The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death. This is core belief of most of the religions, and if it was required earlier(centuries before) to believe this, why does it still persists? Why can't us humans admit that we don't know rather than putting our faiths in books written by people for whom wheel-barrow would be an emerging technology?

Because we're not so sure of our ignorance after all.

Faith was forced upon me I can't help it.

peace.

The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death.
How do you figure that?

my faith is the result of happenings while alive, not thoughts on, or fears of, death.

It is a natural tendency in every mortal to fear death and to wish for eternal life. The concept of non-existence is difficult for the human mind to accept. Psychological studies have shown that it is difficult for us to accept the idea of our transient existence on earth. Humans have tried to dispel the thought which may haunt their minds by different means. They seek solace in religious belief, in their progeny, in attaining fame or leaving a human heritage to make their name memorable for years.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6032960

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6032960
You do realize that the article offers absolutely nothing, much like praty's post, in regards to establishing how the presence of fear necessarily renders belief in a solution to it imaginary or baseless or whatever?

English please

English please

Just explain what makes you think solutions to fear are imaginary and you will have the beginning of a coherent argument

Referencing some one else who also has the same gaping holes in the ir argument simply makes the problems within yours more pronounced

Speaking of coherent.... Your posts are a mess as usual.

Say what you want directly. I assume you disagree with the article. Why?

Speaking of coherent.... Your posts are a mess as usual.
what part of the question "explain what makes you think solutions to fear are imaginary" are you having difficulty with?

It doesn't make sense to me. Could you ask it in a different manner?

Also could you tell me why you disagree that people subconsciously believe their own immortality?

It doesn't make sense to me. Could you ask it in a different manner?
Ok lets take it r...e...a...l... slow.

Do you see the notion of having an after life as a solution to death (never mind whether you think its real or imaginary .... we will get to that later)


Also could you tell me why you disagree that people subconsciously believe their own immortality?
I am not disagreeing with that.

I am disagreeing with categorizing it as necessarily imagination or catalyzed purely by dire need... or as praty says in the OP

The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death.

light,

The people who truly believe in afterlife like the Egyptians, who were most famous for it, have no other reason to do so.

Because we're not so sure of our ignorance after all.

Well its high time we should be.

Well its high time we should be.

Being sure of one's ignorance is a contradiction in terms.

The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death.

You will need to explain this, please.

I see no necessary correlation between fear of death and belief in one's immortality.

light,

The people who truly believe in afterlife like the Egyptians, who were most famous for it, have no other reason to do so.
so you think if fear plays apart in granting value to a solution, the solution is necessarily farcical?

so for instance, solutions to disease partake of the same farcical nature you attribute to religion since whatever erodes health and well being is a cause of fear?

so you think if fear plays apart in granting value to a solution, the solution is necessarily farcical?Praty has not said at any point that the solution is necessarily farcical, nor can anything he has said be implied as such.

The point is that the holding of the belief, as part of a solution or otherwise, gives no credence to the tenet of the belief, but nor does it refute that tenet in any way.


so for instance, solutions to disease partake of the same farcical nature you attribute to religion since whatever erodes health and well being is a cause of fear?You really do like using inappropriate / fallacious analogies to help create and destroy your strawmen, don't you.

You will need to explain this, please.

I see no necessary correlation between fear of death and belief in one's immortality.

Why else would someone want to be immortal? A wishful thinking that can't be asserted in any way, rather than admitting it's not possible to ever find out and live without fear of death, judgment and eternity.


so you think if fear plays apart in granting value to a solution, the solution is necessarily farcical?

so for instance, solutions to disease partake of the same farcical nature you attribute to religion since whatever erodes health and well being is a cause of fear?

Don't stray, i wish to sort out the reason for believe in supernatural with no evidence and no chance of getting any evidence.

Praty has not said at any point that the solution is necessarily farcical, nor can anything he has said be implied as such.
:rolleyes:
get back to us when you've read the op ...

Don't stray,
I'm not.

I am simply pointing our how fear plays a part in many "real" things as well


i wish to sort out the reason for believe in supernatural with no evidence and no chance of getting any evidence.
why attribute belief in immortality to the supernatural?

The link yoyo provided shows how it drives cyrogenics, the pursuit of fame and even common genealogy?

As things stand, the only thing there is no evidence for is for your claim that there is no chance for getting any evidence

get back to us when you've read the op ...I have... and I repeat: Praty has not said at any point that the solution is necessarily farcical, nor can anything he has said be implied as such.

Feel free to point out where the implication lies in the OP that such a solution is necessarily farcical?

Or shall I just chalk this up to you being unable to provide a counter (or perhaps an apology) when you have been called out? :shrug:

I'm not.

I am simply pointing our how fear plays a part in many "real" things as well


why attribute belief in immortality to the supernatural?

The link yoyo provided shows how it drives cyrogenics, the pursuit of fame and even common genealogy?

As things stand, the only thing there is no evidence for is for your claim that there is no chance for getting any evidence


Fear part - agreed, but what are you implying?

My question was why humanity sticks with version of afterlife provided in Scriptures written at the time of infancy of our species and which is pretty much supernatural. No scientific research would be able to concur the statements made in these books.

I have... and I repeat: Praty has not said at any point that the solution is necessarily farcical, nor can anything he has said be implied as such.

Feel free to point out where the implication lies in the OP that such a solution is necessarily farcical?

Or shall I just chalk this up to you being unable to provide a counter (or perhaps an apology) when you have been called out? :shrug:

Right on!:bravo:

Why else would someone want to be immortal?

For starters, because of all the fun we have here on earth, and wish it could last forever.

Has anyone you loved already died? Did you not wish they would continue to be alive, so that you could continue to love eachother?



A wishful thinking that can't be asserted in any way, rather than admitting it's not possible to ever find out and live without fear of death, judgment and eternity.

"Admitting it's not possible to ever find out" would require omniscience.

If anything, we have the fear that we could find out: we're either afraid that we might not like the answer (hence we don't search); or we're afraid because we know we haven't given the search all the resources and attention that we could.

My question was why humanity sticks with version of afterlife provided in Scriptures written at the time of infancy of our species and which is pretty much supernatural. No scientific research would be able to concur the statements made in these books.

So what if science wouldn't be able to concur the statements made in those ancient books?

If anything, we have the fear that we could find out: we're either afraid that we might not like the answer (hence we don't search); or we're afraid because we know we haven't given the search all the resources and attention that we could.
If you really want to give it ALL the resources you can, you can always try death and then let us know what you find out... :rolleyes:

If you really want to give it ALL the resources you can, you can always try death and then let us know what you find out...

Sure. Many people consider death to be the standard and ultimate test of oneself.

For starters, because of all the fun we have here on earth, and wish it could last forever.

Has anyone you loved already died? Did you not wish they would continue to be alive, so that you could continue to love eachother?




"Admitting it's not possible to ever find out" would require omniscience.

If anything, we have the fear that we could find out: we're either afraid that we might not like the answer (hence we don't search); or we're afraid because we know we haven't given the search all the resources and attention that we could.

That I'm not arguing, if science brings about a revolution and life span of humans becomes near 'forever', not considering the biological hazard it'll cause, that'll be jolly. All I'm saying that all religions providing this by the agent of supernatural are equal glimpses of untrue.


So what if science wouldn't be able to concur the statements made in those ancient books?

Er, that makes them false and fiction and disqualified to be believed by humans.

Er, that makes them false and fiction and disqualified to be believed by humans.

That means that those who do believe the scriptures, and/or in the afterlife
are not humans.

:shrug:

That means that those who do believe the scriptures, and/or in the afterlife
are not humans.

:shrug:

No but as conscious cosmos they should know better than to believe the untrue, having developed a perfect tool against it - science.

Sure. Many people consider death to be the standard and ultimate test of oneself.
And how many have "confirmed" life after death?

Ok lets take it r...e...a...l... slow.

Do you see the notion of having an after life as a solution to death (never mind whether you think its real or imaginary .... we will get to that later)

It's not that I'm slow. It's that you're asking me to agree to something, I never said by using general terms. Nevermind that right now though.

The question is almost making sense now. A solution to death? No, true immortality would be the solution to death.


I am not disagreeing with that.

I am disagreeing with categorizing it as necessarily imagination or catalyzed purely by dire need... or as praty says in the OP

The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death.

I can see how his wording is unfortunate, yes.
I don't want to make this into another thread about whether God exists or not. I will ask you this instead: Do you think, it would make sense that humans uses the idea of an afterlife as a defense mechanism against the fear of death?

yoyo,

Fear of death very much prevails among majority of people believing in afterlife. Hence the unfortunate wording. Its from common folk perspective.

Well that's not what I meant. It's not the fear of death itself that creates a belief. It's the human mind that creates it because of the fear of death.

Yea and you're saying it like it's a fact without backing it up with some sort of evidence.

Everything that is part of us—our cells, tissues, organs and organ systems—has come about over billions of years because it proved successful in the great survival stakes during our perilous evolutionary descent (ascent) with modification. The brain, being no exception, evolved, in part, to allow a creature to learn from what happens in its life, to retain key elements that could influence future actions. We are geared for self-preservation. We will do anything to avoid facing the possibility that who we are now cannot continue.

We ourselves are mainly the cause that we are interested in. The self is preoccupied with staying alive, which is why our species is still around today. It is a prime biological function to be afraid of death, and, so, the self, as thus contrived, is able to fully play its crucial survival role. We want to equip our brain with a soul that offers us an escape when the brain dies since the self cannot come to terms with its own extinction.

…

yoyo,

Ditto!
I think that it is implied, humans mean human mind. As for evidence part, what I meant was most people who believe it, do it because they fear death and wanna live on somehow, that ain't a fact?

And thanks for the article earlier, all knowledge is food for me!

You're welcome :)

The problem with implying stuff is that [the nice religious people] here on the forums can and will (sometimes deliberately i suspect) misunderstand every little thing unless you spoonfeed it to them. No it's not a fact. It requires God not to exist and that's not a discussion you want to start unless you want your thread ruined. Just a bit of advice :)

…

From a subjective standpoint, we are all born equal and undifferentiated (before that, ‘we’ were dead), but, as mature selves we make a distinction between the individual and the surroundings. Still, the brain keeps changing throughout life, in a pattern of the shifting flux of its neurons; we gain and lose memories and feelings, essentially creating a new person over and over again. The self is thus not so rock solid as it seems. These moment-to-moment changes differ from death only in degree. In essence, they are identical, although at the opposite ends of the spectrum. So, we are not static things.

Other neural networks will come to be in other, future people, albeit with an “amnesia” of what went on before in the brains of the previous others. Why should we be happy about this? We never can be, because the ‘I’ cannot operate outside of its own boundaries. The only viable alternative is to think of a way in which it is possible to ever continue on. What will it be like to be a part of someone else after we die, with our own particular narrative of life cast aside? This is the ‘zen’ of now and then and when.

Everything that is part of us—our cells, tissues, organs and organ systems—has come about over billions of years because it proved successful in the great survival stakes during our perilous evolutionary descent (ascent) with modification. The brain, being no exception, evolved, in part, to allow a creature to learn from what happens in its life, to retain key elements that could influence future actions. We are geared for self-preservation. We will do anything to avoid facing the possibility that who we are now cannot continue.

We ourselves are mainly the cause that we are interested in. The self is preoccupied with staying alive, which is why our species is still around today. It is a prime biological function to be afraid of death, and, so, the self, as thus contrived, is able to fully play its crucial survival role. We want to equip our brain with a soul that offers us an escape when the brain dies since the self cannot come to terms with its own extinction.

…

And the only way we can preserve ourselves is by replication of our genes, excellently put:bravo:

The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death. This is core belief of most of the religions, and if it was required earlier(centuries before) to believe this, why does it still persists? Why can't us humans admit that we don't know rather than putting our faiths in books written by people for whom wheel-barrow would be an emerging technology?

This is something that as already been posted around here, mainly by me.

There will always be a fear of suffering and death. Therefore the false promises of religion will never go away. Religion is here to stay, whether we like it or not. However, I may iterate that it is only the foolish who is truly afraid of the inevitable. All too often people treat death as if it's an option. Sorry, we are all going to die. Every living creature in existence eventually dies.

So why be afraid, right? If we know it's going to come, if we have have complete certainty that one day we will die and that it will be the end of life as we know it, why be afraid? Well, the answer lay simply in the fact that most of religion, when analyzed at it's core, is not simply the promise of eternal life but rather also the feeling of insight, superiority and control.

Religion teaches it's believers that if you believe this, or if you do that, then you are to be granted something better than those don't - something that is inaccessible to everyone else but you. It's that feeling of having a one-up in the world. Humans are naturally competitive. We want the best of the best, and we are envyous of anyone who has something that we don't have but want.

So, in that light, we can see how religions teachings are specifically structured to ensure the existence of that religion. Christians and the like believe that because they believe, that God will answer their prayers, intervene in their daily lives, ensure their safety, protect their loved ones, and of course, secure a place in a so-called paradise for them when they die. It's all bullshit. Really, it is. But we are stupid, plain and simple. We reject facts and evidence at the rumor of some eternal life. Though we have no evidence whatsoever that shows that an eternal life actually exists, we make that leap of faith out of greed and fear - greed to know that we have something others don't, and fear of death.

…we make that leap of faith out of greed and fear - greed to know that we have something others don't, and fear of death.

Some humans have much pride, meaning little humility, thinking that stars shine and flowers grow just for their special promise. What hubris!

Onto the nature of belief…

THE INTRINSIC INSTINCTIVE:
THINKING ABOUT THOUGHTS THEMSELVES

What is this conviction, in many, that innate sense of impression, fond, of those spirits invisible and beyond? Who or what put them there, those notions of the thin air? To investigate, one must put aside the very judgment that descends from the conclusion, deep-rooted, for the inherent blocks its own analysis.

Whence it came forth, so prevalent, this indwelling urge to believe? The plot ever thickens and twists and turns upon itself, bare—natural selection put it there!

One can have many feelings that surface from the heredity of long ago. Some are not so good, obviously, and some are even forbidden thoughts. Life’s still emotionally primitive—‘negative’ feedback mechanisms in the central nervous system, some useless, still send out thousands-of-years-old messages.

And so the feelings may be banished, but subtle is the difference of these and those inklings closer to the boundary of distinction. We don’t fall for thoughts of violence, usually, although it is possible for some to hear these directions as gospel; yet, we may fall for some ‘innocuous’ views, slipping over the threshold, indiscriminate, saying, “Well, I felt it, so thus it must be so.”

Do we control our thoughts or do our thoughts control us? Could we, silly as it might seem, just be falling, hook and line, for the thoughts? Think deep—thoughts may tell you the answer! We may fall for our thoughts, hook, line, and sinker: conditioned responses, reflexes, or overwhelming emotions, some spurious, or ancient, planted by evolution, or unbalanced.

Emotions are slow to react to logic, like molasses or slow forming crystals, or not at all, like rocks, blocking one. Unless and until they change, progress halts. Reason and emotion are hard to coordinate, each having a separate pathway to the mind, and that perhaps is all there is to tell about the miseries and follies of human history.

From its safe subjective place that’s free of fear, the higher self, our conscious awareness, can witness the strange thoughts and emotions that surface on the mind, sent there by the subconscious brain. First-level thoughts are beliefs and desires, but second-level thoughts are truths and facts about the lower beliefs and desires, thus becoming able spectators of the scene beneath. Higher awareness, which can but witness, is a safe haven from which to observe the drama of our lives playing in our minds, granting us a sobering distance from it. This detachment allows the “thinking about a thought” without the thought itself being able to steal the show.

Some humans have much pride, meaning little humility, thinking that stars shine and flowers grow just for their special promise. What hubris!

I agree.

The conflict:

One side is of internal sensation, and thinking, but of that internal sensation via introspection and extending it to further structuring beyond the initial wish but ever forming it into what one wants it to be through emotion. It’s as if that if we feel a ghost then there must be a ghost, and then further that it does such and such because of inter-dimensions, and more, to protect the notion, etc.

The other side is informed more than internal sensation and uses science, logic, evidence, reason, and even secondary observation of felt sensations, wishes, and strange thoughts arising.

Never the twains shall meet but in collision.

Who says we cant live forever?

Nobody yet

Who says we cant live forever?

Methuselah might have but he was run over by a cart after not looking both ways when crossing a road.

I believe we can live forever so there shouldn't be so much fuss over the fear of death and more concentration in living longer + there is so much unexplored out there so thats even more of a reason to want to live longer

I believe we can live forever so there shouldn't be so much fuss over the fear of death and more concentration in living longer + there is so much unexplored out there so thats even more of a reason to want to live longer

I wouldn't mind either, drinking of life after the expiration date, but wishes, belief, and desires don't make anything so.

I wouldn't mind either, drinking of life after the expiration date, but wishes, belief, and desires don't make anything so.
Action makes it happen, we know so much about the human body why hasn't somebody already made ways to live longer. Is there not a way to preserve our brain?

Action makes it happen, we know so much about the human body why hasn't somebody already made ways to live longer. Is there not a way to preserve our brain?

When DNA splits and replicates during cell division, a little bit more of the junk DNA at the tips gets worn or rips, such as with shoelace ends, eventually going on to degrade the useful DNA and so one way would be to either strengthen these or lengthen them. Their could be more to aging, this, and someday science may solve this and all.

Can you reverse DNA Replication? and reverse cell division?

Can you reverse DNA Replication? and reverse cell division?

No, for it is necessary, but we can make it harmless.

What does that mean to us?

What does that mean to us?

Live forever—if you are careful crossing the street, and don't die from other accidents, until the end of the universe arrives.

Oh ok cool so what could we do while we live forever what are some stuff to do besides survive?

Hell theres loooootta shit to do around this planet man...

Fear part - agreed, but what are you implying?

My question was why humanity sticks with version of afterlife provided in Scriptures written at the time of infancy of our species and which is pretty much supernatural. No scientific research would be able to concur the statements made in these books.
And you think you can ask that question without implying that its farcical (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2741847&postcount=25)?


.... I think you have to straighten out your thinking first.

And you think you can ask that question without implying that its farcical (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2741847&postcount=25)?


Why would it be farcical?

Why would it be farcical?
italics mine



My question was why humanity sticks with version of afterlife provided in Scriptures written at the time of infancy of our species and which is pretty much supernatural. No scientific research would be able to concur the statements made in these books.

I mean can you seriously read that and not think he is suggesting that the claims of the after life are false?

It seems he's a somewhat strong atheist, so he would think that claims of afterlife are false.

But is it farcical that humans use an imagined afterlife as a defense mechanism?

It seems he's a somewhat strong atheist, so he would think that claims of afterlife are false.

But is it farcical that humans use an imagined afterlife as a defense mechanism?
sure

But is it farcical for an actual after life to establish selfhood beyond mere issues of bodily designation?

"sure" as in "yes it's farcical?"

Also...

I don't understand your question.

"sure" as in "yes it's farcical?"
if its actual, why would it be farcical?


Also...

I don't understand your question.
a purely imagined thing is obviously farcical

I am asking about something that isn't (ie something that is actual)

if its actual, why would it be farcical?

Who said it would?



a purely imagined thing is obviously farcical

Why? It would serve a purpose even if imagined.


I am asking about something that isn't (ie something that is actual)

And what's that?

Why? It would serve a purpose even if imagined.
no more than an imaginative cure for cancer serves a purpose




And what's that?
an actual after life as opposed to an imagined one

no more than an imaginative cure for cancer serves a purpose

An imagined afterlife would serve the purpose of calming the fear of death.
To me that's a very real and helpful effect. I can understand that people would sign onto this belief to make death easier to handle.



an actual after life as opposed to an imagined one

Yes but you don't know that it's actual.

In case that it IS actual it wouldn't be farcical of course. I don't think you'd find anyone here saying that a real afterlife would be farcical.

No but as conscious cosmos they should know better than to believe the untrue, having developed a perfect tool against it - science.

Oh, those nasty humanses, they keep thinking, feeling, saying and doing things that irk honorable, decent, realistic, knowledgeable, humble people such as yourself!
Yup yup, they should change! Oh yes, they should look up to you!!!

Yes but you don't know that it's actual.


How do you know that?

Well if he does, I would love to hear the story. I just assumed, I was talking to a living person. Silly me.

And you think you can ask that question without implying that its farcical?


.... I think you have to straighten out your thinking first.

Answer the question, rather ask yourself this question, if you are capable of thinking, you'll be able to laugh yourself out and bravely admit it's unknown and can't be known.

We all need to straighten out our thinking not just me.

Oh, those nasty humanses, they keep thinking, feeling, saying and doing things that irk honorable, decent, realistic, knowledgeable, humble people such as yourself!
Yup yup, they should change! Oh yes, they should look up to you!!!

This is related to the topic how? :confused:

This is related to the topic how?

Uh.

Signal,

No seriously, when did i say anything about 'knowledgeable people'? I'm considering humanity as a whole. Everyone should be skeptical and think for themselves.

Answer the question, rather ask yourself this question, if you are capable of thinking, you'll be able to laugh yourself out and bravely admit it's unknown and can't be known.We all need to straighten out our thinking not just me.
The problem is this : You are bringing elements to your argument that effectively render discussion of the after life to farce while simultaneously advocating that you are not offering a position whether the claims are true or not.

At this point I am simply asking you to present your argument with honesty

An imagined afterlife would serve the purpose of calming the fear of death.
To me that's a very real and helpful effect. I can understand that people would sign onto this belief to make death easier to handle.
Now imagine the comparison between an imagined cure for a terminal disease and an actual one





Yes but you don't know that it's actual.
Why not?



In case that it IS actual it wouldn't be farcical of course. I don't think you'd find anyone here saying that a real afterlife would be farcical.
The problem is that we aren't finding anyone here saying that it isn't farcical

I mean can you seriously read that and not think he is suggesting that the claims of the after life are false?He is saying that he considers those specific claims to be unsubstantiated, not necessarily that the afterlife is not an actuality. He is also suggesting that the afterlife, in his opinion, is beyond substantiation, i.e. that we should at best be agnostic on the matter.

If I claim that I know the sun is basically a large ball of hydrogen because my dog told me, does the actuality of the sun basically being a large ball of hydrogen mean that my dog spoke to me?
Because your line of argument would suggest that it does.

if its actual, why would it be farcical?

a purely imagined thing is obviously farcical

I am asking about something that isn't (ie something that is actual)What is farcical about imagined things?
Must everything be either an actuality or farce, as you seem to suggest?
What about blueprints for as-yet-unrealised buildings... are they farce?
Is every unrealised idea a farce?

Now imagine the comparison between an imagined cure for a terminal disease and an actual one

Irrelevant. fear of death is not a terminal disease. It's a psychological condition.



Why not?

Well do you you know for a fact that there is an afterlife? yes or no.



The problem is that we aren't finding anyone here saying that it isn't farcical

Aren't we? How about all your religious brothers and sisters on the site?

And why would it be a problem in the first place?
It would be a problem if somebody was saying positively that an actual real afterlife was farcical.

light,

Still you haven't answered.

My honest position is what sarkus described above, it couldn't be put across more aptly. I'm agnostic about both afterlife and chance of finding evidence for it.

Now imagine the comparison between an imagined cure for a terminal disease and an actual oneWhat does belief in the nature of the cure (imagined or otherwise) for a terminal disease have to do with the actuality of the nature of it?

If the cure is actual then it will work whether it is believed in or not.
If the cure is imaginary then it will not work whether it is believed in or not.

The same with belief in the afterlife: belief or not in the afterlife can not alter whether the afterlife is actual or imaginary.

Your analogy is thus flawed if you think it makes a point in your favour. :shrug:


The difference with some minor ailments, however, is that mere "belief" in the cure can be as effective as the cure itself... which is why placebos are often seen to be successful despite the "cure" being imaginary.

An imagined afterlife would serve the purpose of calming the fear of death.
To me that's a very real and helpful effect. I can understand that people would sign onto this belief to make death easier to handle.

Do you think that people are generally insane, and have been so especially in the past?
(I know you have expressed something similar before.)

Because knowing that something is imaginary, but nevertheless using it for a real purpose (such as easing fear of death) is something only an insane person could do.

The moment we find out something is imaginary, it loses its previous effect on us.

For example, the magic bracelet might have the positive effect on people, but only as long as they believe it really can do that. The moment they become convinced (either by an external source of information or by personal experience) that it has no healing properties, the bracelet loses its "magic" and people stop wearing it for healing purposes.

No seriously, when did i say anything about 'knowledgeable people'? I'm considering humanity as a whole. Everyone should be skeptical and think for themselves.

And by "being skeptical and thinking for themselves" you mean that they would think the way you think they should?
You will be the judge on whether someone is "being skeptical and thinking for themselves"?

Do you think that people are generally insane, and have been so especially in the past?
(I know you have expressed something similar before.)

Because knowing that something is imaginary, but nevertheless using it for a real purpose (such as easing fear of death) is something only an insane person could do.

Assuming that the afterlife is imaginary: If you're using it for a real purpose you won't know or think it's imaginary. Possibly it could actually prevent you from going insane/depressed.


The moment we find out something is imaginary, it loses its previous effect on us.


I must beg to differ here. The placebo effect can still work even when we know that a cure is imaginary. I can provide you with evidence for this if you should be interested.
In the case of afterlife it might be different. I don't see it as a disease to be scared of death. I think it's very natural. All the uncertainty and such can be hard to handle.

Assuming that the afterlife is imaginary: If you're using it for a real purpose you won't know or think it's imaginary. Possibly it could actually prevent you from going insane/depressed.

If you see there is no chair, will you imagine one and sit down anyway?



I must beg to differ here. The placebo effect can still work even when we know that a cure is imaginary. I can provide you with evidence for this if you should be interested.

Then please do. Give examples where the test subjects knew they are being given a placebo, and the medication still had the desired result.

The fear of Death and Unknown creates a belief that we will be able to survive our own death. This is core belief of most of the religions, and if it was required earlier(centuries before) to believe this, why does it still persists? Why can't us humans admit that we don't know rather than putting our faiths in books written by people for whom wheel-barrow would be an emerging technology?

Also, importantly, in the major religions, the belief in an afterlife usually involves strict conditions about it; such as that one has to do many good works in this lifetime, avoid crime.
A pleasant afterlife is not considered a right, it is not considered something people would automatically be entitled to.


The idea that fear of death would somehow give rise to the belief in afterlife would make sense if the thus arived-at belief in afterlife would be only about pleasant things.

But the afterlife beliefs of the major religions are far from that; some of the very common scenarios (such as a long period in hell, going through a purgatory fire, or being reborn as an animal) are anything but pleasant.

Out of fear of death, why would anyone come up with such grim scenarios??

Out of fear of death, why would anyone come up with such grim scenarios??Fear of death is merely suggested as giving rise to the idea of the afterlife. Anything more specific than that (requirement to do good etc) might well have arisen from the desire to control people / give them a reason to behave etc.

So I would be careful of trying to add the additional characteristics as proof/evidence against the underlying suggestion, when it actually might have no bearing at all.

If you see there is no chair, will you imagine one and sit down anyway?

Again assuming that the afterlife is imaginary: People who believe in the afterlife, do not think it's imaginary. They see a chair. A chair is a poor analogy though, because it's physical. You can't "see" an afterlife, but you can easily "believe" it's there, even if it isn't.



Then please do. Give examples where the test subjects knew they are being given a placebo, and the medication still had the desired result.


Patients can benefit from being treated with sham drugs even if they are told they contain no active ingredient, scientists have found. The finding suggests that the placebo effect could work without the need for any deception on the part of the doctor, as had been previously thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug

I know people who believe it becuase they want to and others who believe in it because it is a tradition in their family. I know religious people who fear death, and i know religious people who don't.

The answer is that some people want to believe that there is a bigger reason why we exist, than a simple accident. They want to believe that we were created, with a purpose, by a superior beingthat watch over us, for some this brings comfort, for others it doesn't.

And by "being skeptical and thinking for themselves" you mean that they would think the way you think they should?
You will be the judge on whether someone is "being skeptical and thinking for themselves"?

We have science for that.

Aeternus,

Neat underline.

If you see there is no chair, will you imagine one and sit down anyway?
You seem to have a problem with the concept of somethings being tangible.

IMHO, apples & chairs don't really fall under the same category as gods and life after death

…Because knowing that something is imaginary, but nevertheless using it for a real purpose (such as easing fear of death) is something only an insane person could do.

The moment we find out something is imaginary, it loses its previous effect on us.

They don't know, for they so much want the belief—an error in thinking, yes, or having little or no thinking, due to emotion blinding it. (Not technically insane, really.)

Wisdom must then conclude, indeed, that they don't they can't, and they won't, and so there is no "could", "should" or "ought to", and so diplomacy and mediation will fail to halt the conflict.

(And some may know, but still wish to make the tradeoff, eventually becoming immune, as it grooves in.)

(con't)

They tried to fool us with false tales of species made intact just a few thousand years ago, a fixed and flat Earth, a solid firmament above, lone and special mammals that only existed here—the whole universe only for them, a Garden and an apple eaten, 50,000 species in a boat during a flood, a strict father figure of fundamental thinking Being of God sending one to blazes, or not, angels and evils as good and evil spirits, a Heaven of an afterlife for the experimented on who pass the test, a virgin giving birth, purgatories, limbos, and all such subsequent inventions, superstition, myths, and dredged up legends falsely layered upon the initial fabrication into an unwieldy structure that could never hold water.

hmm..too many thoughts..

fear..that which is unknown..(we fear what we don't know),
what happens after we die?
we don't know..its logical to fear afterlife.

religion gives an excuse not to fear afterlife,they attempt to make known that which is unknown.
there are tons of testimonies of ppl who have died and came back to life..not limited to our life times, ancients pry had ppl who had died(pry not as many as today) then returned then told what they saw..(hmm, possible beginnings of religion)

how would you answer your four year old if they asked 'what happens after we die?'
or better yet..the 'why?' game..
(why should i be a good person?)

'what happens after we die?'

We die ‘little deaths’ all the time. Our atoms change, some of our memories go away and some new ones reappear, although I realize that it is the core of memories that defines us as us. It’s just that we are hardly the same person now as when we were much younger. We had ‘death’ before birth, too, and now there is life after birth. Is there life only during life? Yes.

If one had amnesia and began learning the world anew, then one might say that one as the previous person was ‘dead’ and that it is our new life that counts, one not even missing the old one. And, while the ‘big death’ is much more than any of these ‘little deaths’, it is that our atoms may go on to reside in a new person eventually. It’s not like there is any continuity of memory, but more like that any narrative will do.

it is that our atoms may go on to reside in a new person eventually.

i actually thought about this concept yesterday..

only it was in the context of burial vs being burned on a beach,
i thought of how being burned would reduce me better/quicker than decaying in a grave, then i imagined my ashes spreading across the beach, integrating with the sand on the beach..i then imagined i could become a part of some childs sand castle, or ingested by some kid and becoming a part of him/her, but reality then interrupted and told me i would pry end up as part of the sand in some guys butt crack....

You can't "see" an afterlife, but you can easily "believe" it's there, even if it isn't.

How do you propose to test this?

No need to test it. It's easy to believe it's there, simply because a lot of faiths have an afterlife. Christians get harps, muslims get virgins, some get reincarnated... They can't all be right, so at least some of them must be imagining it. Hence - easy to believe.

I'm not interested in proving that you can't "see" an afterlife actually, as it has no relevance to my point.

You seem to have a problem with the concept of somethings being tangible.

IMHO, apples & chairs don't really fall under the same category as gods and life after death

You cannot point at planet Earth. Whatever you point at, it will be "a patch of grass", "a rock", "soil" and such, but not planet Earth.

That does not mean that planet Earth is untangible, it is just that it is too big for our usual notions of tangibility, and so additional concepts are required to understand something as "planet Earth".

Similar with, say, protons, or bacteria, which are on the other end of the spectrum, being so small in proportion to our usual experience of things, and so additional concepts are required to understand something as "protons".

"God" and "afterlife" are, per definition, out of the range of our usual experience, like planet Earth or protons are out of the range of our usual experience, so in order to understand them, we need additional concepts.

No need to test it. It's easy to believe it's there, simply because a lot of faiths have an afterlife. Christians get harps, muslims get virgins, some get reincarnated... They can't all be right, so at least some of them must be imagining it. Hence - easy to believe.

I'm not interested in proving that you can't "see" an afterlife actually, as it has no relevance to my point.

Why can't they all be right?

And by "being skeptical and thinking for themselves" you mean that they would think the way you think they should?
You will be the judge on whether someone is "being skeptical and thinking for themselves"? We have science for that.

Science: the perfect tool for masking one's egotism and control issues. :o

Why can't they all be right?

That doesn't really matter does it?

It's easy enough to make up new stories about what the afterlife is. You can even make up ones that contradict eachother (I'm sure they do already) so that you have two beliefs that have mutually exclusive afterlives.

You didn't answer my question.

You seem to think that there can only be one, uniform answer to everything, regardless of time, place and circumstance.

You didn't answer my question.

You seem to think that there can only be one, uniform answer to everything, regardless of time, place and circumstance.

I don't need to answer your question. I'm not arguing that there is no afterlife.

What I have been saying all the time is that, ASSUMING that there is no afterlife, the belief that there is one, could be used as a defense mechanism against fear of death.

Again... Just to make myself perfectly clear. I'm not arguing that there is no afterlife. It's not relevant to this particular discussion.

Brains don't work anymore after death; so, no more self, and no afterlife.

What I have been saying all the time is that, ASSUMING that there is no afterlife, the belief that there is one, could be used as a defense mechanism against fear of death.

By whom? Crazy people?

No.
Not necessarily.

Science: the perfect tool for masking one's egotism and control issues. :o

And the point is?

I know people who believe it becuase they want to and others who believe in it because it is a tradition in their family. I know religious people who fear death, and i know religious people who don't.

The answer is that some people want to believe that there is a bigger reason why we exist, than a simple accident. They want to believe that we were created, with a purpose, by a superior beingthat watch over us, for some this brings comfort, for others it doesn't.
or alternatively

The answer is that some people want to believe that there is no reason why we exist other than a simple accident. They want to believe that we create our own purpose, with nothing superior to it - for some gross materialists, this brings comfort, for others it doesn't.

Or they remain curious and keep asking questions, instead of accepting ancient tomes as the universal truth?

Or they remain curious and keep asking questions, instead of accepting ancient tomes as the universal truth?

What is there to question?
You have accepted ancient philosophy as universal truth, though it may not be
presented in the form of books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cārvāka

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/history/ancient.shtml

Nothing has changed, and nothing has been added'
The modern atheist is expounding an ancient philosophy.

jan.

*sigh*

What is there to question?
Everything.


You have accepted ancient philosophy as universal truth, though it may not be presented in the form of books.
The modern atheist is expounding an ancient philosophy.
That would be incorrect.

What is there to question? Everything.

Why?

You have accepted ancient philosophy as universal truth, though it may not be
presented in the form of books.

...
Nothing has changed, and nothing has been added'
The modern atheist is expounding an ancient philosophy.

jan.

No one takes Epicurus or Lucretius on faith, not even themselves. They expound on their process of reasoning in great detail. And in modern times, the atomic theory has proved more or less correct.

No one takes Epicurus or Lucretius on faith, not even themselves. They expound on their process of reasoning in great detail. And in modern times, the atomic theory has proved more or less correct.

The belief that God does not exist is taken on faith.
Expounding anything which cannot actually be known, as true, is based on faith.
The atheist philosophy, worldview, dogma, religion, whatever you want to call it, it based on faith.

jan.

Why?
Because even what we know may not be true. There's no reason to stop asking questions.

The atheist philosophy, worldview, dogma, religion, whatever you want to call it, it based on faith.
The beliefs of some atheists may be faith, but you can't lump them all together. Which you persist in doing.
There is no "atheist philosophy, worldview, dogma or religion".

There is no "atheist philosophy, worldview, dogma or religion".

There is plenty of "atheistic philosophies, worldviews, dogmas or religions".

Because even what we know may not be true. There's no reason to stop asking questions.

Why not? What can we hope to gain by continuing to ask questions?

Why not? What can we hope to gain by continuing to ask questions?
Deeper understanding? :shrug:

There is plenty of "atheistic philosophies, worldviews, dogmas or religions".
QED.
Atheists are not a coherent bunch.
Jan's comment is inane.

QED.
Atheists are not a coherent bunch.

What they all have in common is that they are atheists.

From a particular theistic perspective, that makes them all part of the same group, the differences being merely superficial. So from that perspective, those theists are right.

The question is why that perspective should be accepted as the ultimate one.

Deeper understanding?

To what end?

What they all have in common is that they are atheists.
Yup.


From a particular theistic perspective, that makes them all part of the same group, the differences being merely superficial. So from that perspective, those theists are right.
Except that Jan is wrong. As has been pointed out numerous times to him.


To what end?
Knowledge for its own sake?
Why bother knowing anything?

So we can stop asking the same stupid questions again and again perhaps.

Knowledge for its own sake?
Why bother knowing anything?

That's what I am asking you.

That's what I am asking you.
Me personally?
A mix of knowledge for its own sake and to improve my understanding of the world and how it works. Trying to get some sense out of it. ;)

The belief that God does not exist is taken on faith.
Expounding anything which cannot actually be known, as true, is based on faith.
The atheist philosophy, worldview, dogma, religion, whatever you want to call it, it based on faith.

jan.

Nope. It's not faith, it's a reasonable conclusion based on the lack of evidence. It's also not absolute, atheists are open to evidence and are active participants in the dialogue.

What they all have in common is that they are atheists.Correct, they all share precisely one characteristic: they all lack a belief in God.


From a particular theistic perspective, that makes them all part of the same group, the differences being merely superficial. So from that perspective, those theists are right.The differences are far from being superficial... some are religious: some not; some believe that God does not exist: some do not.
These two aspects alone are far from being "merely superficial" and thus why the grouping of atheists into one, and then to argue against the whole on the basis of an attribute that only some of them hold is fallacious.

The belief that God does not exist is taken on faith.
Expounding anything which cannot actually be known, as true, is based on faith.
The atheist philosophy, worldview, dogma, religion, whatever you want to call it, it based on faith.

jan.

You are in error to believe that jan, faith is never on the driving seat for atheism. Faith isn't required for not believing in supernatural, it requires only logical and scientifically oriented thinking. Science replaces private prejudice with publically verifiable evidence. We have faith in what other scientists say because we know their paper went through changes, revisions, criticism and thorough peer review.

Nope. It's not faith, it's a reasonable conclusion based on the lack of evidence. It's also not absolute, atheists are open to evidence and are active participants in the dialogue.

Your idea of ''lack of evidence'' is insufficient as it cannot bring you to the platform of KNOWING whether or not God exists.
Your belief that your conclusion is ''reasonable'' is nothing but your own opinion, based on the idea that there lacks evidence, which neither here nor there in deciphering what IS and what IS NOT.

In short, you have no idea whether or not God exists, so your belief is based squarley on [blind] faith.

jan.

The differences are far from being superficial... some are religious: some not; some believe that God does not exist: some do not.
These two aspects alone are far from being "merely superficial" and thus why the grouping of atheists into one, and then to argue against the whole on the basis of an attribute that only some of them hold is fallacious.

I agree.
But some theists do not seem to care about that. I don't know what to do in such a case ...

praty,


You are in error to believe that jan, faith is never on the driving seat for atheism.

I agree that it doesn't have to be, but the type of atheism represented here is, for the most part.


Faith isn't required for not believing in supernatural, it requires only logical and scientifically oriented thinking.


Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing?

How have you arrived at this conclusion via these disciplines?



Science replaces private prejudice with publically verifiable evidence. We have faith in what other scientists say because we know their paper went through changes, revisions, criticism and thorough peer review.

That's not disputed.
We are discussing the existence of God.
Where are the scientific papers on this subject matter?
What has science revealed to us, that should convince us that God does NOT exist?

jan.

Your idea of ''lack of evidence'' is insufficient as it cannot bring you to the platform of KNOWING whether or not God exists.
Your belief that your conclusion is ''reasonable'' is nothing but your own opinion, based on the idea that there lacks evidence, which neither here nor there in deciphering what IS and what IS NOT.

In short, you have no idea whether or not God exists, so your belief is based squarley on [blind] faith.

jan.

I don't know whether God exists or not, but there is no evidence for it, so it's unreasonable to assume it does. That's how reason is used to come to a tentative conclusion. This is reasonable with regard to a God apart from any religion.

When we start talking about specific ideas of God, such as the Abrahamic God, we can be much more certain.

Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing?You mean Occam's razor?
It is not the idea per se, but the redundancy of the idea.
In the human psyche the idea of God existing has certainly shown itself to be far "superior" but that speaks only for the idea and not the actuality.


That's not disputed.
We are discussing the existence of God.
Where are the scientific papers on this subject matter?
What has science revealed to us, that should convince us that God does NOT exist?For many it is the utter absence of God within what science has produced from its earliest days to the current day that leads them to their conviction.

For others, such an absence merely leads them to the rational conclusion not hold the belief that God exists, but are open to the possibility, however remote they might think it is or is not.

But I'm sure the lack of scientific papers on the non-existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy means you still believe in those?

I agree that it doesn't have to be, but the type of atheism represented here is, for the most part.


Well, I'll concede that I'm unaware of 'type' of atheism displayed, as I'm relatively new here. Though faith is not the discourse I use.


Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing?

How have you arrived at this conclusion via these disciplines?

That's not disputed.
We are discussing the existence of God.
Where are the scientific papers on this subject matter?
What has science revealed to us, that should convince us that God does NOT exist?

In this vast indifferent universe where our existence and existence of all matter we observe amounts to pollution, we are lucky to be on the billionbillionth planet that can create consciousness, it's a time where we can experimentally verify we are lucky!
Why would there be a god when we don't need her? God was created in ignorance and today it(the belief) remains ignorant. How many theists have looked upon science and said, 'This is better.'?

Sarkus,



You mean Occam's razor?

No.


It is not the idea per se, but the redundancy of the idea.

I don't follow.



For many it is the utter absence of God within what science has produced from its earliest days to the current day that leads them to their conviction.


We've been over this many times.
How do you know God is absent?
Does science have the tools to be able to conclude ''here is God'', or '' so far we have not found God''?


For others, such an absence merely leads them to the rational conclusion not hold the belief that God exists, but are open to the possibility, however remote they might think it is or is not.

Unless you have an idea of what God is, how is it best to conclude one way or the other? What is your idea of God?


But I'm sure the lack of scientific papers on the non-existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy means you still believe in those?

It's quite telling, how you defaulted to ''non-existence''.
But you're quite right, science isn't about discovering things that don't exist to the mundane senses.
So exactly how does it help in providing rational conclusions of God's non-existence?


jan.

jan,

I'll add this to my previous post: that which can be conjured without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You are in error to believe that jan, faith is never on the driving seat for atheism. Faith isn't required for not believing in supernatural, it requires only logical and scientifically oriented thinking. Science replaces private prejudice with publically verifiable evidence. We have faith in what other scientists say because we know their paper went through changes, revisions, criticism and thorough peer review.
If you think science strengthens supports validates or otherwise drives the atheistic perspective, it is most certainly a perspective driven by belief

In this vast indifferent universe where our existence and existence of all matter we observe amounts to pollution, we are lucky to be on the billionbillionth planet that can create consciousness, it's a time where we can experimentally verify we are lucky!
Why would there be a god when we don't need her? God was created in ignorance and today it(the belief) remains ignorant. How many theists have looked upon science and said, 'This is better.'?
so speaks your faith ...
(eg we are pollution, we are lucky, the planet created consciousness, god was created in ignorance, etc etc ... all claims that exist at least a good arms length from anything close to hard science)

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.

not in my book. the perfect combination of hope and trust. it's awesome. and i'm awesome for having it. :)

Don't be so hard on yourself.

No.You misunderstood me... I'm telling you that Occam's razor is (one of) the answers to your question: "Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing"


I don't follow.To many the suggestion that god exists is a redundant concept - they consider that it is simply not needed in order to understand. i.e. "God did it" is a valueless answer.


How do you know God is absent?
Does science have the tools to be able to conclude ''here is God'', or '' so far we have not found God''?I don't know God is absent nor have I ever said as much: I am an agnostic atheist.
As for whether science has the tools:
- If God exists then, simply put, it MUST interact and thus MUST be observable.
- If God does not exist then ANY tool is capable of saying "so far we (the users of the tool) have not found God".


Unless you have an idea of what God is, how is it best to conclude one way or the other?It's not. Agnostic atheism appears to be the rational position to me, which is why I am an agnostic atheist.

What is your idea of God?I have no specific idea and am happy to use whatever idea that others bring to the table.


It's quite telling, how you defaulted to ''non-existence''.There was no defaulting involved - it was used to make a point.
Or should I consider it telling how you default to disingenuousness?


But you're quite right, science isn't about discovering things that don't exist to the mundane senses.
So exactly how does it help in providing rational conclusions of God's non-existence?You can lay claim to some other senses if you want, and lay claim to God being proven to you/others through these senses and not being provable through the "mundane" senses. You can demonstrate the reality of these claims to others... how, exactly? :shrug:

As for providing rational conclusions... if one considers themself to have no evidence of God, there is only one rational conclusion.
Or do you consider belief in something for which you have no evidence to be a rational position?

A mix of knowledge for its own sake and to improve my understanding of the world and how it works. Trying to get some sense out of it. ;)

experience with you does not confirm that..
you tend to be judgmental to others opinions without(very few times at least) any form of correction..
IE:
No.
Wrong.

this says you want to tell ppl what is and what is not,
it says that you want to be the ultimate authority of everything.

instead of:
why?
(as in 'why do you think that?')

Jan, your belief in an invisible unknown (faith) has grooved deeply into you and others and so you have become immune to information, such as science and as I have provided all along, ‘neglecting; it’, and so I won’t be putting it out for you again, as I am onto the nature of belief, both through posting and also by observing the behavior of the God believers here.

Wisdom has concluded concluded, about strong believers changing, indeed, is that they don't, they can't, and they won't, and so there is no “could”, "should" or "ought to", and thus diplomacy, discussion, and mediation will fail. Such are Islamic extremists, for example, who bring a bloody end upon themselves.

God believers tried to fool us with false tales of species made intact just a few thousand years ago, a fixed and flat Earth, a solid firmament above, lone and special mammals that only existed here—the whole universe only for them, a Garden and an apple eaten, 50,000 species on a boat during a flood, a strict father figure of fundamental thinking Being of God sending one to blazes, or not, angels and evils as good and evil spirits, a Heaven of an afterlife for the experimented on who pass the test, a virgin giving birth, purgatories, limbos, and all such subsequent inventions, superstition, myths, and dredged up legends falsely layered upon the initial fabrication into an unwieldy structure that couldn’t even hold water in the first place.

It has all been disproved via self-contradiction. Believers continue on, but they are bypassed.

experience with you does not confirm that..
you tend to be judgmental to others opinions without(very few times at least) any form of correction..
IE:
No.
Wrong.
this says you want to tell ppl what is and what is not,
it says that you want to be the ultimate authority of everything.
If you go and check, the "no" and "wrong" replies are to statements that are demonstrably wrong. And already found to be so.


instead of:
why?
(as in 'why do you think that?')
So you haven't read any of my posts where I ask exactly that?

If you go and check, the "no" and "wrong" replies are to statements that are demonstrably wrong. And already found to be so.

thats my point..you don't demonstrate right..you just leave it at No/Wrong..

so speaks your faith ...
(eg we are pollution, we are lucky, the planet created consciousness, god was created in ignorance, etc etc ... all claims that exist at least a good arms length from anything close to hard science)

Can you possibly be more wrong?
We know for a fact we are pollution, dark matter-dark energy are dominant here.
We know we are lucky cause the physical constants are of exact value required for hydrogen atoms to fuse together to form heavier atoms.
Also it is the time we can study the red shift of different galaxies which won't be possible for a civilization arising few billion years after us.
When we didn't knew how the world works, we created the belief in supernatural. Science works perfectly well without the supernatural.

These aren't faith based, these are facts. Try and think this time.

Pollution…

THIS TOTTERING EXISTENCE…

So called “empty” space is vital, for that’s where there’s the recital that forms and plays the tunes of reality, the grand cosmic symphony—as existence fluctuates with the non, those causeless waverings of undulation.

It was once thought that the shove of this total energy was of the order of 10**120 orders of magnitude above. Well, if that were so near, then we couldn’t even be here; it was the worst calculation in all of scientification; so, we weighed the universe, summing all of its constituent verses. The universe weighs nothing at all!

This, too, since we found that our universal space was b flat—not just via the 60 degree angles of a very small triangle. Not even using stars, one that went from here to Mars to Venus and back, but all the way back to a degree of the CMBR, which represented 100,000 light years, and measured the curvature: the rays didn’t converge or diverge. The ultimate of this geometry is that being flat is a beautiful symmetry that leads to yet another beauty: zero. The ever returning, conquering hero.

Far from being the Magnificat, we are more insignificant than we ever imagined, extra stuffing, as all is a big nothing, but also, since, considering that all the specs of matter’s amount, for whatever is the measly count, compared to dark matter and dark energy we are but a kind of pollution, irrelevant, really.

That is humility.


(Welcome to SciForums, Praty. We think alike.)

Pollution…

THIS TOTTERING EXISTENCE…

So called “empty” space is vital, for that’s where there’s the recital that forms and plays the tunes of reality, the grand cosmic symphony—as existence fluctuates with the non, those causeless waverings of undulation.

It was once thought that the shove of this total energy was of the order of 10**120 orders of magnitude above. Well, if that were so near, then we couldn’t even be here; it was the worst calculation in all of scientification; so, we weighed the universe, summing all of its constituent verses. The universe weighs nothing at all!

This, too, since we found that our universal space was b flat—not just via the 60 degree angles of a very small triangle. Not even using stars, one that went from here to Mars to Venus and back, but all the way back to a degree of the CMBR, which represented 100,000 light years, and measured the curvature: the rays didn’t converge or diverge. The ultimate of this geometry is that being flat is a beautiful symmetry that leads to yet another beauty: zero. The ever returning, conquering hero.

Far from being the Magnificat, we are more insignificant than we ever imagined, extra stuffing, as all is a big nothing, but also, since, considering that all the specs of matter’s amount, for whatever is the measly count, compared to dark matter and dark energy we are but a kind of pollution, irrelevant, really.

That is humility.


(Welcome to SciForums, Praty. We think alike.)

Thanks Sci, beautifully written as always!
Is just fascinates me how we measured the degree at the Cosmic Microwave Background.
It is something that permeates how advanced our observational skills are and with this as the base, we are gonna reach pretty far. This alone provides far more hope for humanity, than any other pseudo-skyhookery.
:cheers:

It is something that permeates how advanced our observational skills are and with this as the base, we are gonna reach pretty far. This alone provides far more hope for humanity, than any other pseudo-skyhookery.
:cheers:

Maybe Me-Ki-Gal, my sometimes nutty friend with occasional dyslexia will have some fun with skies and hookers. He even once got a hooker to give him money!

Science even read "bar-code" type spectrums to learn the component of stars and also validated may separate disciplines to predict neutrinos.

Dogma can only remains in the stone it was carved into all at once.

If anything finds new and radical forms of energy that can be harnessed it will be science, not myth. Myth can't save anything, much less the world.

Thanks for the beer and the clink of our think.

I'm always up for a beer!
Science is the only way ahead and it would be unwise to cross it's path.
Myth is well, myth, only to be enjoyed and not to be taken literally.
Well said.

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.

How touchy. Have you become an Oprah version of an atheist? :p

thats my point..you don't demonstrate right..you just leave it at No/Wrong..
That's right. Because whoever I'm responding to hasn't bothered to do anything other than make a flat (incorrect) statement: as if it were incontrovertibly true.

That's right. Because whoever I'm responding to hasn't bothered to do anything other than make a flat (incorrect) statement: as if it were incontrovertibly true.

Good one. You always cut to the heart of things.

How touchy. Have you become an Oprah version of an atheist? :p

Good old SpiderGoat (well, not old) is like Old Faithful in not being blindly led by the blind into a blind of the imaginary wearing blinders.

I'm always up for a beer!
Science is the only way ahead and it would be unwise to cross it's path.
Myth is well, myth, only to be enjoyed and not to be taken literally.
Well said.

The beer must taste pretty great on a hot day in India, as it will soon be hot here in the US, too.

As for Science's path, we'll have to put up Science Crossing signs so that the God believers and their dogmas don't get run over by the train of thought, reason, and evidence, but they will anyway, making a myth-take.

That's right. Because whoever I'm responding to hasn't bothered to do anything other than make a flat (incorrect) statement: as if it were incontrovertibly true.

If others fling poo, one ought to fling poo too!

:itold:


Seriously. The lack of goodwill in SF discussions is taking a heavy toll on the quality of the exchanges.

If others fling poo, one ought to fling poo too!
That's one way of looking at it.
Although my view is that anyone who can't be bothered to lay out their reasoning doesn't deserve my (or anyone else's) reasoning.


Seriously. The lack of goodwill in SF discussions is taking a heavy toll on the quality of the exchanges.
Really? :eek:

:p

Although my view is that anyone who can't be bothered to lay out their reasoning doesn't deserve my (or anyone else's) reasoning.

On a discussion forum?

On a discussion forum?
Yup. How is presenting a flat declaration, that goes against current knowledge/ thought, without explanation promoting discussion?

What's good for the goose...

But replying with another flat declaration doesn't promote discussion either.

The beer must taste pretty great on a hot day in India, as it will soon be hot here in the US, too.

As for Science's path, we'll have to put up Science Crossing signs so that the God believers and their dogmas don't get run over by the train of thought, reason, and evidence, but they will anyway, making a myth-take.

You bet it does!

Not only religion is corrosive for science, science is corrosive for religion.
Yep, and a myth-take that will be on cost of humanity.

PM, to avoid further derailment.

Okay, back to the topic. So far no evidence for Scripture defined afterlife has been provided for believing in it. Next logical step would be to question teachings of it to the masses. Should they be told it's a mystery/unknowable fact or preached with conviction as superimposition of the belief of the particular religion?

Okay, back to the topic. So far no evidence for Scripture defined afterlife has been provided for believing in it. Next logical step would be to question teachings of it to the masses. Should be told it's a mystery/unknowable fact or preached with conviction as superimposition of the belief of the particular religion?

They do believe it, and they want others to, but it can't be shown or proved and so that is taking unfair advantage of the young and/or the impressionable. It can't even be a hypothesis or a theory, but just a mere notion, and even that of just a wish.


(dwryddyr's PM thing was to Signal)

They do believe it, and they want others to, but it can't be shown or proved and so that is taking unfair advantage of the young and/or the impressionable. It can't even be a hypothesis or a theory, but just a mere notion, and even that of just a wish.

Exactly. How do you propose that we get rid of this, and breed more skepticism?

Exactly. How do you propose that we get rid of this, and breed more skepticism?

Just make sure that the environment gets more and more polluted and that more and more people lose their jobs.
That should make skepticism soar sky-high! :eek:

Just make sure that the environment gets more and more polluted and that more and more people lose their jobs.
That should make skepticism soar sky-high! :eek:

Funny!
I'm curious what you say about the post #171...

Okay, back to the topic. So far no evidence for Scripture defined afterlife has been provided for believing in it. Next logical step would be to question teachings of it to the masses. Should they be told it's a mystery/unknowable fact or preached with conviction as superimposition of the belief of the particular religion?

People generally believe in things for two kinds of reasons: 1. empirical, 2. moral.

When it comes to things like cooking, cleaning, cars, building houses or fixing rotten teeth, we go for empirically tested approaches.

But when it comes to things like free will, justice, goodness, we tend to believe things for moral reasons (even when they are directly opposed to empirical findings).
For example, people generally believe we have free will. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that we in fact have free will, moreover, some studies suggest we do not have it. But we believe we have free will anyway.
It would be demoralizing to believe otherwise.


We shouldn't underestimate the importance of humans being moral beings.

The worst insult of all, to be called faithful.
given that faith is the initial prerequisite for any knowledge based claim, I guess the only way for you not to be insulted is to be labeled as ignorant.
:o

People generally believe in things for two kinds of reasons: 1. empirical, 2. moral.

When it comes to things like cooking, cleaning, cars, building houses or fixing rotten teeth, we go for empirically tested approaches.

But when it comes to things like free will, justice, goodness, we tend to believe things for moral reasons (even when they are directly opposed to empirical findings).
For example, people generally believe we have free will. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that we in fact have free will, moreover, some studies suggest we do not have it. But we believe we have free will anyway.
It would be demoralizing to believe otherwise.


We shouldn't underestimate the importance of humans being moral beings.

Good points raised Signal. Still would you say preaching to children and the gullible 'your' way is inherently correct?

Sarkus,



You misunderstood me... I'm telling you that Occam's razor is (one of) the answers to your question: "Where is the logic, science, or oriented thinking, that shows the idea of God not existing, is superior to the idea of God existing"


You are?
OK, thought I saw a question mark.
Ok.
Why?



In the human psyche the idea of God existing has certainly shown itself to be far "superior" but that speaks only for the idea and not the actuality.


Ok.



To many the suggestion that god exists is a redundant concept - they consider that it is simply not needed in order to understand. i.e. "God did it" is a valueless answer.


I can understand that we have our own personal opinions, but why is ''God did it'' a valueless answer? And to whom exactly is it valueless?



I don't know God is absent nor have I ever said as much: I am an agnostic atheist.


Do you side with the many?
Or do you have your own opinion?



- If God exists then, simply put, it MUST interact and thus MUST be observable.


Ok.



- If God does not exist then ANY tool is capable of saying "so far we (the users of the tool) have not found God".


I'm confused. :shrug:
Do scientists know what is God?
Or are they looking for something they call God?




Unless you have an idea of what God is, how is it best to conclude one way or the other?



It's not. Agnostic atheism appears to be the rational position to me, which is why I am an agnostic atheist.


As nice a guy as you probably are, we weren't talking about you personally.
But while we're here;

Why are you atheist?
If you say ''lack of evidence'', please explain what is actually lacking which would constitute evidence.



I have no specific idea and am happy to use whatever idea that others bring to the table.


So you're (ag) atheist to ''no specific idea'' of God, and are happy to be (ag)atheist
to whatever ideas other bring to the table?



Or should I consider it telling how you default to disingenuousness?


An explanation of why you think this, would be more of an intelligent move IMHO.



You can lay claim to some other senses if you want, and lay claim to God being proven to you/others through these senses and not being provable through the "mundane" senses. You can demonstrate the reality of these claims to others... how, exactly?


I don't know, it doesn't seem that my lifestyle is of the same quality as that of a self-realised soul, like Jesus, or, Mohammad, or any of the great personalities in scripture (and not), who by dint of their great intelligence advance themselves to such lofty heights.

I guess we have read up and develop our understanding. :)



As for providing rational conclusions... if one considers themself to have no evidence of God, there is only one rational conclusion.
Or do you consider belief in something for which you have no evidence to be a rational position?


How does one decide one has no evidence of God?
At what point in the investigation is this decision made?


jan.

Good points raised Signal. Still would you say preaching to children and the gullible 'your' way is inherently correct?

People do the best they can.
You, theists, everyone.

lol you dont give up do you? :)

Do you know what Winston Churchill's commencement speech was?

You are?
OK, thought I saw a question mark.You did - as a literary device.

Why?"Why?" as in why is Occam's razor an answer? Because it offers what you were asking for... an oriented thinking as to why the idea of God not existing is superior... due to not having the redundancy offered by the idea of God existing.

I can understand that we have our own personal opinions, but why is ''God did it'' a valueless answer? And to whom exactly is it valueless?It is valueless to me in the way that saying my kettle boils water because God does it is valueless.
And as to whom it is valueless - to people who see no cause to call on the concept of "God" as an explanation.

Do you side with the many?
Or do you have your own opinion?If my opinions happen to coincide with the many then so be it, but I try not to be swayed by numbers, rather by the arguments put forth.
You?

I'm confused.
Do scientists know what is God?
Or are they looking for something they call God?If someone wishes to posit a definition of God and a means to identify God then they are free to. Science will work with that definition, or any other that is brought forward.
Some are entirely unscientific, however.

As nice a guy as you probably are, we weren't talking about you personally.In that particular response, the reference to my own position was after the more general point that agnostic atheism is the most rational position for those who do not consider there to be any evidence for the existence of God. i.e. I merely added that I considered myself part of those labelled as agnostic atheists.

But while we're here;

Why are you atheist?
If you say ''lack of evidence'', please explain what is actually lacking which would constitute evidence.It is precisely due to lack of evidence... or more accurately it is lack of evidence that can rationally be attributed to "God".
Evidence that could be attributed to "God" would be something that can never be explained by the underlying laws of the universe.
If one suggests something that merely currently can not to be explained then unless you can prove that it is actually impossible to explain it with the natural laws then the rational position would be to not assume some additional/redundant concept (God)... until such time as it can be shown to be required.
Some concepts of God are admittedly beyond the realm of evidence, but then for those how can we be other than agnostic?

So you're (ag) atheist to ''no specific idea'' of God, and are happy to be (ag)atheist to whatever ideas other bring to the table?To most current concepts of God, that have pushed themselves outside the realm of science, I can only be agnostic, and from there atheist (the "no belief" variety). To those that remain within the bounds of science I could possibly be strong-atheist... but would depend upon the precise definition put forward. I have yet to see a definition that is within the realm of science that has been proven as true.


An explanation of why you think this, would be more of an intelligent move IMHO.If you seem to actually understand the meaning intended by someone but seem to then deliberately respond to the most negative interpretation you can come up with, I consider that to be disingenuous.


I don't know, it doesn't seem that my lifestyle is of the same quality as that of a self-realised soul, like Jesus, or, Mohammad, or any of the great personalities in scripture (and not), who by dint of their great intelligence advance themselves to such lofty heights.I guess I could always choose to believe you... that you speak the truth and that God exists and has spoken to you... and to rely on your authority... but then if I was to do that I would surely already have chosen to believe one of those you reference.


How does one decide one has no evidence of God?Begin with the assumption that it is not evidence (the rational position of not assuming something until necessary) and wait until it is necessary to call on "God" as an explanation for the evidence at hand.


At what point in the investigation is this decision made?It (rationally) is (or should be) the default position from the very start until "God" is a necessary explanation for the evidence.
So far to me it has not become so.
Again, that is to say God does not exist, but so far I have not seen God as a necessary explanation.

One can choose either to start with the assumption of God's existence, or the assumption of God's non-existence, and wait until there is no alternative but to change your view.
The former would lead one also to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the FSM, the Celestial Teapot etc and everything else that people lay claim to without evidence to the contrary.

The latter, however, is (what I consider to be) the rational position.

Look who just joined in...

It's Stephan Hawking. (http://guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven?cat=science&type=article)

given that faith is the initial prerequisite for any knowledge based claim, I guess the only way for you not to be insulted is to be labeled as ignorant.
:o

Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

Faith is the opposite of knowledge.
as mentioned earlier, one cannot arrive at any knowledge based claim without initially implementing faith ... and as a further point, one cannot begin to hope to expand one's knowledge base without utilizing faith.

To do you justice however, I think you have to more properly define the words "faith" and "knowledge" if you want to classify them as opposites, because their broadness places them more succinctly as interactive .

as mentioned earlier, one cannot arrive at any knowledge based claim without initially implementing faith ... and as a further point, one cannot begin to hope to expand one's knowledge base without utilizing faith.

To do you justice however, I think you have to more properly define the words "faith" and "knowledge" if you want to classify them as opposites, because their broadness places them more succinctly as interactive .

'Unknown' is the opposite of 'known'.

'Unknown' is the opposite of 'known'.
and inductive knowledge is ...?

Faith is the opposite of knowledge.
I would say faith is a kind of knowledge.

Take a look at this long article which goes into what Catholics mean by faith:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/FTHRT.txt
I highly encourage you to read it, please!

and inductive knowledge is ...?

the inference of general laws from particular instances.

I would say faith is a kind of knowledge.

Take a look at this long article which goes into what Catholics mean by faith:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/FTHRT.txt
I highly encourage you to read it, please!

I pretty much ignore the strong belief stuff now that goes nowhere.

Once in a while I may come out of this retirement.

closed-minded?

closed-minded?

No, it's useless.

Stolen from FraggleRocker and extended:

Supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, plus it can be greatly grooved upon, and you can't reason some people out of an instinct. Very few can inspect and reject their own thoughts. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. And when they think of God they will ‘see’ more God and/or mistake felt sensations for it. Bypassing the believer works, though, to save time.

closed-minded?

Working toward another opportunity for an apology?

the inference of general laws from particular instances.

Is "inductive knowledge" something that can be classified as "known", or should it be classified as "unknown"?

Is "inductive knowledge" something that can be classified as "known", or should it be classified as "unknown"?

Since it is knowledge it is known.

Since it is knowledge it is known.

The topic is inductive knowledge.

"Inductive" means as much as 'on faith' - do you realize that??

The topic is inductive knowledge.

"Inductive" means as much as 'on faith' - do you realize that??

Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%. (but a black swan was found in Australia). Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.

inductive |inˈdəktiv|
adjective
1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances : instinct rather than inductive reasoning marked her approach to life.

Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%.
i would think inductive would lead to deductive,
one has to actually decide to devote attention to deductive reasoning,
inductive is more of a generalized reasoning (see def below)
(deductive being a specific instance)


Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.
true enough with respect to definition of the term 'unknowns'
(unknowable/unknown right now/unknown how to describe?)
and the term 'invisibles' is only your own prejudice showing through..



inductive |inˈdəktiv|
adjective
1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances :

Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%. (but a black swan was found in Australia). Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.

inductive |inˈdəktiv|
adjective
1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances : instinct rather than inductive reasoning marked her approach to life.
they accepted on faith that all swans were white, no?

(or are you making the folly of "preserving strong belief" as you outlined in your OP?)