|
Post by findingtruth on Dec 23, 2014 19:12:38 GMT -5
Thanks, again, Matt.
You can summarize ideas very well: "The God which I was conversing with was not a real and independent entity with an independent mind and thoughts but rather a entity created in my head whose thoughts were solely dependent on the Christian God/bible related influences which I had previously absorbed and which consequently formed the basis of the entity which I had created in my mind." DMG, I think it is much easier to explain things when one has experience of both being a believer and a non-believer. It broadens one's perspective I think. Most on the board appear only to have ever been one or other during their adult life and this, I think, may inhibit their ability to understand certain things. A man who has never believed cannot grasp the great power of God while a man who has only ever believed can't quite comprehend just how flawed his belief in God really is. Matt10 Matt10, on the other hand there is another group of people who have the experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer. Do you believe that those who at one point did not believe but came to believe have the same broad perspective? After all, they too have seen both sides. Why is his belief in a God any more flawed than one who has lost his belief in God?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 23, 2014 20:59:04 GMT -5
DMG, I think it is much easier to explain things when one has experience of both being a believer and a non-believer. It broadens one's perspective I think. Most on the board appear only to have ever been one or other during their adult life and this, I think, may inhibit their ability to understand certain things. A man who has never believed cannot grasp the great power of God while a man who has only ever believed can't quite comprehend just how flawed his belief in God really is. Matt10 Matt10, on the other hand there is another group of people who have the experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer. Do you believe that those who at one point did not believe but came to believe have the same broad perspective? After all, they too have seen both sides. Why is his belief in a God any more flawed than one who has lost his belief in God? Findingtruth, I know you addressed Matt, but my belief about people having the "experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer," is that most of them had not really given any thought to either one before they became a believer. At least not in the sense that we who were believers actually began looking at the whole picture of evidence in serious thought.
I've had people claim they were an "atheist" before they became a believer. I recognize that can happen.
However, I think that most became believers just as I did, -indoctrinated when young, and/or were emotionally moved by ideas a someone dieing for us, or of threat of hell. Even as adults, these psychological maneuvers, whether realized by their proponents or not, -emotionally affected whether we became a believer.
We didn't even rationally or logically explore the ideas. We just excepted them. ( oops! edited I meant "accepted.")
That is what is flawed, -flawed by the way people arrive at an idea by illogical & irrational means. If such illogical & irrational ways were used in deciding something in regard to another idea, we would see them for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 24, 2014 0:58:50 GMT -5
Why? Just Because "Papa says so?"
Why does there have to be a reason?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 24, 2014 1:08:31 GMT -5
You still seem to be striving for some kind of objective truth out of what are highly personal questions. You once believed, now you don't. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? Who knows. Some people do fashion a God of their own choosing, but the process is still subject to certain logical evaluations, mainly determining whether there is consistency in the belief. I find it inconsistent for people to say that God is loving, and then say that God hates homosexual behaviour. In order for homophobic Christians to maintain their view of God as loving, it becomes very important to them to view homosexual behaviour as a choice. According to these Christians it simply can't be natural or ingrained for someone to be homosexual, and some Christians spend an inordinate amount of time on such issues as whether homosexual behaviour is genetic; they insist that it is not. Once Christians do learn that people just are homosexual, and they come out of the box with a given sexual orientation, then often they become gay-affirming Christians in order to maintain their a priori belief that God is loving. A metaphor like Leonard Cohen's "there is a crack in everything" can be taken in many different directions. I take it in the direction of Derrida's ideas on deconstruction. The idea is that any system of knowledge, especially totalizing ideologies or religions, always have internal inconsistencies. (Apparently mathematical systems do too unless they are completely trivial). One places pressure on those internal inconsistencies, the cracks as it were, to break the system down. That is how the light gets in; how we achieve truth. You can see how I did that in the previous paragraph as regards homosexuality. Whathat, I make no apology for striving for objective truth. It seems to me to be an honourable thing to strive for. I find that many here are only interested in promoting their own version of truth and (often) in seeking to persuade others to accept it. By the way I don’t think I actually asked you any questions, highly personal or otherwise, this time. Meanwhile as to whether I was wrong then or wrong now, there is no question in my mind that I was wrong then and am right now. From what you have written on this thread, I suspect you have a lot more doubts surrounding your beliefs than I do. Matt10 The deepest questions do not resolve to objective answers. So I think you have to respect whatever manner people answer those questions in. Mind you, I don't respect people who don't believe in evolution, because the natural history of the Earth is not one of those deep personal questions. But the question of an afterlife is generally one where one person is not more right than any other. I don't have that many doubts surrounding my beliefs. That would be the case if I had strong beliefs and had nagging suspicions about those beliefs. That is not the case with me. I have a few strong beliefs, but on many issues I'm unsure, which is different from doubting. I'm the kind of guy who finds himself arguing from opposite sides of the fence. That is, I argue with atheists like you who see me as a believer and I argue with orthodox Christians who think I'm a poor excuse for a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 24, 2014 1:27:45 GMT -5
Why? Just Because "Papa says so?"
Why does there have to be a reason? Because you were saying "Because you do" almost as if it were a command.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 4:00:04 GMT -5
The deepest questions do not resolve to objective answers. So I think you have to respect whatever manner people answer those questions in. Mind you, I don't respect people who don't believe in evolution, because the natural history of the Earth is not one of those deep personal questions. But the question of an afterlife is generally one where one person is not more right than any other. I don't have that many doubts surrounding my beliefs. That would be the case if I had strong beliefs and had nagging suspicions about those beliefs. That is not the case with me. I have a few strong beliefs, but on many issues I'm unsure, which is different from doubting. I'm the kind of guy who finds himself arguing from opposite sides of the fence. That is, I argue with atheists like you who see me as a believer and I argue with orthodox Christians who think I'm a poor excuse for a Christian. Whathat, just for the record, as I stated clearly in my response to you yesterday, I don't classify myself as an atheist. If you insist in putting me in a belief box then the appropriate category is 'non-believer in the Christian God'. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 24, 2014 6:09:27 GMT -5
Why does there have to be a reason? Because you were saying "Because you do" almost as if it were a command.Oh I see how you could read it like that. I meant it more like - Because one just does. In the same way I like butterscotch ripple ice cream better than plain vanilla. I don't have a good reason.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 24, 2014 6:12:35 GMT -5
The deepest questions do not resolve to objective answers. So I think you have to respect whatever manner people answer those questions in. Mind you, I don't respect people who don't believe in evolution, because the natural history of the Earth is not one of those deep personal questions. But the question of an afterlife is generally one where one person is not more right than any other. I don't have that many doubts surrounding my beliefs. That would be the case if I had strong beliefs and had nagging suspicions about those beliefs. That is not the case with me. I have a few strong beliefs, but on many issues I'm unsure, which is different from doubting. I'm the kind of guy who finds himself arguing from opposite sides of the fence. That is, I argue with atheists like you who see me as a believer and I argue with orthodox Christians who think I'm a poor excuse for a Christian. Whathat, just for the record, as I stated clearly in my response to you yesterday, I don't classify myself as an atheist. If you insist in putting me in a belief box then the appropriate category is 'non-believer in the Christian God'. Matt10 Sorry I missed that yesterday. Yes, that is not the same thing, and I apologize for the presumption. Are you happy with the term, agnostic, or not quite?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 8:41:37 GMT -5
Ever since the beginning of time the devil has been distracting man from the only true God onto other gods, using concepts such as deity and divinity, etc., to great effect in establishing false gods. For about 2000 years the devil has been setting up Christian gods for his own purposes and the most successful and widespread one is the Triune god of Trinitarianism. Keep feeding them deity and divinity and watch the theologians stuff themselves on this theological diet as they concoct understandings of, and venerate these imaginary gods. The devil laughs.
The only true God, who is the Father, defies the devil's high and mighty tactics, by sending us a mortal human being, an ordinary man; his only begotten Son, to reveal to mere mortal men exactly who the only true God is. This down to Earth tactic confounds the wise and the prudent, the scientist, the scholar and the theologian. God appears to us through a man amongst men. Those who embroil themselves in deity and divinity are seeking where the devil wants to put Jesus....up amongst the false gods.
Matt 10 rejects the so called Christian god. No wonder!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 24, 2014 11:20:28 GMT -5
Matt10, on the other hand there is another group of people who have the experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer. Do you believe that those who at one point did not believe but came to believe have the same broad perspective? After all, they too have seen both sides. Why is his belief in a God any more flawed than one who has lost his belief in God? Findingtruth, I know you addressed Matt, but my belief about people having the "experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer," is that most of them had not really given any thought to either one before they became a believer. At least not in the sense that we who were believers actually began looking at the whole picture of evidence in serious thought.
I've had people claim they were an "atheist" before they became a believer. I recognize that can happen.
However, I think that most became believers just as I did, -indoctrinated when young, and/or were emotionally moved by ideas a someone dieing for us, or of threat of hell. Even as adults, these psychological maneuvers, whether realized by their proponents or not, -emotionally affected whether we became a believer.
We didn't even rationally or logically explore the ideas. We just excepted them.
That is what is flawed, -flawed by the way people arrive at an idea by illogical & irrational means. If such illogical & irrational ways were used in deciding something in regard to another idea, we would see them for what they are.
Well, for a question like, "is there an after-life" equal doses of irrationality are required to resolve to either side of the question. The only strictly rational answer is to say "I don't know" and see what happens when you get there. Since you've decided that there isn't an after-life, correct me if I am wrong on that statement, you're just as irrational as someone who says there is one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 17:58:54 GMT -5
Whathat, just for the record, as I stated clearly in my response to you yesterday, I don't classify myself as an atheist. If you insist in putting me in a belief box then the appropriate category is 'non-believer in the Christian God'. Matt10 Sorry I missed that yesterday. Yes, that is not the same thing, and I apologize for the presumption. Are you happy with the term, agnostic, or not quite? Whathat, neither atheist nor agnostic fit I'm afraid. Non-believer in the Christian God it is. Of course I'm also content to have the ex2x2 label applied although my psychiatrist has advised me to quietly expunge anything that might identify me with my previous life. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 24, 2014 19:59:34 GMT -5
Findingtruth, I know you addressed Matt, but my belief about people having the "experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer," is that most of them had not really given any thought to either one before they became a believer. At least not in the sense that we who were believers actually began looking at the whole picture of evidence in serious thought.
I've had people claim they were an "atheist" before they became a believer. I recognize that can happen.
However, I think that most became believers just as I did, -indoctrinated when young, and/or were emotionally moved by ideas a someone dieing for us, or of threat of hell. Even as adults, these psychological maneuvers, whether realized by their proponents or not, -emotionally affected whether we became a believer.
We didn't even rationally or logically explore the ideas. We just excepted them.
That is what is flawed, -flawed by the way people arrive at an idea by illogical & irrational means. If such illogical & irrational ways were used in deciding something in regard to another idea, we would see them for what they are.
Well, for a question like, "is there an after-life" equal doses of irrationality are required to resolve to either side of the question. The only strictly rational answer is to say "I don't know" and see what happens when you get there. Since you've decided that there isn't an after-life, correct me if I am wrong on that statement, you're just as irrational as someone who says there is one.
Oh, I do correct you on that statement. You definitely are wrong in your statement that it is as irrational for someone to say there is no after life as someone who says there is one.I take Stephen Hawking's very logical, very rational statement on the subject. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 9:38:54 GMT -5
DMG, I think it is much easier to explain things when one has experience of both being a believer and a non-believer. It broadens one's perspective I think. Most on the board appear only to have ever been one or other during their adult life and this, I think, may inhibit their ability to understand certain things. A man who has never believed cannot grasp the great power of God while a man who has only ever believed can't quite comprehend just how flawed his belief in God really is. Matt10 Matt10, on the other hand there is another group of people who have the experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer. Do you believe that those who at one point did not believe but came to believe have the same broad perspective? After all, they too have seen both sides. Why is his belief in a God any more flawed than one who has lost his belief in God? FT, I would expect any person who has experience of both sides (in whatever order) to have a broader perspective than those who have only experience of one side. I would guess that just how broad their perspective is would depend on the experience of the individual - the people I have known personally who have experience of both positions tend to have travelled down the belief to unbelief road. I'm not sure I understand your final question; I would suggest that anyone who has lost their 'belief in God' does not have a 'belief in God' to be flawed. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 27, 2014 17:22:06 GMT -5
Well, for a question like, "is there an after-life" equal doses of irrationality are required to resolve to either side of the question. The only strictly rational answer is to say "I don't know" and see what happens when you get there. Since you've decided that there isn't an after-life, correct me if I am wrong on that statement, you're just as irrational as someone who says there is one.
Oh, I do correct you on that statement. You definitely are wrong in your statement that it is as irrational for someone to say there is no after life as someone who says there is one.I take Stephen Hawking's very logical, very rational statement on the subject. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"
Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 27, 2014 18:56:21 GMT -5
Oh, I do correct you on that statement. You definitely are wrong in your statement that it is as irrational for someone to say there is no after life as someone who says there is one.I take Stephen Hawking's very logical, very rational statement on the subject. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"
Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable. One has to ask the question;
"Is the weight of evidence for something existing have more weight than the weight of evidence for it not existing?
example: Is the weight of evidence that there is a god named Zeus, Baal, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster greater than the weight of evidence that there are no such gods?
What is the weight of evidence or lack of weight of evidence?
How much of a body of evidence for something existing need there be that would make it rationally believable?
example: " evidence for there being an afterlife."
What body of evidence do you or anyone else have for the existence of an "AFTERLIFE" that makes it rationally believable?
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Dec 28, 2014 0:39:45 GMT -5
Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable. One has to ask the question;
"Is the weight of evidence for something existing have more weight than the weight of evidence for it not existing?
example: Is the weight of evidence that there is a god named Zeus, Baal, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster greater than the weight of evidence that there are no such gods?
What is the weight of evidence or lack of weight of evidence?
How much of a body of evidence for something existing need there be that would make it rationally believable?
example: " evidence for there being an afterlife."
What body of evidence do you or anyone else have for the existence of an "AFTERLIFE" that makes it rationally believable?
I suspect we'll all have the answer when we reach that point....or not.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 28, 2014 0:41:37 GMT -5
Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable. One has to ask the question;
"Is the weight of evidence for something existing have more weight than the weight of evidence for it not existing?
example: Is the weight of evidence that there is a god named Zeus, Baal, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster greater than the weight of evidence that there are no such gods?
What is the weight of evidence or lack of weight of evidence?
How much of a body of evidence for something existing need there be that would make it rationally believable?
example: " evidence for there being an afterlife."
What body of evidence do you or anyone else have for the existence of an "AFTERLIFE" that makes it rationally believable?
When it comes to questions like the afterlife or the existence of God, there is no evidence for or against. There is no "balance of evidence" argument to be made. Science is only concerned with questions or statements that are falsifiable, that is, there must be a way to prove that the statement is false. It doesn't matter if we lack the means to prove the statement false, just so long as we can think of a procedure. If I state that there is a "flying spaghetti monster" living on Alpha Centauri, that is a falsifiable statement. We could go there and check, in theory, although we lack the means to do so now. As far as the "afterlife" there is no procedure to prove it false, so it is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific. By way of comparison the question of the "virgin birth" is falsifiable, and a "balance of the evidence" argument might hold. Or inductively we could say it's unreasonable to think a virgin could give birth to a child. You're perfectly entitled to only believe "scientific" statements and reject the unscientific assertions of religion. And while the notion of an afterlife is unscientific, it is not more rational to say there isn'T one, than to say there is one. Both are irrational statements.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Dec 28, 2014 0:42:46 GMT -5
Matt10, on the other hand there is another group of people who have the experience of being a non-believer and ultimately a believer. Do you believe that those who at one point did not believe but came to believe have the same broad perspective? After all, they too have seen both sides. Why is his belief in a God any more flawed than one who has lost his belief in God? FT, I would expect any person who has experience of both sides (in whatever order) to have a broader perspective than those who have only experience of one side. I would guess that just how broad their perspective is would depend on the experience of the individual - the people I have known personally who have experience of both positions tend to have travelled down the belief to unbelief road. I'm not sure I understand your final question; I would suggest that anyone who has lost their 'belief in God' does not have a 'belief in God' to be flawed. Matt10 I think that's a fair statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 5:01:51 GMT -5
When it comes to questions like the afterlife or the existence of God, there is no evidence for or against. There is no "balance of evidence" argument to be made. Science is only concerned with questions or statements that are falsifiable, that is, there must be a way to prove that the statement is false. It doesn't matter if we lack the means to prove the statement false, just so long as we can think of a procedure. If I state that there is a "flying spaghetti monster" living on Alpha Centauri, that is a falsifiable statement. We could go there and check, in theory, although we lack the means to do so now. As far as the "afterlife" there is no procedure to prove it false, so it is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific. By way of comparison the question of the "virgin birth" is falsifiable, and a "balance of the evidence" argument might hold. Or inductively we could say it's unreasonable to think a virgin could give birth to a child. You're perfectly entitled to only believe "scientific" statements and reject the unscientific assertions of religion. And while the notion of an afterlife is unscientific, it is not more rational to say there isn'T one, than to say there is one. Both are irrational statements. Whathat, using your approach it would appear no more rational to say there is a ‘before-life’ than there is to say that there isn’t one - but I never heard you claim that we existed prior to this life. Similarly using your approach it would seem no more rational to say there is an after-life for dogs and goats than to say there isn’t one but I never hear you claim that dogs or goats continue to exist after this life. Instead you claim you are 98% certain that there is an after-life for human beings which appears to me to indicate that you have a relatively firm basis for believing there is an after-life and that you do not really think that belief in an after-life and rejection of the existence of an after-life are equally rational positions. Of course one of the difficulties in applying a scientific approach to determining whether there is an after-life or not, is that those who claim that there is, or is likely to be, an after-life often seem incapable of explaining what it is they mean by an after-life. So perhaps this is an opportunity to clarify some of the things you have been posting rather passionately about: a) What are the factors which you considered which led you to becoming to believe with 98% certainty that there is an ‘after-life’ (as opposed to 50% given that you claim each position is equally rational)?; b) When you use the term ‘after-life’ what is the (specific nature of the) entity that you believe (to be 98% certain) continues to exist in the ‘after-life’?; c) As regards the entity which you believe (to be 98% certain) continues to exist in the ‘after-life’, can you clarify where, geographically or otherwise, this entity continues to exist? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 28, 2014 20:19:42 GMT -5
One has to ask the question;
"Is the weight of evidence for something existing have more weight than the weight of evidence for it not existing?
example: Is the weight of evidence that there is a god named Zeus, Baal, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster greater than the weight of evidence that there are no such gods?
What is the weight of evidence or lack of weight of evidence?
How much of a body of evidence for something existing need there be that would make it rationally believable?
example: " evidence for there being an afterlife."
What body of evidence do you or anyone else have for the existence of an "AFTERLIFE" that makes it rationally believable?
... If I state that there is a "flying spaghetti monster" living on Alpha Centauri, that is a falsifiable statement. We could go there and check, in theory, although we lack the means to do so now. As far as the "afterlife" there is no procedure to prove it false, so it is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific. ... I don't understand. Seems like I could state "there is an afterlife" and that is a falsifiable statement, because we could simply ask someone who has died, and check, in theory, whether he or she is experiencing an afterlife, although we lack the means to do so now.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 28, 2014 20:52:45 GMT -5
... If I state that there is a "flying spaghetti monster" living on Alpha Centauri, that is a falsifiable statement. We could go there and check, in theory, although we lack the means to do so now. As far as the "afterlife" there is no procedure to prove it false, so it is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific. ... I don't understand. Seems like I could state "there is an afterlife" and that is a falsifiable statement, because we could simply ask someone who has died, and check, in theory, whether he or she is experiencing an afterlife, although we lack the means to do so now. Right on, Gene.
However, you would have to ask someone who has died before they are embalmed. Otherwise, the embalming fluid might alter the other chemicals in their brain & you couldn't be sure that you were getting a correct answer!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 28, 2014 21:39:02 GMT -5
When it comes to questions like the afterlife or the existence of God, there is no evidence for or against. There is no "balance of evidence" argument to be made. Science is only concerned with questions or statements that are falsifiable, that is, there must be a way to prove that the statement is false. It doesn't matter if we lack the means to prove the statement false, just so long as we can think of a procedure. If I state that there is a "flying spaghetti monster" living on Alpha Centauri, that is a falsifiable statement. We could go there and check, in theory, although we lack the means to do so now. As far as the "afterlife" there is no procedure to prove it false, so it is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific. By way of comparison the question of the "virgin birth" is falsifiable, and a "balance of the evidence" argument might hold. Or inductively we could say it's unreasonable to think a virgin could give birth to a child. You're perfectly entitled to only believe "scientific" statements and reject the unscientific assertions of religion. And while the notion of an afterlife is unscientific, it is not more rational to say there isn'T one, than to say there is one. Both are irrational statements. Whathat, using your approach it would appear no more rational to say there is a ‘before-life’ than there is to say that there isn’t one - but I never heard you claim that we existed prior to this life. Similarly using your approach it would seem no more rational to say there is an after-life for dogs and goats than to say there isn’t one but I never hear you claim that dogs or goats continue to exist after this life. Instead you claim you are 98% certain that there is an after-life for human beings which appears to me to indicate that you have a relatively firm basis for believing there is an after-life and that you do not really think that belief in an after-life and rejection of the existence of an after-life are equally rational positions. Of course one of the difficulties in applying a scientific approach to determining whether there is an after-life or not, is that those who claim that there is, or is likely to be, an after-life often seem incapable of explaining what it is they mean by an after-life. So perhaps this is an opportunity to clarify some of the things you have been posting rather passionately about: a) What are the factors which you considered which led you to becoming to believe with 98% certainty that there is an ‘after-life’ (as opposed to 50% given that you claim each position is equally rational)?; b) When you use the term ‘after-life’ what is the (specific nature of the) entity that you believe (to be 98% certain) continues to exist in the ‘after-life’?; c) As regards the entity which you believe (to be 98% certain) continues to exist in the ‘after-life’, can you clarify where, geographically or otherwise, this entity continues to exist? Matt10 First of all, positions that there is or isn't an after-life are not equally rational. In fact, both positions are not rational at all, but irrational and unscientific. Sorry if I led you astray on that. It's not easy to describe falsifiability in a post or two, but wikipedia has an article on it. I recommend also a book called 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone which gets into some of these concepts. The "98% certainty" is based purely on faith and feeling. My position, as I mentioned, is an irrational one. Beyond that feeling about life I cannot tell you much more. Just tonight I learned that a very close relative who recently died appeared to his three adult children in independent dreams one night and told them everything was "going to be okay" and he was okay where he was. Interesting because this relative was an avowed atheist. Does this prove anything? Not really. However,my scale just moved from 98% to 99%.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 28, 2014 21:40:12 GMT -5
... If I state that there is a "flying spaghetti monster" living on Alpha Centauri, that is a falsifiable statement. We could go there and check, in theory, although we lack the means to do so now. As far as the "afterlife" there is no procedure to prove it false, so it is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific. ... I don't understand. Seems like I could state "there is an afterlife" and that is a falsifiable statement, because we could simply ask someone who has died, and check, in theory, whether he or she is experiencing an afterlife, although we lack the means to do so now. There is no scientific procedure and no theoretical basis for talking to a dead person. If you have heard of such a theory please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 28, 2014 21:41:37 GMT -5
I don't understand. Seems like I could state "there is an afterlife" and that is a falsifiable statement, because we could simply ask someone who has died, and check, in theory, whether he or she is experiencing an afterlife, although we lack the means to do so now. Right on, Gene.
However, you would have to ask someone who has died before they are embalmed. Otherwise, the embalming fluid might alter the other chemicals in their brain & you couldn't be sure that you were getting a correct answer! As I mentioned, there is no scientific theory relating to communication with a dead person. However, there are plenty of theories relating to space travel. Sorry but atheism is just as irrational as belief in an after-life. Neither position can be supported by any evidence. The purely rational position would be that of an agnostic. One time an atheistic person told me they didn't believe in God, because they trust what science tells them. Well, science simply doesn't go there, in spite of what Richard Dawkins might have you thinking. However, I hasten to add that there are many aspects of Christian belief, or I should say, the beliefs of some Christians, that science does disprove or has disproved. Jonah was not swallowed by a whale; the Earth did not stand still at the battle of Jericho; there was no virgin birth; the water did not turn into wine, God did not create the Earth in six days, and so on, all disproven by science since the time of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 28, 2014 23:17:15 GMT -5
Only agnostic's are rational? ohoh, did you hear that Rational? I'm rational! ....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2014 0:24:45 GMT -5
First of all, positions that there is or isn't an after-life are not equally rational. In fact, both positions are not rational at all, but irrational and unscientific. Sorry if I led you astray on that. It's not easy to describe falsifiability in a post or two, but wikipedia has an article on it. I recommend also a book called 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone which gets into some of these concepts. The "98% certainty" is based purely on faith and feeling. My position, as I mentioned, is an irrational one. Beyond that feeling about life I cannot tell you much more. Just tonight I learned that a very close relative who recently died appeared to his three adult children in independent dreams one night and told them everything was "going to be okay" and he was okay where he was.
Interesting because this relative was an avowed atheist. Does this prove anything? Not really. However,my scale just moved from 98% to 99%. You can drop back to your 98% scale. Dreams are a common grief reactions
Auditory or Visual Hallucinations are as well, doesn't matter whether you are religious or an atheist.
After all, dreams are a product of the mind and there is nothing supernatural about them.
So why wouldn't you have dreams of the person who died? Actual day-time hallucinations concerning them are even common, so why should dreams be different?
I still maintain that a non-belief in an "after-Life" is totally rational. There has never been any proof of any after-life whatsoever. There has never been anyone that died & returned to tell us there was.
(Christianity's belief in Jesus return from the dead doesn't count-because it is part of a supernatural belief. If you think that it is proof then you will have to count all the other supposed supernatural belief myths that are not of Christianity)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2014 0:34:52 GMT -5
Right on, Gene.
However, you would have to ask someone who has died before they are embalmed. Otherwise, the embalming fluid might alter the other chemicals in their brain & you couldn't be sure that you were getting a correct answer! As I mentioned, there is no scientific theory relating to communication with a dead person. However, there are plenty of theories relating to space travel. That is a logical fallacy argument. There is no comparison between the two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2014 0:47:14 GMT -5
Whathat, using your approach it would appear no more rational to say there is a ‘before-life’ than there is to say that there isn’t one - but I never heard you claim that we existed prior to this life. Similarly using your approach it would seem no more rational to say there is an after-life for dogs and goats than to say there isn’t one but I never hear you claim that dogs or goats continue to exist after this life. Instead you claim you are 98% certain that there is an after-life for human beings which appears to me to indicate that you have a relatively firm basis for believing there is an after-life and that you do not really think that belief in an after-life and rejection of the existence of an after-life are equally rational positions. Of course one of the difficulties in applying a scientific approach to determining whether there is an after-life or not, is that those who claim that there is, or is likely to be, an after-life often seem incapable of explaining what it is they mean by an after-life. So perhaps this is an opportunity to clarify some of the things you have been posting rather passionately about: a) What are the factors which you considered which led you to becoming to believe with 98% certainty that there is an ‘after-life’ (as opposed to 50% given that you claim each position is equally rational)?; b) When you use the term ‘after-life’ what is the (specific nature of the) entity that you believe (to be 98% certain) continues to exist in the ‘after-life’?; c) As regards the entity which you believe (to be 98% certain) continues to exist in the ‘after-life’, can you clarify where, geographically or otherwise, this entity continues to exist? Matt10 First of all, positions that there is or isn't an after-life are not equally rational. In fact, both positions are not rational at all, but irrational and unscientific. Sorry if I led you astray on that. It's not easy to describe falsifiability in a post or two, but wikipedia has an article on it. I recommend also a book called 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone which gets into some of these concepts. The "98% certainty" is based purely on faith and feeling. My position, as I mentioned, is an irrational one. Beyond that feeling about life I cannot tell you much more. Just tonight I learned that a very close relative who recently died appeared to his three adult children in independent dreams one night and told them everything was "going to be okay" and he was okay where he was. Interesting because this relative was an avowed atheist. Does this prove anything? Not really. However,my scale just moved from 98% to 99%. Whathat, this is nonsense. Matt10
|
|