Afterlife
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Afterlife
If there's life after death - why isn't there death before life?

It seems one exists only in the absence of the other....

There's NOTHING before life -- it makes much more sense that that's what follows -nothing.

Life is digital - not analog.

Either/or --- pick one.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
10-02-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 09:19 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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?

You mean like when science changed from the flat earth viewpoint to the round earth one and it then matched the scrip... oh wait... Consider

I agree with Full Circle - this is backpedaling and not what you said at all. But, I just wanted to point out that your new claim is no better anyway. Your original statement was that this has happened many times - hmm, you will need a citation for this new claim too. When was science ever changed and then happened to match the scriptures when it didn't previously?

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 11:22 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 09:19 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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?

Yes, thanks for letting me clarify. Just like the flat earth/round earth example presented above. The Bible says the Earth is a sphere and suspended in a void/vacuum/"hanging on nothing". Just like that. And of course, the "flat earth-demons will eat Christopher Columbus" group is... wait for it... the Roman "church".

As for scripture leading science, sure, it happens. Gregor Mendel's taxonomy revolved in part around what the Bible--and now science--calls "kinds" of animals. The English Bible influenced the language and the same with Luther's German Bible. The Bachs were influenced in music and symphony/harmony/melody take their cues from the music worship of the Bible, etc.

And I don't want to argue with you about this or fight with you--though I am sincerely sorry you were angry with me for what you felt was ducking the question. I'm more than aware (and grateful) to live in the Christianized West, the West influenced by Judaism as well. But I'm most concerned at TTA with how the Bible influences souls, not just science.

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, 03:30 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 03:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, thanks for letting me clarify. Just like the flat earth/round earth example presented above. The Bible says the Earth is a sphere and suspended in a void/vacuum/"hanging on nothing". Just like that. And of course, the "flat earth-demons will eat Christopher Columbus" group is... wait for it... the Roman "church".
The Bible is both unclear and contradictory on that - you are dishonestly misrepresenting what it says.
Quote:As for scripture leading science, sure, it happens. Gregor Mendel's taxonomy revolved in part around what the Bible--and now science--calls "kinds" of animals. The English Bible influenced the language and the same with Luther's German Bible. The Bachs were influenced in music and symphony/harmony/melody take their cues from the music worship of the Bible, etc.
Gregor Mendel's taxonomy came from Linnaeus, not the Bible.

This is truly ignorant and misguided. The Bachs were paid to create liturgicval music and none of there music took any structural or technical 'cues' from the Bible.

The King James Bible influenced the English language; Shakespeare influenced it more.
Quote:And I don't want to argue with you about this or fight with you--though I am sincerely sorry you were angry with me for what you felt was ducking the question. I'm more than aware (and grateful) to live in the Christianized West, the West influenced by Judaism as well. But I'm most concerned at TTA with how the Bible influences souls, not just science.
The Bible only influences pseudo-science, not science. Since the existence of souls is undemonstrated, the Bible's influence would be entirely conjectural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rik's post
10-02-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:29 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Yes because relying on logic and reason is so passe

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, 03:50 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 03:41 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  There's the problem right there: relying on stale, dusty, simplistic philosophy from pre-scientific philosophers and theologians.

Yes because relying on logic and reason is so passe

I would have to agree that relying on logic and reason uninformed by knowledge is passé.

That, of course, applies to theology from every era.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 03:50 PM)Rik Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 03:41 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Yes because relying on logic and reason is so passe

I would have to agree that relying on logic and reason uninformed by knowledge is passé.

That, of course, applies to theology from every era.

Meh, I was thinking about Nietzsche when I wrote that. Even then you can accomplish plenty of philosophy without "Science". I think everyday experience is much more important.

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, 04:46 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 03:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, thanks for letting me clarify. Just like the flat earth/round earth example presented above. The Bible says the Earth is a sphere and suspended in a void/vacuum/"hanging on nothing".

Citation please.

Meanwhile:

Revelation 7:1King James Version (KJV)
7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Matthew 4:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Job 38:13King James Version (KJV)
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

All support a flat earth.

There are references to the earth being a circle, but that of course is flat. And it does say god hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). But I definitely need the citation about a "sphere" before I'll believe it.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
10-02-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Afterlife
Anybody want to bet "q" NEVER shares those bible verses that point out that we live on a planet?????

They're secret -- only him and Jesus know where they are. And Jesus ain't talking.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Afterlife
(10-02-2015 04:46 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 03:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, thanks for letting me clarify. Just like the flat earth/round earth example presented above. The Bible says the Earth is a sphere and suspended in a void/vacuum/"hanging on nothing".

Citation please.

Meanwhile:

Revelation 7:1King James Version (KJV)
7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Matthew 4:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Job 38:13King James Version (KJV)
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

All support a flat earth.

There are references to the earth being a circle, but that of course is flat. And it does say god hung the earth on nothing (Job 26:7). But I definitely need the citation about a "sphere" before I'll believe it.

I say this not to argue but to be clear.
The earth is not hung nor is it held in place by nothing. As I'm sure you know it's held in orbit buy the Suns gravity. I'm just surprised that god didn't know that when he wrote his book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: