Life without religion is 1000 times harder

Ah, that's a good point Drew. My analogy was bad. However, I tend to disagree with your argument that only empirical evidence applies to unknown realms where known local rules may not apply. (Yeah, I sorta feel like I'm playing the Devil's advocate here, but for the sake of intellectual discussion, I'm gonna keep going.) We don't live solely in a scientific world. Science can explain most things, but not everything, and experiences of an afterlife are one of those exceptions (I'll reiterate that Rick Strassman's test was self-declared to be highly inconclusive). If something cannot be explained by science, it doesn't mean that it does not exist; rather it just spreads the burden of proof.

For instance, nobody knows why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. But that doesn't mean that the universe is not expanding and there isn't another force acting on the universe to cause the acceleration. And nobody knows why some people have experiences of an afterlife. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.
 
that's so crazy though. i mean you can't even begin to comprehend the feeling of NOTHING, not being able to feel anything. idk but that scares the shit out of me. every once and a while i will think about it and it freaks me out.

if i could live forever, i definitely would.
 
that didnt disprove anything about zeigeist. they cited ppl more than once so that you can check the claims in the movie in chronological order.

 
That's an interesting anecdote. Did she actually have a recollection of the "nothing"? Or did she just come back and not have any idea what happened? That's a pretty significant difference I would say.

Regardless, of course, anecdotal evidence doesn't really contribute much to intelligent debate on either side, but it is interesting.
 
Come on now, Drew. Again with the using the lack of empirical data as proof of the nonexistence of something which by definition could not be described using empirical data? If someone were to ask you, "What does red sound like?" and you replied, "Red doesn't have a sound," would it be reasonable for the person to conclude that red doesn't exist? No, it simply can't be measured or described in such a manner.

Of course, the standard atheist response to this (which I know you're above) is a sarcastic, "Oh, so you're saying there is no evidence? Yet you still believe in your flying spaghetti monster?" To which the answer is, "No, we're simply talking about a reality that requires different tools to describe." It's ridiculously illogical to argue that the afterlife must not exist because no one alive has experienced it.

 
i am catholic, i have had 4 sacraments; Baptism, Reconciliation, Communion, and Confirmation, i am 15, i belive in God, i havent gone to church in over 1 year and i want to go, i think that in todays society it is hard for God and religion to fit in cause everyone has their heads up eachothers asses and are so hypocritical
 
Hypocritical? How?

Also, to the guys saying that this is like a new science and that we need new tools to measure it... what are those tools and how do I know that they arent bullshit? Everything in this world can be described or defined in some way. It seems to me like saying there is an afterlife or not is bullshit either way. We cannot prove nor disprove its existence. Its moot.
 
religion if flawed, but athiest are the most retarded of all imo. The Universe created us. That statement kills all of athiests thoughts about nothingness.
 
Scientifically, it's moot, yes. But philosophically, existentially, the existence or not of an afterlife is very relevant. The existence or lack thereof of a continuum to your soul/essence/ghost or whatever can mean the difference between a life of meaning and ultimate purpose, with rules and consequences, or a life of arbitrary, random and chaotic lack of direction, where there are no rules and no consequences.

Sure, you can't empirically test the existence of an afterlife, nor test against it, but simply because science cannot prove the existence of meaning doesn't mean there is no such thing. Nor because we cannot disprove meaning does it exist. This is a classic example of the limitations of the scientific method. This limitation however does not make the outcome moot, far, far from it. Some would say this question is the most relevant of all, as it would trump scientific purpose quite a bit if an afterlife for an immortal soul did exist.

One of our biggest mistakes as scientists is to ignore the regions of thought that exist without proof as unimportant, when these are precisely the areas that determine the meaning of life.

 
I'd consider that an overwhelming triumph. It isn't everyday that you get to pit your viewpoint against others and find out where you're strong and where you're lacking.

Except on NS, that is.
 
agreed. I will further read the thread and say my probably cynical thoughts on religion later, when I'm really bored.
 
Hahaha...yeah, I was pretty much thinking, "Crap, here we go again."

I need to think through how I feel about whether the burden of proof lies unevenly on the theistic side. If we're taking a purely materialistic stance, then yeah, obviously it does, but in that case the debate is moot anyway. Really, a lot of it comes down to epistemology, I think, and what we're willing to admit as evidence on either side.

But I have a bit of a headache and I don't know if it can handle replaying our colossal philosophical battle haha...

 
the aptitude of the universes intelligence or simply steady pulse of infinite will never be measured by a lifeform of our stature. Even to start to begin an argument whether the universe is living or not or holds its own intelligence is retarded.. everything is part of a infinite web that stretches and connects together. Atheists waste there time trying to convince people that they know nothing.
 
I had a bunch of other shit, but it ended up being a novel. It's still long as hell, but this is a condensed version. This borrows from things I've seen in here, in videos (most recently Joe Rogan's Live), and my own mental wanderings (generally high as shit).

I'm not saying science is real, or religion isn't real. Humans came up with both, and humans are flawed, and in all likelihood they're both dead wrong. There's probably bits of truth to both, but in the big picture - they're fucked. Who are we to say we can explain how things really work?

The universe is massive, billions of galaxies that stretch on forever. Forever. We could be traveling thirty thousand times the speed of light and we'd still die before we reached the end, and given how little we know about the universe in general for all we know this "massive" universe I just described could be an atom on some guy's asscrack in another, larger universe. Even if there IS a God, why the fuck do we think we're important enough to him to deserve yet another life after death? Religion was created back when the Earth was the center of everything and the Sun circled around it so humans were, comparatively, pretty fucking badass. And somehow those theories carried on to today, now that we know that we're so impossibly insignificant that we can't even comprehend it - we don't even know how insignificant we really are and we already know we're pretty fucking unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Why would there be something waiting for us?

Here's a little analogy. Let's assume there is a God (the principle cornerstone of faith for believing in an afterlife). You're God. You're looking at your apartment, about to move out, and you're taking your Geo Metro and you don't know what to bring because it sure as hell isn't all fitting in that pile. You got your TV (it's a fucking plasma dude...), your DVD collection, your skis, some picture of one of your exes you still haven't gotten over even though it's been like three years, some posters, your clothes, your Fleshlight, your computer... oh wait, underneath the radiator in your bathroom is a dried up piece of shit about the size of your pinky fingernail from a year ago when your friend was really plastered and missed the toilet. Let's bring that along for the ride.

And that's my rant.

 
No. Just because one does not believe in an afterlife or have faith in a higher all knowing power does not mean they live a life of chaos and unruly behavior. Likewise, I'm sure lots of mass murderers and idiots believe that this life is only temporary. This life can be just this life, and being 'good' in this life doesnt have to be for the sole reason of more virgins or happiness in wherever I end up next. If there isnt an afterlife, one can still be good and have direction for the sole sake of what those values give you in this life.
 
It's a good thing that Georgie stands (sorry, stood) on such solid theological ground as to be able to dismiss religion (meaning Christianity) based solely on a childish stereotype of who God is to a Christian. Sure, "an invisible man living in the sky" who condemns you to hell for breaking any one of the 10 commandments sounds like a ludicrous proposition, especially when you consider how entirely inaccurate and simplistic, let alone theologically incorrect, his position is.

But I guess what is just as ludicrous is attempting to convince people that there is no ultimate purpose in life and that it's all human centric from here on out, when that endeavor is entirely pointless, based on its own cynical conclusion that nothing matters.

But If it made George feel better, feel validated, in knowing that he knew more and was more right in his thoughts than others, I guess he didn't have to admit that this feeling implies a scale of correct opinion and incorrect opinion.

Georgie still believed in absolute truth, or he wouldn't be vociferating like he did to convince people of his own conclusions, and in a world without meaning and one rule (the lack of truth), it makes sense that you break your only rule staring up your own rectum.

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

Looks like we have a stalemate.

 
I don't think that's a reasonable basis for atheistic morality. I'm not necessarily saying there isn't one, but I don't think that's it. If your basis for action is what something will "give you in this life," you're probably not going to act in a way that is considered "good" by most of society. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 
That'd be a sound conclusion though. What's the point of living a life as a servant to others if there isn't any reason to in the end, if being "good" or "bad" has the exact same outcome? If this is all there is, why not do whatever you want to do and let everyone else stay behind? What is the point of following a moral code if its existence is entirey arbitrary?
 
Call it being human.

Organisms across the biological landscape can act benevolently towards members of their own species. There could be a built in biological reason for me wanting to be nice and generally help other people, eg, some part of my brain that thrives on that 'warm fuzzy feeling'. Me helping people and generally not being a dick helps society function better, and improve the quality of life for everyone (yes its arguable taking into account globalization and shit, but please, on the whole anyways). There, perfectly biologically OK way for me to explain why people choose 'good' over evil. Sure, it could be faith, or sure, it could be something like this, or even something we havent thought of. But my point is you dont need an afterlife to be good or bad. Humans have the power themselves to lead relevant and happy lives.
 
There's also plenty of examples of violence and general malevolence across the biological landscape, both between species and within them. What makes you choose the 'warm fuzzy' way of life instead of that? Also, why care about the good of society, or any others at all? I think most acts of 'goodness' are good because they're expressions of selflessness. What's your motivation for selflessness?
 
I have no idea, but it could just be the way humans have evolved to behave. A society that acts selflessly will succeed much more than a society built on violence and selfishness. Over the course of generations we could have just evolved to be more selfless, and thats inbred into our brains. Possibly anyways, just a hypothetical.

Heres a local analogy of why being 'good' can pay off in this life. We all like having friends. If you're a dick to everyone and try to stab people, you probably wont make friends, and thus, will be lonely. However, if you bake people cakes and take them on long walks on the beach, you'll probably make friends, get laid by that hottie next foor and have a good time. See? Being "good" and selfless does have payoffs in this life, as well as an afterlife, if there is one. I'm just pointing out that you can be atheistic and 'value' this life and have morality just like the born-again bible banger down the street.
 
its just that ive lost 5 close family members in the last year and for me to believe that i was going to see them again would be like a endless heroin acid trip that i could live in for the rest of my life . I guess i would be delusional but thats how happy it would make me if i believed i would see them again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top