Also, I just wanna put this into this thread: Russel's Teapot
Taking in consideration my links, atheist arguments like the ones Eiviyn presented are most likely to win. Still, continue the discussion, but just keep those two things in mind and don't let this stuff get personal and insulting. I remember that thread titled "Religion" that got locked immediately by EternalWraith, and I don't doubt that he'll take any excuse he can get to lock this one, so stay civil and rational (Of course taking in consideration that theist arguments aren't 100% rational as they base on faith (Which is the whole point) instead of fact). So yeah, keep this thread going. I find it highly interesting to know what people think about this :)
Here are my thoughts. Is there "life" after death? No. Or at least you would never be the same conscience. After your brain dies, it would literally seem like nothingness. Technically, it wouldn't even seem like nothingness, it would merely be nothingness. Is that a bad thing? Not really. Were you unhappy before you were born (Or your first moment you could think)? No, you were nothing conscience then. To me, what's after death would be exactly the same as what's before you can think.
I'm not an atheist. I'm a scientist. Science is based on probabilities, not absolutes.
There might be an afterlife or a god. I don't know the answer. What I do know, however, is that anyone who claims to know the answer does so with no evidence beyond faith.
I think that to expect people to accept one notion until the other can be proven is flawed because it is using using human logic to reach a conclusion (rather than fact).
In other words, it is neither true or false but simply unresolved. Nobody can't know either way if the afterlife exists or not. Lack of evidence does not mean it is false, nor does a lack of evidence mean its true either.
I personally think it exists, however I obviously have no proof and do not care if you disagree.
We have to prove to you that there is no afterlife? You're the one making the claim, you prove it. If you can't then I have the right to say that your belief is stupid.
You certainly do have the right to say someone else's beliefs are stupid, whether I can prove something or not. That doesn't mean doing so is the right thing to do, or at least the considerate thing to do.
As far as Occam's Razor and Russel's Teapot goes, sure the burden of proof is mine, but then I'm not making any attempt to prove anything. Belief necessitates going beyond empirical rationality... but that doesn't necessarily mean belief is irrational. My beliefs, or rather my philosophy, creates a perception of reality that is consistent and without self-contradiction. I can't say the same for atheism, which attempts to avoid the question of existence entirely by saying, "it just is," or "it hasn't been figured out yet." You simply can't "figure out" existence though - it will always extend beyond empirical perception. That's why a reality which is consistent requires conclusive philosophy.
I'll say it again - I don't claim to know what Reality is. It's just my perception... you can believe what you want and I won't call it "stupid."
People here might need to take another look at the definitions of 'theïst', 'atheïst' and 'agnost'. Atheïst 'arguments', Maity, are as unlikely to 'win' as theïst arguments. The funny thing about atheïsm is that for a lot of people, it's exactly the same as theïsm. Theïsts say "God exists" without proof, atheïsts say "God doesn't exist" without proof. They're both argueing a point that cannot be validated through any means we've got right now. Which is where agnosticism comes into play, which is the belief that we cannot prove whether a God exists or not. Or in my specific case, something I'd call 'temporal agnosticism' (there might be an official term for this), which means that I think we cannot, right now, prove whether a God exists or not.
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
I agree. Not every theist believes science is "the devil." Science is simply a method of understanding the nature around us - it isn't a philosophy. When people hijack science to disprove philosophy, they engage in philosophy themselves... and as such, it is no longer science.
When people hijack science to disprove philosophy, they engage in philosophy themselves... and as such, it is no longer science.
I never thought about it that way.
But in religions, aren't people destined to go down with the earth? ( Most religions anyway)
And science is still looking for more hospitable planets for humanity to survive on, in case earth gives away?
Thus denying the religions, and passively engaging in philosophy?
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
People here might need to take another look at the definitions of 'theïst', 'atheïst' and 'agnost'. Atheïst 'arguments', Maity, are as unlikely to 'win' as theïst arguments. The funny thing about atheïsm is that for a lot of people, it's exactly the same as theïsm. Theïsts say "God exists" without proof, atheïsts say "God doesn't exist" without proof. They're both argueing a point that cannot be validated through any means we've got right now. Which is where agnosticism comes into play, which is the belief that we cannot prove whether a God exists or not. Or in my specific case, something I'd call 'temporal agnosticism' (there might be an official term for this), which means that I think we cannot, right now, prove whether a God exists or not.
I said "Taking in consideration my links". Occam's Razor would make us choose the simpler answer/the answer making less assumptions. "There is a god" is an assumption (Well, there not being one isnt one is one as well I guess, but nothing is simpler than something due to there being nothing to complicate it. And I am sure you have a good argument to prove me wrong ;) )
I haven't checked up the exact definition of atheism, but I'll never say "There is no god.", but I guess I am one of those rare people that knows the difference between personal opinion and facts (As are the others here :) )
Btw, I hope you didnt think I attacked your beliefs or tried to prove them wrong or anything like that, and if that was the case, I'd like to apologize :) I have no problem with religious people as long as they aren't trying to shove their beliefs down my throat (Which you obviously aren't doing), your opinions are yours opinions and mine are mine. People shouldn't argue about opinions/beliefs but instead merely compare them (And correct/adjust them if they believe they need to)
The Occam's Razor link was there to just tell religious people in this thread not to be offensive regarding atheist.
The Teapot was meant for the atheists not to become offensive towards the religious.
I'm not an atheist. I'm a scientist. Science is based on probabilities, not absolutes.
I sort of share that opinion. An Atheist is a person that believes there is no god (Or whatever the exact definition is). I am a person that simply doesn't care about whether or not god exists, I don't give it any thought, not even while writing or reading this thread. What I know about the universe is what science taught me, and while I won't deny anything supernatural/unproven, I'll stick to what I have proof for.
But, most importantly, we have succesfully derailed the thread. Mind if we go back to life after death? I don't really have an opinion on that, so yeah...
I do not believe any kind of afterlife. It would just ruin this universe. Think about what consequence would have if you couldnt erase a "mistake" / "bad memory" in a consciousness / "soul".
Eventually I think any kind of immortal consciousness will be doomed by the fact that it cant totally renew itself...
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
Why didn't you use "What creation is to evolution" in your examples? Ah, right.
in science its the things that cant be proven wrong that are true.
There are a lot of things in science that aren't proven, and because they cant be proven they are called a theory. But dumbass scientist dont accept all theories as a possible truth,
and for any DUMB-ASS, claiming truth... there is no truth, science changes completely about every 50 years, so stfu, in another 50 we will believe that oprah or star trek was aliens.... or some other stupid shit.
Science changes its bullshit constantly because they cant hold up to a religion thats been here for the past 5k years sure they make some good points on some things, and a lot I agree, but when they try to combat religion, they only seem to talk to morons who just cite bible verses instead of people who know about the BIBLE and scientific achievement, they proved already that jesus was alive, and that he was considered a healing man at one time.
they proved Moses really did lead the jews, they proved Sodom and Gomorrah fell. The list jut goes on and on, and through looking at different cultures. they proved Noah lived, who do you think Gilgamesh was, so before you start preaching SCIENCE, look at what they have discovered that only further proves the latter.
Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Atheism is so widely spread and accepted here in Sweden that i believe many people don't the actual word, i first heard it in Family guy for example. Also Maity proof that god doesn't exist: The babble fish.
@Taintedwisp: Go And are your numbers facts? Are you taking into consideration all kinds of science? I'm sure some field of research are constantly providing us with facts.
EDIT: if you dont believe in sicence break your computer right now and go live in a hut, because you are surounded by objects and technology thanks to science.
Fact- anything that can be proven without a doubt.
also heres some numbers
Percentage of science that is Theory 99.9%
Percentage of science that is Fact 0.01%
So you still dont know what is science, but no problem, many people dont know it too, which is kind of sad in the current world.
You should read The Meaning of it All from Richard Feynman, I usually suggest people this who are confused with science. (it's actually 3 great lecture from Feynman and published in audio and txt format)
i believe in science, i'm just saying its not even close to being able to disproving god with facts, and not theorys.
And a new theory is introduced everyday, a fact is rarely ever accepted. so my numbers are probably even more off. the facts to Theory ratio is probably MUCH lower.
and a lot of facts, cant be facts, unless the non-provable theories behind them are proven.
Occam's Razor, Eiviyn wins in this case.
Also, I just wanna put this into this thread: Russel's Teapot
Taking in consideration my links, atheist arguments like the ones Eiviyn presented are most likely to win. Still, continue the discussion, but just keep those two things in mind and don't let this stuff get personal and insulting. I remember that thread titled "Religion" that got locked immediately by EternalWraith, and I don't doubt that he'll take any excuse he can get to lock this one, so stay civil and rational (Of course taking in consideration that theist arguments aren't 100% rational as they base on faith (Which is the whole point) instead of fact). So yeah, keep this thread going. I find it highly interesting to know what people think about this :)
My personal opinion: Forty Two.
Here are my thoughts. Is there "life" after death? No. Or at least you would never be the same conscience. After your brain dies, it would literally seem like nothingness. Technically, it wouldn't even seem like nothingness, it would merely be nothingness. Is that a bad thing? Not really. Were you unhappy before you were born (Or your first moment you could think)? No, you were nothing conscience then. To me, what's after death would be exactly the same as what's before you can think.
That's a first =O. Anyway, we might be immortal in the future, you know, make some sort of biological "add-on" to us humans...
... Then the primitive people would question us why we don't age, and eventually think we have a disease, it shall be called... The Peter Pan Serum.
I'm not an atheist. I'm a scientist. Science is based on probabilities, not absolutes.
There might be an afterlife or a god. I don't know the answer. What I do know, however, is that anyone who claims to know the answer does so with no evidence beyond faith.
Rodrigo always knows how to draw a crowd. :)
I think that to expect people to accept one notion until the other can be proven is flawed because it is using using human logic to reach a conclusion (rather than fact).
In other words, it is neither true or false but simply unresolved. Nobody can't know either way if the afterlife exists or not. Lack of evidence does not mean it is false, nor does a lack of evidence mean its true either.
I personally think it exists, however I obviously have no proof and do not care if you disagree.
You certainly do have the right to say someone else's beliefs are stupid, whether I can prove something or not. That doesn't mean doing so is the right thing to do, or at least the considerate thing to do.
As far as Occam's Razor and Russel's Teapot goes, sure the burden of proof is mine, but then I'm not making any attempt to prove anything. Belief necessitates going beyond empirical rationality... but that doesn't necessarily mean belief is irrational. My beliefs, or rather my philosophy, creates a perception of reality that is consistent and without self-contradiction. I can't say the same for atheism, which attempts to avoid the question of existence entirely by saying, "it just is," or "it hasn't been figured out yet." You simply can't "figure out" existence though - it will always extend beyond empirical perception. That's why a reality which is consistent requires conclusive philosophy.
I'll say it again - I don't claim to know what Reality is. It's just my perception... you can believe what you want and I won't call it "stupid."
People here might need to take another look at the definitions of 'theïst', 'atheïst' and 'agnost'. Atheïst 'arguments', Maity, are as unlikely to 'win' as theïst arguments. The funny thing about atheïsm is that for a lot of people, it's exactly the same as theïsm. Theïsts say "God exists" without proof, atheïsts say "God doesn't exist" without proof. They're both argueing a point that cannot be validated through any means we've got right now. Which is where agnosticism comes into play, which is the belief that we cannot prove whether a God exists or not. Or in my specific case, something I'd call 'temporal agnosticism' (there might be an official term for this), which means that I think we cannot, right now, prove whether a God exists or not.
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
I agree. Not every theist believes science is "the devil." Science is simply a method of understanding the nature around us - it isn't a philosophy. When people hijack science to disprove philosophy, they engage in philosophy themselves... and as such, it is no longer science.
I never thought about it that way. But in religions, aren't people destined to go down with the earth? ( Most religions anyway) And science is still looking for more hospitable planets for humanity to survive on, in case earth gives away? Thus denying the religions, and passively engaging in philosophy?
OMGWTFBRBG2GBBQ<
Agreed
I said "Taking in consideration my links". Occam's Razor would make us choose the simpler answer/the answer making less assumptions. "There is a god" is an assumption (Well, there not being one isnt one is one as well I guess, but nothing is simpler than something due to there being nothing to complicate it. And I am sure you have a good argument to prove me wrong ;) )
I haven't checked up the exact definition of atheism, but I'll never say "There is no god.", but I guess I am one of those rare people that knows the difference between personal opinion and facts (As are the others here :) )
@BasharTeg: Go
Btw, I hope you didnt think I attacked your beliefs or tried to prove them wrong or anything like that, and if that was the case, I'd like to apologize :) I have no problem with religious people as long as they aren't trying to shove their beliefs down my throat (Which you obviously aren't doing), your opinions are yours opinions and mine are mine. People shouldn't argue about opinions/beliefs but instead merely compare them (And correct/adjust them if they believe they need to)
The Occam's Razor link was there to just tell religious people in this thread not to be offensive regarding atheist.
The Teapot was meant for the atheists not to become offensive towards the religious.
I sort of share that opinion. An Atheist is a person that believes there is no god (Or whatever the exact definition is). I am a person that simply doesn't care about whether or not god exists, I don't give it any thought, not even while writing or reading this thread. What I know about the universe is what science taught me, and while I won't deny anything supernatural/unproven, I'll stick to what I have proof for.
But, most importantly, we have succesfully derailed the thread. Mind if we go back to life after death? I don't really have an opinion on that, so yeah...
I do not believe any kind of afterlife. It would just ruin this universe. Think about what consequence would have if you couldnt erase a "mistake" / "bad memory" in a consciousness / "soul".
Eventually I think any kind of immortal consciousness will be doomed by the fact that it cant totally renew itself...
Why didn't you use "What creation is to evolution" in your examples? Ah, right.
@Tolkfan: Go
in science its the things that cant be proven wrong that are true.
There are a lot of things in science that aren't proven, and because they cant be proven they are called a theory. But dumbass scientist dont accept all theories as a possible truth,
and for any DUMB-ASS, claiming truth... there is no truth, science changes completely about every 50 years, so stfu, in another 50 we will believe that oprah or star trek was aliens.... or some other stupid shit.
Science changes its bullshit constantly because they cant hold up to a religion thats been here for the past 5k years sure they make some good points on some things, and a lot I agree, but when they try to combat religion, they only seem to talk to morons who just cite bible verses instead of people who know about the BIBLE and scientific achievement, they proved already that jesus was alive, and that he was considered a healing man at one time.
they proved Moses really did lead the jews, they proved Sodom and Gomorrah fell. The list jut goes on and on, and through looking at different cultures. they proved Noah lived, who do you think Gilgamesh was, so before you start preaching SCIENCE, look at what they have discovered that only further proves the latter.
So you dont know what is science.
@TheAlmaity: Go
@Mozared: Go
Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Atheism is so widely spread and accepted here in Sweden that i believe many people don't the actual word, i first heard it in Family guy for example. Also Maity proof that god doesn't exist: The babble fish.
@Hookah604: Go In science there is 2 catagories
Theory - Anything that cannot be disproven.
Fact- anything that can be proven without a doubt.
also heres some numbers
Percentage of science that is Theory 99.9%
Percentage of science that is Fact 0.01%
@Taintedwisp: Go And are your numbers facts? Are you taking into consideration all kinds of science? I'm sure some field of research are constantly providing us with facts.
EDIT: if you dont believe in sicence break your computer right now and go live in a hut, because you are surounded by objects and technology thanks to science.
So you still dont know what is science, but no problem, many people dont know it too, which is kind of sad in the current world.
You should read The Meaning of it All from Richard Feynman, I usually suggest people this who are confused with science. (it's actually 3 great lecture from Feynman and published in audio and txt format)
@SoulFilcher: Go
i believe in science, i'm just saying its not even close to being able to disproving god with facts, and not theorys.
And a new theory is introduced everyday, a fact is rarely ever accepted. so my numbers are probably even more off. the facts to Theory ratio is probably MUCH lower.
and a lot of facts, cant be facts, unless the non-provable theories behind them are proven.
@Hookah604: Go
So because one person claims to understand what Science is, they must be right?
Edit: Obviously this man is a god. i mean who else knows everything about the universe? WORSHIP HIM AND HIS IQ OF 75 !!!!
So whats the difference from him and the pope calling it the devil?