. Brain damage and changes in brain chemistry can change someone's personality. Those things can make a happy person into someone angry, rude, and maybe even violent. So did the brain damage change their immortal soul from a good soul into a bad soul? How unlucky that an accident or mental illness has damned them to a bad afterlife (eternal torment if you're into that).

And to think the personality can live on after the brain no longer exists? That's like thinking you can run windows without a computer.

And how will you experience your afterlife without any sense organs? How will you see without eyes and hear without ears? And how will you process any of it without your brain? Oh, that's right, magic.

[psyadam]

I didn't mean to bring out such a reaction. Of course I know atheists aren't required to believe in anything. My thought was that most atheists think that they are more altruistic than theists because they presumably do things for altruistic reasons than for some reward after they die. That's all.

Irreligious wrote

What atheists believe this? And since when are atheists required to believe anything?

Not sure if anybody has let you in on this, psyadam, but atheists are not defined by what they believe. Individually, they're free to believe all sorts of things that may, in fact, be contrary to what other atheists believe.

Indeed, the only thing that defines atheists is their lack of belief in a diety. That's about the only required commonality amongst them. Otherwise, they are free to believe that atheists are more altruistic than theists or agnostics. Or not. They're free to believe that blonds are more sexy than redheads, or cats make better pets than dogs. Or not.

Atheism is not a religion or an ideology or a political party or a movement or a club. It's a single position on one question: Do you believe in the existence of a God or gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, not a chauvinist toward other atheists or a hater of religious people. If we so choose, atheists are allowed to see other people as individuals and not reflexively judge these other people based solely on the label that they elect to append to themselves.

For the record.