Afterlife
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: Afterlife
(06-02-2015 01:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 12:55 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It would be more correct to say all life lives but humans also strive and live. Thus, the gospel and redemption.

No, actually, it wouldn't. Have you never witnessed life striving to survive?
Turtles digging their way out of the ground after hatching?
Baby birds screaming for food?
Plants cracking rocks?

I have. There are a vast number of issues that humans uniquely have, however, that seem to indicate either a) the Bible is correct about morals and free will b) we are in a Darwinian sense slated for self-destruction c) or both.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Afterlife
@ Q

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
09-02-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Afterlife
(09-02-2015 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 01:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, actually, it wouldn't. Have you never witnessed life striving to survive?
Turtles digging their way out of the ground after hatching?
Baby birds screaming for food?
Plants cracking rocks?

I have. There are a vast number of issues that humans uniquely have, however, that seem to indicate either a) the Bible is correct about morals and free will b) we are in a Darwinian sense slated for self-destruction c) or both.

It implies no such things. We have consciousness and intelligence that differ in degree from other animals. Other animals exhibit moral behavior, problem solving, self-awareness.

Humans are not unique in the sense you seem to think.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:19 AM
RE: Afterlife
(09-02-2015 10:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @ Q

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

Ah, I see the problem. You took "change the science to match the scriptures" as peer-review papers saying "Behold, the glorious Bible!" when what I clearly meant was "change the science which then matched the scriptures". My context, of course, being that the science was against the scriptures to begin--and many of the scientists knew it. Does that help?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Afterlife
(05-02-2015 03:49 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 12:39 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  ... I believe the entire point in life is to die ...

That is not a sensibly crafted sentence; if you intend what it actually says you'd be dead already, of suicide. You must mean something different. Give it some thought and come up with a better statement of what you really mean. That sentence as is works perfectly as a terrorist's credo, or a suicide bomber's mantra, not as a premise to foster cogent dialogue.

Perfectly fine sentence, its just hugely nuanced and I'm too lazy to type up the nuances on my cell phone. But since I have my laptop and I'm procrastinating so that I don't have to do my political philosophy readings, I now have time.

I essentially follow St Thomas' first 5 questions of the II-II of the Summa. Basically its following Plato and Aristotle and applying Christianity.
As such, from Plato and Aristotle we can state that the meaning of life is happiness. Happiness is gained from fulfilling the will. Every action we make is done with the intention of fulfilling our will ergo every action is done with happiness being the end result.
St Thomas carries this by considering where man finds his greatest happiness and as such would direct man's final end. That being which given a choice between two actions will choose the one which will ultimately lead to the most happiness. Example; you make the choice not to eat an entire chocolate cake because the immediate happiness will not outweigh the pain of eating way to much chocolate later on. As such, St Thomas asks what the ultimate higher happiness would be. Concluding that it would be the Beatific Vision, which is seeing God, since God is the totality of existence and as such would be the totality of experience and we would entirely fulfill our will. Therefore the purpose of life is to achieve the Beatific Vision which we can only do via dying. Therefore the purpose of life is to die.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 10:29 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 03:49 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  That is not a sensibly crafted sentence; if you intend what it actually says you'd be dead already, of suicide. You must mean something different. Give it some thought and come up with a better statement of what you really mean. That sentence as is works perfectly as a terrorist's credo, or a suicide bomber's mantra, not as a premise to foster cogent dialogue.

Perfectly fine sentence, its just hugely nuanced and I'm too lazy to type up the nuances on my cell phone. But since I have my laptop and I'm procrastinating so that I don't have to do my political philosophy readings, I now have time.

I essentially follow St Thomas' first 5 questions of the II-II of the Summa. Basically its following Plato and Aristotle and applying Christianity.
As such, from Plato and Aristotle we can state that the meaning of life is happiness. Happiness is gained from fulfilling the will. Every action we make is done with the intention of fulfilling our will ergo every action is done with happiness being the end result.
St Thomas carries this by considering where man finds his greatest happiness and as such would direct man's final end. That being which given a choice between two actions will choose the one which will ultimately lead to the most happiness. Example; you make the choice not to eat an entire chocolate cake because the immediate happiness will not outweigh the pain of eating way to much chocolate later on. As such, St Thomas asks what the ultimate higher happiness would be. Concluding that it would be the Beatific Vision, which is seeing God, since God is the totality of existence and as such would be the totality of experience and we would entirely fulfill our will. Therefore the purpose of life is to achieve the Beatific Vision which we can only do via dying. Therefore the purpose of life is to die.

Thanks for sharing. I'm neither a Catholic nor a devotee of the summa and so have a different slant. Purposes in life include living an abundant life as Jesus pledged to us, witnessing our faith to others including angelic beings, serving one another in love, having joy, overcoming trials, etc. basically the striving I mentioned but with specific and measurable outcomes and results. The anti-Fall living...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 10:29 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 03:49 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  That is not a sensibly crafted sentence; if you intend what it actually says you'd be dead already, of suicide. You must mean something different. Give it some thought and come up with a better statement of what you really mean. That sentence as is works perfectly as a terrorist's credo, or a suicide bomber's mantra, not as a premise to foster cogent dialogue.

Perfectly fine sentence, its just hugely nuanced and I'm too lazy to type up the nuances on my cell phone. But since I have my laptop and I'm procrastinating so that I don't have to do my political philosophy readings, I now have time.

I essentially follow St Thomas' first 5 questions of the II-II of the Summa. Basically its following Plato and Aristotle and applying Christianity.
As such, from Plato and Aristotle we can state that the meaning of life is happiness. Happiness is gained from fulfilling the will. Every action we make is done with the intention of fulfilling our will ergo every action is done with happiness being the end result.
St Thomas carries this by considering where man finds his greatest happiness and as such would direct man's final end. That being which given a choice between two actions will choose the one which will ultimately lead to the most happiness. Example; you make the choice not to eat an entire chocolate cake because the immediate happiness will not outweigh the pain of eating way to much chocolate later on. As such, St Thomas asks what the ultimate higher happiness would be. Concluding that it would be the Beatific Vision, which is seeing God, since God is the totality of existence and as such would be the totality of experience and we would entirely fulfill our will. Therefore the purpose of life is to achieve the Beatific Vision which we can only do via dying. Therefore the purpose of life is to die.

There's the problem right there: relying on stale, dusty, simplistic philosophy from pre-scientific philosophers and theologians.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 09:19 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @ Q

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

Ah, I see the problem. You took "change the science to match the scriptures" as peer-review papers saying "Behold, the glorious Bible!" when what I clearly meant was "change the science which then matched the scriptures". My context, of course, being that the science was against the scriptures to begin--and many of the scientists knew it. Does that help?

Your quote:
The Q Continuum Wrote:
1) the adherent is misunderstanding the scripture 2) over time, as has happened many times before, eventually scientists will reach a new understanding and change the science to match the scriptures.

And no, that doesn’t help and it doesn’t clarify. Now you are trying to back peddle and give me a different misleading explanation.

I want you to be very clear because I really want to understand what your are saying and claiming.

So if you would:

Are you or are you not making a claim that scientists have changed their understanding of science BECAUSE of scripture? Yes or no?

Are you or are you not claiming that because of scripture scientists “changed” the science? Yes or no?

Your new claim: “change the science which then matched the scriptures”? What does that even mean? Are you claiming that scripture led science?

I really dislike innuendo and imprecise claims that make it appear that science takes the lead from scripture unless, of course, that really is what you’re saying.

Is that what you’re saying?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
10-02-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Afterlife
I don't think there is an afterlife, just after life.
I'd like for there to be one but I have no desire to spend it grovelling at the feet of the creator of the universe nor do I wish to be tortured by his minion.
If the afterlife is spent watching the universe do its thing then I'm in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
10-02-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Afterlife
Quote:I think it's hard at first to accept the concept of no afterlife,

I've seen this in many atheist, but it never really happened to me. I was able to get rid of that idea pretty fast. Not sure why, but it kind of just came with my atheism and it never really bothered me. I think it actually made me more appreciative of this life knowing I don't get another chance.

Quote:but I also think it is a dangerous, really dangerous idea that drives people to do things in life that they wouldn't do otherwise, for example:
- Wasting too much time on prayer to go to heaven
- Depression out of hell fear
- Abstaining from simple pleasures like food, sex or even alcohol
- In some cases, committing violence, terrorism and other crimes thinking you'll go to heaven
- Overall caring too much about what comes next instead of worrying about this life

I'd agree with all these things. Especially things like flying a fucking plane into a building thinking it will get you an eternity of heaven and bliss. There are many things that belief in afterlife can be dangerous.

Quote:I think the worse thing as an atheist is that I realize all the suffering there is in the world will not grant people an afterlife, everyone and every species that lived a painful, enslaving, oppressive and sad life will go to the same place as me - Nowhere. I'm privileged because I live in a first world country and live in an era where technology and laws allow me to have a reasonable life quality even if I'm not a genius or a rich fucker, but many people, today and in the past, have suffered in many imaginable and unimaginable ways; it's something I have trouble accepting; religion tells you that if you suffer on earth you can go to heaven, but the truth is people who have been in terrible pain will not go anywhere. Does anyone else feel this way?

It is a sad realization. I find it worse though to give people the false hope of another perfect life. I dislike the way religion takes a persons life, and basically says "This life is actually nothing and meaningless in comparison to what lies afterwords". You're right though, it does suck that everyone goes to the same place once they die, nowhere. But I think the more we realize that, the more people understand that, I think that can drive us to make others lives more happy and less sad. All of us knowing this is all we get may let us become more appreciative of each others lives and create a more healthy and productive society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Hidden Atheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: