Life After Death?

[zak]

26 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

its just the dismissive attitude I dont agree with. Comments like I can't believe  x amount of people a story, or it's made up etc. believe or not to believe that's everyone's choice I just don't agree with the belittling of those who choose to believe.

Im just playing Devils Advocate here and im not actually saying this is a comparable belief to believing in God but:

Would you belittle someone who believes the earth is flat, honestly? 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

All opinions not really facts. Therefore it's your opinion it's fantasy and a story. I'm not trying to convert or make you believe not really my intention. My argument is your belief is as good as mine. Everyone is entitled to believe in what they wish to.

if Trent wants to believe no god that's fine

if dem wants to believe in god that's fine

if nv wants to believe in the tooth fairy ( which I'm sure he does) that's fine too.

its just the dismissive attitude I dont agree with. Comments like I can't believe  x amount of people a story, or it's made up etc. believe or not to believe that's everyone's choice I just don't agree with the belittling of those who choose to believe.

No it isn't just opinions Dem, there are a number of statements of fact in my last post.

But you appear to have missed the point entirely  so I will leave it there.

On your last line, as I've said before I only entered into a debate with you on this because you said you felt sorry for those that didn't believe. If you can't see the double standard between that and your post above then, well, I can only assume you are opting not to do so.

But I'm not belittling those who believe but I absolutely don't respect their beliefs and I think those beliefs are entirely fair game for ridicule. 

[Brumerican]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

My argument is your belief is as good as mine. 

 

How so ?

You both have the freedom to believe whatever you like but that in no way means that both beliefs are valid.

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, Brumerican said:

How so ?

You both have the freedom to believe whatever you like but that in no way means that both beliefs are valid.

Quite so. I have a Man Utd supporting friend who insists that Wes Brown was a better centre-back than Paul McGrath.

He's obviously entitled to whatever opinion he'd like to hold, but it doesn't stop him being hilariously wrong.

[Brumerican]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

I just don't agree with the belittling of those who choose to believe.

I'd try my hardest to never  belittle the believer but the beliefs themselves deserve far more public criticism than they currently get.

I've experienced both sides of this (Raised a devout Catholic, ex altar boy, chose to study RE at A level) and I used to believe the things you did completely. If I hadn't been exposed to contradictory ideas I would never have questioned anything. 

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

But I'm not belittling those who believe but I absolutely don't respect their beliefs and I think those beliefs are entirely fair game for ridicule. 

I totally get where you're coming from.

Nevertheless, when we belittle someone's belief, we are in essence belittling them, because if we say "belief in the afterlife/ belief in the flying spaghetti monster/belief in a God" is ludicrous, because there's no evidence whatsoever that these concepts actually exist, or are real or valid and they're basically just superstition, or remnants from a time when mankind was collectively less knowledgeable about the world and the universe", we are implying that anyone who believes in them is a bit, er, um, a bit of a fool at least in respect of those beliefs, or someone who's been fooled into believing a load of old pony.

We know that it's much easier to fool someone than it is to persuade someone (once they've been fooled) that they've been fooled. That's just the way human minds work.

When Dem said he feels sorry for people who don't believe he's means it in a good way, but we see it as "I feel sorry for people who don't have an imaginary friend" which isn't the message Dem intends to send. He intends to send "It helps me, and so, if you haven't got that help, then I sympathise" - it's benign, not antagonistic. In the same way that we mean to be benign when we say "there's no spaghetti monster/afterlife/ Gods" but it's seen as "you're  foolish to believe there is".

So as long as people are not picking up on the intent of the message, but are only going with one interpretation, it's always a squabble.

[Brumerican]

Another thing that usually pops up in afterlife discussions is the appeal of reuniting with the deceased. 

If this is true there would be a massive line of parents reuniting, all the way back to single cell organisms . 

Or is there a cut off point ? 

I hope it's before the T Rex.

[TrentVilla]

4 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

If this is true there would be a massive line of parents reuniting, all the way back to single cell organisms . 

Or is there a cut off point?

Er Adam and Eve I'd imagine....

[TrentVilla]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

I totally get where you're coming from.

Nevertheless, when we belittle someone's belief, we are in essence belittling them, because if we say "belief in the afterlife/ belief in the flying spaghetti monster/belief in a God" is ludicrous, because there's no evidence whatsoever that these concepts actually exist, or are real or valid and they're basically just superstition, or remnants from a time when mankind was collectively less knowledgeable about the world and the universe", we are implying that anyone who believes in them is a bit, er, um, a bit of a fool at least in respect of those beliefs, or someone who's been fooled into believing a load of old pony.

We know that it's much easier to fool someone than it is to persuade someone (once they've been fooled) that they've been fooled. That's just the way human minds work.

When Dem said he feels sorry for people who don't believe he's means it in a good way, but we see it as "I feel sorry for people who don't have an imaginary friend" which isn't the message Dem intends to send. He intends to send "It helps me, and so, if you haven't got that help, then I sympathise" - it's benign, not antagonistic. In the same way that we mean to be benign when we say "there's no spaghetti monster/afterlife/ Gods" but it's seen as "you're  foolish to believe there is".

Yes that is the risk but I simply don't subscribe to the view that religion can't be ridiculed or that religious beliefs must be respected.

There are some excellent videos from Dawkins on this point and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

 

[Brumerican]

14 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Er Adam and Eve I'd imagine....

What  about all the humans who lived and died in the 294,000 years prior to Adam and Eve.?

[TrentVilla]

Just now, Brumerican said:

What  about all the humans who lived and died in the 294,000 years prior to Adam and Eve.?

Never happened. 

[mjmooney]

Quote

To Your Scattered Bodies Go (1971) is a science fiction novel and the first book in the Riverworld series of books by Philip José Farmer. It won a Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1972 at the 30th Worldcon. The title is derived from the 7th of the "Holy Sonnets" by English poet John Donne:

At the round earth's imagin'd corners, blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise
From death, you numberless infinities
Of souls, and to your scattered bodies go.

Plot

British adventurer Richard Francis Burton dies on Earth and is revived in mid-air in a vast dark room filled with human bodies, some only half formed. There, he is confronted by men in a flying vehicle who blast him with a weapon.

He next awakes upon the shores of a mysterious river, naked and hairless. All around him are other people in a similar situation. Shortly after they awaken, a nearby structure, nicknamed a 'grailstone', causes food and other supplies to appear in the 'grails' bound to each individual. Burton quickly attracts a group of companions: the neanderthal Kazzintuitruaabemss (nicknamed Kazz), the science fiction author Peter Jairus Frigate, and Alice Liddell. Among these is the extraterrestrial Monat Grrautut, earlier part of a small group of beings from Tau Ceti who had arrived on Earth in the early 21st century. When one of their number was accidentally killed by humans, their spaceship automatically killed all the people on Earth. Frigate and others alive at the time confirm Monat's story. Retreating into the nearby woods for safety, Burton's party chew gum provided by their grails, and discover that this gum is a powerful hallucinogen. As days and weeks pass, people's physical wants are provided for by the grails, which eventually produce a set of cloths used for clothing. Rumors reach Burton's region that the river continues seemingly forever. One night, Burton is visited by a mysterious cloaked figure, whom Burton dubs 'The Mysterious Stranger', who explains that he is one of the beings who has constructed this world and resurrected humanity on its shores, and tells Burton to approach the headwaters of the river.

After setting off, Burton's group encounters many adventures; but are enslaved by a riverbank kingdom run by Hermann Göring, against whom Burton leads a successful revolt. Göring himself is murdered by Alice. After the revolt Burton is part of the nation's ruling council. Later, the protagonists discover a person among them whom they conclude is an agent of the beings who created this world. Before the man can be questioned, he dies of no apparent cause. An autopsy reveals a small device planted in the man's brain which apparently allowed him to kill himself at will. Burton is visited by the Mysterious Stranger and is warned that the beings who created this world, to whom the Stranger refers as "Ethicals", are close to capturing Burton. Desperate to escape, Burton kills himself to be resurrected elsewhere in the river valley, and continues thus to explore it. He often finds himself resurrected near Hermann Göring, who undergoes a moral and religious conversion and joins the pacifist Church of the Second Chance. After many resurrections, Burton finds himself resurrected not in the river but in the Dark Tower at the headwaters, and is interrogated by a council of Ethicals to discover the identity of Burton's "Mysterious Stranger". After fruitlessly questioning him, the Ethicals inform him that they will return him to the river valley, remembering nothing of themselves, and restore him to his friends; but the Mysterious Stranger prevents them from removing his memory.

Wikipedia

[blandy]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

Yes that is the risk but I simply don't subscribe to the view that religion can't be ridiculed or that religious beliefs must be respected.

I understand, and that's not what my post was about. It was trying to say that by inference, when we do ridicule it, people have reason to feel we're (by implication) ridiculing them. To say "believing in the whole invisible sky fairies superstition is ridiculous" and then say "but, of course anyone who does believe that load of old tosh isn't in the slightest bit deluded" isn't really a credible line to hold, from the perspective of the religionists on the end of it  

But i don't think people choose to believe in religions or the afterlife, not as in make a rational conscious decision, having looked for and weighed up all the evidence either way, I think it's a sub-conscious act. And if it's something that is kind of subconscious or instinct, then there's no associated foolishness or derision.

 Having it subconsciously implanted, if you like, it's maybe surprising that mor people don't then go "why do I believe there's an afterlife/gods?", but then again, once people believe something it's really ingrained in our minds, we don't tend to change in that way.

[Jenko#4]

2 hours ago, zak said:

Im just playing Devils Advocate here and im not actually saying this is a comparable belief to believing in God but:

Would you belittle someone who believes the earth is flat, honestly? 

Sorry for jumping in @zakbut isn't this slightly different though? We have 100% proof that the Earth is round because we can see it, so therefore anyone who thinks it is flat deserves to be belittled. However we don't have 100% proof whether there is an afterlife or not, so you will always get varying opinions. I'm a non-believer, but have to respect the opinions of those that do, because I cannot prove them 100% wrong.......

[MakemineVanilla]

Doesn't the continued popularity of the classic film A Matter of Life and Death demonstrate that even though most people don't believe in an afterlife, that the yearning still persist in the form of an unconscious wish fulfillment?

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I totally get where you're coming from.

Nevertheless, when we belittle someone's belief, we are in essence belittling them, because if we say "belief in the afterlife/ belief in the flying spaghetti monster/belief in a God" is ludicrous, because there's no evidence whatsoever that these concepts actually exist, or are real or valid and they're basically just superstition, or remnants from a time when mankind was collectively less knowledgeable about the world and the universe", we are implying that anyone who believes in them is a bit, er, um, a bit of a fool at least in respect of those beliefs, or someone who's been fooled into believing a load of old pony.

We know that it's much easier to fool someone than it is to persuade someone (once they've been fooled) that they've been fooled. That's just the way human minds work.

When Dem said he feels sorry for people who don't believe he's means it in a good way, but we see it as "I feel sorry for people who don't have an imaginary friend" which isn't the message Dem intends to send. He intends to send "It helps me, and so, if you haven't got that help, then I sympathise" - it's benign, not antagonistic. In the same way that we mean to be benign when we say "there's no spaghetti monster/afterlife/ Gods" but it's seen as "you're  foolish to believe there is".

So as long as people are not picking up on the intent of the message, but are only going with one interpretation, it's always a squabble.

It's incredible how well  Pete understands my posts. This is exactly what I was getting it. I didn't mean it in the way you think @TrentVilla 

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, zak said:

Im just playing Devils Advocate here and im not actually saying this is a comparable belief to believing in God but:

Would you belittle someone who believes the earth is flat, honestly? 

The thing is it's proven that the earth isn't flat. It's not proven god afterlife does or doesn't exist. A majority of posters don't believe, totally fine but shouldn't belittle their beliefs. Even if someone felt the world was flat I wouldn't belittle them it's what they believe at the end if the day.

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Brumerican said:

How so ?

You both have the freedom to believe whatever you like but that in no way means that both beliefs are valid.

Or invalid

[limpid]

The evidence is that the bag of watery chemicals which we are stops being self-aware when we die. When damage happens to the brain, it changes a person's personality - it's hard to understand how if you believe that they are in some way separate. If someone makes the claim that there is something of the consciousness which persists after death then that extraordinary claim will need evidence to support it and / or a mechanism by which it can be reproduced or explained. Until it does there's no reason to believe the claim.

This applies to all claims. The burden of proof is always with the person making the claim. The opposite is a logical fallacy.

My position on whether there is life after death is that I've seen no evidence of it at all, let alone sufficient evidence that I could believe it to be real.

I want to believe in as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. That people believe in things without good reason is why we need to stop teaching kids what to think and start teaching them how to think.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I understand, and that's not what my post was about. It was trying to say that by inference, when we do ridicule it, people have reason to feel we're (by implication) ridiculing them. To say "believing in the whole invisible sky fairies superstition is ridiculous" and then say "but, of course anyone who does believe that load of old tosh isn't in the slightest bit deluded" isn't really a credible line to hold, from the perspective of the religionists on the end of it  

But i don't think people choose to believe in religions or the afterlife, not as in make a rational conscious decision, having looked for and weighed up all the evidence either way, I think it's a sub-conscious act. And if it's something that is kind of subconscious or instinct, then there's no associated foolishness or derision.

 Having it subconsciously implanted, if you like, it's maybe surprising that mor people don't then go "why do I believe there's an afterlife/gods?", but then again, once people believe something it's really ingrained in our minds, we don't tend to change in that way.

Which is a large part of why I find the indoctrination of children into (insert any religion here) so objectionable.

That it is pushed onto kids in state schools infuriates me.

I can recall having a full on argument on a couple of occasions at school because they wanted to punish me for not joining in the hymn's, prayers or saying amen. That I dared to not bow during prayer in assembly almost tipped a couple over the edge.