Poll: after life or oblivion
Oblivion duh
Reincarnation as human only
Resurrection only
I would be a ghost trolling humans
Reincarnation Hindu or Buddhist style
I dont know
heaven or hell and then resurrection
other
[Show Results]
 
afterlife or oblivion ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 06:58 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Since you allowed multiple boxes to be check, I'm voting for both oblivion and ghost-trolling.

I think oblivion (or, rather, the cessation of identity) is the most likely result.

Ghost-trolling is the one I would WANT, though. Oh, I would have SO much fun with Sye Ten and Ken Ham.

Yep. Ghost trolling would be so much fun. I would be trolling guys like Q and Call of the wild for ages.Big Grin

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
Being an atheist, I have to vote for oblivion. It is not that I really want to cease to exist entirely, it is that just because I want something to be true it does not make it true.
Being a ghost would be awesome in some ways, but not in others. It all depends on the rules. One example would be that you exist exactly as you do now, except you can't actually manipulate objects or people. You just pass right through things, but can go where you want would be a problem. If you can manipulate what you want, but are to confined to one area or house, also a problem. Long afterlife in heaven with a god that is the equivalent of little Anthony Freemont from that Twilight Zone episode, very big problem. Must think only good thoughts for eternity. We know that there are no ghosts, or at least not ghosts that can actually interact with things in a meaningful way. If there were ghosts that could interact in meaningful ways, there would be evidence. Such as, some might choose to have a job if let's say they can type. Likewise, everyone dies. There are no reports of little kid, women, or even men being touched in inappropriate ways by someone or something that can't be seen. So, either ghosts are nothing but silent observers or they don't exist at all. Reincarnation is the only thing that I actually hope exists. Some people have had nothing but bad experiences in their lives and are in jail because of things that were done outside of their control when they were little. While I don't think they should go to a good place after death, a nice reset on things would be nice. That being said, I believe oblivion is the reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Birdguy1979's post
04-04-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  A factual position is unbiased? No I'm sorry, that's simply not true: a factual position may be based on facts and evidence, but you or someone else is interpreting those facts so they can be understood, that interpretation has a bias precisely because humans are not 100% objective, and their experiences are going to sway them in a certain way towards holding certain opinions. You can claim "no no, I'm rational! I use logic, I use reason, I use science to back up my claims!"- but basic psychology will show you that your emotions and experiences do impact your beliefs/opinions/positions, no matter how much you wish it weren't true. it's impossible to be 100% objective in forming an opinion. You can try to get close, but some bias will always exist. Pure objectivity is simply unattainable, although it's a laudable goal to strive for, and I'm not saying we shouldn't stop trying to achieve it. If you believe factual positions are unbiased you need to look at that statement again and critically self examine it further.

Biased against religion- I define that as viewing religion as predominantly negative, unhealthy and/or destructive, which biases you against viewing religion in a more positive light, or acknowledging the positive religions have, and thus viewing them in a more objective manner. Example: saying that religion is the source of most of the world's problems and the world would be better off without it. Or, alternatively, not taking religious claims seriously because they're religious and religion is BS and shouldn't be taken seriously because they can't back up their claims.

When a scientist proposes a theory to explain a problem but say they can't prove it because they don't have evidence and say they need time to work it out, we generally give it to them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, sometimes their theories are even hailed as potentially groundbreaking. Sometimes these theories hinge upon other theories which also haven't been proven. When a religious person does the exact same thing, we dismiss them and call them crackpots or say that's bullshit. There is a very clear negative bias against religions on the part of Atheists because they lack evidence, but yet when Atheists do the exact same thing or scientists do the same, we are no where near as critical of them as we are towards religious people- there is a very evident bias and double standard going on.

Atheists need to learn to be as critical of science and their own positions as they are of religion, otherwise we loose any and all credibility and become hypocrites. Atheism and anti-theism have appeared to become coupled with each other, and I am incredibly skeptical of anti-theism as it's a horribly biased position and not objective in the slightest. It might be based on facts and evidence, but its interpretation of those facts has a very strong bias against religion.

It's also overly simplistic in terms of how it views religion as the cause of all the major evils, or the root of them, and doesn't critically self-examine it's own position. Yes, I'll grant that saying "my god is better than yours" started the whole mess, but the problem isn't gods or religions: it's that people think their world views to be right, correct, and superior in some manner to someone else's. It doesn't matter that someone has evidence to back up what they say, what matters is that they think their world view is better than the other person's, and they try to convert them to their way of thinking because they believe themselves to be right and that the evidence proves them right.

This is proselytizing, Atheists who take it upon themselves to promote their world view do this all the time. It doesn't matter that we're right on lots of stuff, that doesn't mean we should be telling people our way is better than their own! If you are going to tell people what's best for them or imply it strongly, you are moralizing just like the Christian fundamentalists do. Who the fuck do we think we are to tell people how they should live their life, or criticize them if they are not harming themselves or others? If religions or religious people do harm others, we have every right to point out the problems, but if belief in God or Jesus or Buddha or whatever has a positive impact on people's lives, no matter how untrue it may be, who the fuck are we to suggest what works best for them?

We are not in their shoes, we have not been what they've been through, we cannot paint religion with broad strokes the way we have been doing as Atheist communities. It is much, much, much more nuanced and complex than we make it out to be. The problem is not religion, it's ideological superiority which can happen with anything, it just happened to be taken up by religion first because that's where we based our power structures back in the day.

I fully admit I have a bias against anti-theism, but that's precisely because I find it to be so biased. It's my opinion that we as a community of Atheists do not practice self criticism in regards to our own beliefs as much as we should,that we do not think reflectively on our words and actions as much as we should or at least not as much as we reflect on the problems within religion. You could respond with "well religious people don't base their opinions on evidence, I don't need to respect them", like Dawkins would say, but the problem with that is that if you do not show respect towards a person in a debate, you have shut down the conversation completely by calling their beliefs deluded, crazy, or calling them names like "Christotards" (I'm not saying you do Chas but I've seen others use the term on the forum multiple times). We have resorted to boorishness, name calling, and utter derision. We have becomes bullies, and it's time we faced those facts instead of pretending that it's not true and ignoring the issue.

This behaviour is not respectful, this is not charitable, but above all this is not constructive behaviour: it does not promote a dialogue between Atheists and Theists. Where I come from, Canada, we are polite and we try to respect people's beliefs no matter how much we might vehemently disagree with them, unless those beliefs can be shown to cause harm that is quantifiable. We should not respect the beliefs of fundamentalists who harm others, either physically by murdering and torturing people like in certain interpretations of Islam, or psychologically like how certain denominations of Christianity treat LGBT people. But it's ludicrous to claim every Christian or Muslim is harming someone by professing their beliefs: not all religious dogmas equate to harm being done. Things are much more complex than we've been making them out to be.

Take creationists: I fully admit I do not respect the views of creationists, but I'm working to change that, because respecting their beliefs is the only way by which I will have a civil discourse with those people on the issues at hand. They might be wrong, they might be teaching kids lies about evolution, but that can be corrected with dialogue and the only way you can do that is if both parties have a mutual respect for each other and their respective beliefs at the start of the conversation.

The manner in which many anti-theists conduct themselves and indeed I'd argue the very principles of anti-theism itself are against the very values that are at the core of the free thought movement: self reflection, self criticism, not being bound or blinded by Dogma (in this case, anti-theists' worldview/ideology). When people here in Canada generally act the way anti-theists like Dawkins do, they end up losing the respect of people and people generally view them as being intolerant and dickish towards other people's beliefs.

I realize the Canadian perspective of respecting a belief while disagreeing with it is not practiced in many countries, but I believe it is the best way to ensure that the dialogue between Atheists and Theists keeps going and is constructive. If you're here to turn religious people to Atheism, congratulations, you've become an Evangelist, just like the Christians but in reverse.

Atheism comes in many varieties: I am not an anti-theist, and I wish people would stop associating me with them simply because I'm an Atheist, because they equate that word with people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. And quite frankly to be associated with people who, by their own admission, are disrespectful towards religion, and who are blind to their own biases, is a damn shame. Anti-theists have effectively co-opted the conversation on Atheism and made themselves it's brand and posterchild- if that wasn't true Richard Dawkins would not be one of the first persons who comes to people's minds when you say the word Atheist.

This needs to stop: Atheism is much bigger, much more diverse than the narrow interpretation these people have made it out to be. For one thing, some of us actually have respect for religions. For another, some of us are religious (religious naturalists, pantheists)- to say that Atheism and religion are opposed to one another is false: go and tell that to the many pantheists like myself who are religious and don't believe in gods, and we'll show you how we've made both work and how the two aren't opposed to one another.

Atheism is a simply a lack of belief in gods- how that lack of belief is expressed is up to the individual, and it is quite diverse. It should not be associated, ever, with the disrespectful and rude behaviour of many anti-theists: it damages our credibility in the eyes of others and gives us a bad name.

We can do better than this, and we know it!
Lets do a thought experiment: replace every use of religious/christian/etc and all it's relevant context with "Neo-Nazi" and see if you still agree with yourself about how respectful of their beliefs we should be.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
05-04-2016, 10:09 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(04-04-2016 02:22 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  A factual position is unbiased? No I'm sorry, that's simply not true: a factual position may be based on facts and evidence, but you or someone else is interpreting those facts so they can be understood, that interpretation has a bias precisely because humans are not 100% objective, and their experiences are going to sway them in a certain way towards holding certain opinions. You can claim "no no, I'm rational! I use logic, I use reason, I use science to back up my claims!"- but basic psychology will show you that your emotions and experiences do impact your beliefs/opinions/positions, no matter how much you wish it weren't true. it's impossible to be 100% objective in forming an opinion. You can try to get close, but some bias will always exist. Pure objectivity is simply unattainable, although it's a laudable goal to strive for, and I'm not saying we shouldn't stop trying to achieve it. If you believe factual positions are unbiased you need to look at that statement again and critically self examine it further.

Biased against religion- I define that as viewing religion as predominantly negative, unhealthy and/or destructive, which biases you against viewing religion in a more positive light, or acknowledging the positive religions have, and thus viewing them in a more objective manner. Example: saying that religion is the source of most of the world's problems and the world would be better off without it. Or, alternatively, not taking religious claims seriously because they're religious and religion is BS and shouldn't be taken seriously because they can't back up their claims.

When a scientist proposes a theory to explain a problem but say they can't prove it because they don't have evidence and say they need time to work it out, we generally give it to them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, sometimes their theories are even hailed as potentially groundbreaking. Sometimes these theories hinge upon other theories which also haven't been proven. When a religious person does the exact same thing, we dismiss them and call them crackpots or say that's bullshit. There is a very clear negative bias against religions on the part of Atheists because they lack evidence, but yet when Atheists do the exact same thing or scientists do the same, we are no where near as critical of them as we are towards religious people- there is a very evident bias and double standard going on.

Atheists need to learn to be as critical of science and their own positions as they are of religion, otherwise we loose any and all credibility and become hypocrites. Atheism and anti-theism have appeared to become coupled with each other, and I am incredibly skeptical of anti-theism as it's a horribly biased position and not objective in the slightest. It might be based on facts and evidence, but its interpretation of those facts has a very strong bias against religion.

It's also overly simplistic in terms of how it views religion as the cause of all the major evils, or the root of them, and doesn't critically self-examine it's own position. Yes, I'll grant that saying "my god is better than yours" started the whole mess, but the problem isn't gods or religions: it's that people think their world views to be right, correct, and superior in some manner to someone else's. It doesn't matter that someone has evidence to back up what they say, what matters is that they think their world view is better than the other person's, and they try to convert them to their way of thinking because they believe themselves to be right and that the evidence proves them right.

This is proselytizing, Atheists who take it upon themselves to promote their world view do this all the time. It doesn't matter that we're right on lots of stuff, that doesn't mean we should be telling people our way is better than their own! If you are going to tell people what's best for them or imply it strongly, you are moralizing just like the Christian fundamentalists do. Who the fuck do we think we are to tell people how they should live their life, or criticize them if they are not harming themselves or others? If religions or religious people do harm others, we have every right to point out the problems, but if belief in God or Jesus or Buddha or whatever has a positive impact on people's lives, no matter how untrue it may be, who the fuck are we to suggest what works best for them?

We are not in their shoes, we have not been what they've been through, we cannot paint religion with broad strokes the way we have been doing as Atheist communities. It is much, much, much more nuanced and complex than we make it out to be. The problem is not religion, it's ideological superiority which can happen with anything, it just happened to be taken up by religion first because that's where we based our power structures back in the day.

I fully admit I have a bias against anti-theism, but that's precisely because I find it to be so biased. It's my opinion that we as a community of Atheists do not practice self criticism in regards to our own beliefs as much as we should,that we do not think reflectively on our words and actions as much as we should or at least not as much as we reflect on the problems within religion. You could respond with "well religious people don't base their opinions on evidence, I don't need to respect them", like Dawkins would say, but the problem with that is that if you do not show respect towards a person in a debate, you have shut down the conversation completely by calling their beliefs deluded, crazy, or calling them names like "Christotards" (I'm not saying you do Chas but I've seen others use the term on the forum multiple times). We have resorted to boorishness, name calling, and utter derision. We have becomes bullies, and it's time we faced those facts instead of pretending that it's not true and ignoring the issue.

This behaviour is not respectful, this is not charitable, but above all this is not constructive behaviour: it does not promote a dialogue between Atheists and Theists. Where I come from, Canada, we are polite and we try to respect people's beliefs no matter how much we might vehemently disagree with them, unless those beliefs can be shown to cause harm that is quantifiable. We should not respect the beliefs of fundamentalists who harm others, either physically by murdering and torturing people like in certain interpretations of Islam, or psychologically like how certain denominations of Christianity treat LGBT people. But it's ludicrous to claim every Christian or Muslim is harming someone by professing their beliefs: not all religious dogmas equate to harm being done. Things are much more complex than we've been making them out to be.

Take creationists: I fully admit I do not respect the views of creationists, but I'm working to change that, because respecting their beliefs is the only way by which I will have a civil discourse with those people on the issues at hand. They might be wrong, they might be teaching kids lies about evolution, but that can be corrected with dialogue and the only way you can do that is if both parties have a mutual respect for each other and their respective beliefs at the start of the conversation.

The manner in which many anti-theists conduct themselves and indeed I'd argue the very principles of anti-theism itself are against the very values that are at the core of the free thought movement: self reflection, self criticism, not being bound or blinded by Dogma (in this case, anti-theists' worldview/ideology). When people here in Canada generally act the way anti-theists like Dawkins do, they end up losing the respect of people and people generally view them as being intolerant and dickish towards other people's beliefs.

I realize the Canadian perspective of respecting a belief while disagreeing with it is not practiced in many countries, but I believe it is the best way to ensure that the dialogue between Atheists and Theists keeps going and is constructive. If you're here to turn religious people to Atheism, congratulations, you've become an Evangelist, just like the Christians but in reverse.

Atheism comes in many varieties: I am not an anti-theist, and I wish people would stop associating me with them simply because I'm an Atheist, because they equate that word with people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. And quite frankly to be associated with people who, by their own admission, are disrespectful towards religion, and who are blind to their own biases, is a damn shame. Anti-theists have effectively co-opted the conversation on Atheism and made themselves it's brand and posterchild- if that wasn't true Richard Dawkins would not be one of the first persons who comes to people's minds when you say the word Atheist.

This needs to stop: Atheism is much bigger, much more diverse than the narrow interpretation these people have made it out to be. For one thing, some of us actually have respect for religions. For another, some of us are religious (religious naturalists, pantheists)- to say that Atheism and religion are opposed to one another is false: go and tell that to the many pantheists like myself who are religious and don't believe in gods, and we'll show you how we've made both work and how the two aren't opposed to one another.

Atheism is a simply a lack of belief in gods- how that lack of belief is expressed is up to the individual, and it is quite diverse. It should not be associated, ever, with the disrespectful and rude behaviour of many anti-theists: it damages our credibility in the eyes of others and gives us a bad name.

We can do better than this, and we know it!
Lets do a thought experiment: replace every use of religious/christian/etc and all it's relevant context with "Neo-Nazi" and see if you still agree with yourself about how respectful of their beliefs we should be.

I wouldn't be very tolerant it's true precisely because Neo nazis are intolerant, and I have stated before that I am intolerant of intolerance., but I will never say they can't hold that opinion- it's their right to hold it and express it, no matter how evil it is, just as it's my right to speak out against them. The moment they start advocating violence against others is when it crosses over into hate speech and when they loose that right IMO (that's how we define Hate Speech in Canada, it's a very strict definition and I agree with it).

But that's a bad comparison since most religions are no where near the same level of intolerance that Neo Nazis are (individual sects yes, but on the whole no)- I do not understand why you would make such an extreme and polarizing comparison- it seems ridiculous to me (like how people compare stuff to Hitler that's nowhere near as bad as what Hitler did).

FYI: I just had my tonsils removed and I'm surprised I can even write, so I'm effectively dropping out of this discussion and will return when it doesn't feel like I'm swallowing burning glass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: