Frank Apisa wrote:ubermensch wrote:So you're just gonna wait until you die to make up your mind Frank?
What the theists and atheists are doing...is NOT "making up their minds", Uber.
They are making guesses about the unknown rather than simply acknowledging that they do not know.
At least, that is my guess.
The idea that a blind guess...based on damn near nothing...is "making up one's mind" is a riot.
Frank:
I think that there is a difference between a wild guess and a sense of certainty based on educated observations and conclusions.
Let's admit that we can't be certain that death is the end of our cosmical journey.
But we can certainly imagine a number of logical characteristics of this afterlife if it indeed was a reality.
For example:
1. It would have to be an universal phenomenon. Which means that all of us would "go" to pretty much the same place; all the billions of billions who have ever lived and who ever will.
2. Biologically speaking; there isn't any difference between mankind and the animal kingdom. At the molecular level, atom by atom we are no different from the plants either; so all of us living organisms would go to this afterlife; men, animals and plants.
3. It might be argued that man; even though is similar to the rest of the world organisms is really "different" since we are able to think. So let's stop for a second and admit that within the tissue of our brains there lies some kind of dormant force or "energy" which is what really would survive our physical death.
4. Let's add to this cosmic rendez-vous then the millions of "hommo-something" whose brains were in fact able to build some kind of thought process; including a few million neanderthals.
5. Somehow we tend to think of this afterlife as the culmination a life well lived here on earth; "a next step" let's call it. However millions of us would reach this after life at very different stages of our existence which includes millions of very old, tired and sick people, millions of little children and babies and millions of unborn embryos which resulted since prehistoric times from miscarriages and abortions. What will become of them in the afterlife? who will take care of them when they're certainly inferior compared to the rest of us who will have some kind of experience or points of reference to "adjust" to our new dwellings?
I'll stop here for now since the thought of nurseries, incubators and senior citizen homes in the afterlife is begining to sound so prosaic and cartoon-like I can't hardly continue typing.
Of course; it could be argued that in the afterlife we are given a new "slate" and that everyone starts fresh at the same level; all "speaking" english and stuff but then we would have to start dealing with how this knowledge was obtained and "who" is it that would provide this and why doesn't "he" just does that here and now to stop all the madness and the "horseshyt".
ubermensch wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:ubermensch wrote:So you're just gonna wait until you die to make up your mind Frank?
What the theists and atheists are doing...is NOT "making up their minds", Uber.
They are making guesses about the unknown rather than simply acknowledging that they do not know.
At least, that is my guess.
The idea that a blind guess...based on damn near nothing...is "making up one's mind" is a riot.
Frank:
I think that there is a difference between a wild guess and a sense of certainty based on educated observations and conclusions.
Let's admit that we can't be certain that death is the end of our cosmical journey.
But we can certainly imagine a number of logical characteristics of this afterlife if it indeed was a reality.
For example:
1. It would have to be an universal phenomenon. Which means that all of us would "go" to pretty much the same place; all the billions of billions who have ever lived and who ever will.
2. Biologically speaking; there isn't any difference between mankind and the animal kingdom. At the molecular level, atom by atom we are no different from the plants either; so all of us living organisms would go to this afterlife; men, animals and plants.
3. It might be argued that man; even though is similar to the rest of the world organisms is really "different" since we are able to think. So let's stop for a second and admit that within the tissue of our brains there lies some kind of dormant force or "energy" which is what really would survive our physical death.
4. Let's add to this cosmic rendez-vous then the millions of "hommo-something" whose brains were in fact able to build some kind of thought process; including a few million neanderthals.
5. Somehow we tend to think of this afterlife as the culmination a life well lived here on earth; "a next step" let's call it. However millions of us would reach this after life at very different stages of our existence which includes millions of very old, tired and sick people, millions of little children and babies and millions of unborn embryos which resulted since prehistoric times from miscarriages and abortions. What will become of them in the afterlife? who will take care of them when they're certainly inferior compared to the rest of us who will have some kind of experience or points of reference to "adjust" to our new dwellings?
I'll stop here for now since the thought of nurseries, incubators and senior citizen homes in the afterlife is begining to sound so prosaic and cartoon-like I can't hardly continue typing.
Of course; it could be argued that in the afterlife we are given a new "slate" and that everyone starts fresh at the same level; all "speaking" english and stuff but then we would have to start dealing with how this knowledge was obtained and "who" is it that would provide this and why doesn't "he" just does that here and now to stop all the madness and the "horseshyt".
What you are doing here, Uber...is positing a particular kind of afterlife...saying (for no really good reasons that it is impossible for it to exist)...and then universalizing that unwarranted assumption to the universal "therefore there cannot be an afterlife."
And you are acting as though the assumptions you are making...are the only reasonable assumptions that can be made.
That, of course, is identical (except in direction) with what the theists who insist there is an afterlife...say about their unwarranted assumptions.
There are no "educated observations and conclusions" in your presentation...just as there are no "educated observations and conclusions" in the presentations of people who come up 180 degrees out of synch with you.
FACT IS...based on the evidence we have...there is no reasonable way to KNOW if there is an afterlife or not...and no reasonable way to use the evidence to make a meaningful guess as to whether there is or is not one.
I would say:
No thank you; I don't want to live past a certain age.
I want to see my children grow, watch my grand-children play around with my cane and maybe die after they' re able to go on without me without running into too much trouble but that's it. I'm an atheist Frank; I plan my life acording to a single, limited lifetime; I don't plan or hope to continue any unfinished business "afterwards".
Most likely I won't respond again since I've been cancelled a number of times already; it's just not worth it.
The moderator must be a pious christian.
Are secular countries more prosperous? do they enjoy more tangible freedoms? How about crime? is there a relationship between highly religious countries and high crime levels? are religious countries more likely to go to war? or to at least condone it?
I'm posting this map from wikipedia where one can evaluate these questions in a more detailed manner.
I say that as we become less religious the world becomes a better place to live in. :wink:
Darker shaded areas indicate more religious societies.
Well; the topic does propose several questions; that you've decided to focus solely on the one that better suits your needs is a totally different matter although very understandable; religious individuals tend to act that way.
Let's put it this way:
The more religious a country is the more likely its citizen's minds and lives will be messed with. :wink:
Actually I'd say that because some countries are not too religious their citizens have a greater appreciation for a life well lived and a greater respect for their fellow citizens based on positive enforcement; instead of the threat of punishment by an angry god.
Statistics don't mean the world to me but they can certainly jump-start our conversation:
Intrepid; I'm going to pretend you didn't just say that...
Exactly how do you figure your statement makes any sense at all?
I know you didn't bother to check the chart but I'm dying to find out if you still think that Russia is populated by an "angry mob of god-hating comunists..."
Wait; don't tell me:
You have a framed picture of Ronald Reagan in your living room right?
Intrepid wrote:You are totally confusing me. If you accept my assertion, then you have defeated your original claim that countries with less religion are better countries. Maybe you should get some rest.
I'll have to post my original proposal here; tell me please if the word "some" isn't spelled properly:
Actually I'd say that because SOME countries are not too religious their citizens have a greater appreciation for a life well lived and a greater respect for their fellow citizens based on positive enforcement; instead of the threat of punishment by an angry god.
Now tell me why is it that out of all the original questions this thread started with you simply decide to ignore them all to defend a god I haven't even begun to shred to pieces...
News flash:
Russia is a very religious country.
Now you can get some rest; don't feel pressured to answer today.
Heph:
This is part of what I've said so far:
"Actually I'd say that because some countries are not too religious their citizens have a greater appreciation for a life well lived and a greater respect for their fellow citizens based on positive enforcement; instead of the threat of punishment by an angry god."
Do you read the messages? or you just kind of trail behind the last comment posted?
Look here my friend:
I will conduct myself in this forum in the manner which I find more convenient as long as I don't violate the site's rules. I've dealt with these situations hundreds of times so don't expect me to run for cover before your pathetic attempt to invalidate my original question by using and abusing ad hominem.
Solidarity will not get you very far, confusing the arguments maybe will buy you some time, pointing out a typing mistake is pitiful! and pretending not being able to understand only confirms the agnostic nature of your spirit; so read this brief message and weep for your emotional crutch later:
SOME countries as they've become less religious have been able to offer their citizens a higher quality of life. This is supported by the map and the stats I've posted so far. This is not the word of god; you don't have to agree with me or with the evidence presented; you're welcome to offer your opinion on the facts not on selfruled. If you feel better atacking the person rather than the facts it only proves that your substancial debate experience hasn't really helped you become a more informed individual; worse yet; it proves that emotion, not reason rules your forum participation.
No; it just makes a very interesting argument. Thanks for pointing it out. You see, when I say "some" countries arguments like yours make total sense; the open up discussions which will eventually shed some light in a very complicated topic; your comment to me says: "No, that's not always the case"; and forces me to further question: But why in some countries that seems to be the case? What's at stake here? what forces are being applied?
