Listen, Pal, I'm only pushing my opinion because it's not a debate anymore. It's just this idea of religion bugs me. Back in the old days, They used to think the earth was flat, Why? Because they didn't know of something called "Gravity". It's the exact same case. Some mysteries can not be solved right now. But that doesn't mean we go around creating fantasy concepts about imaginary friends and a happy ending where everyone is alright. That idea is just very, very childish and totally unrealistic at all. The problem with religion is it's no longer just an idea, It has become a belief system that's being held as a sacred truth to many. Paralyzing the progress of humans in many ways, Including taking definitive action against climate change. That's my point, There's nothing subjective about it. I'm simply stating the facts to why they believe in religion and why it's wrong to believe in organized religion. The idea of a higher power still has its flaws, But it was merely an attempt to understand the mysteries of the universe. And that i can respect. What i can not stand is people believing in religion to ease the pains they're supposed to face. To believe in a happy ending while no such thing exists. The world is more grey than we'd like to think. It's not so black-and-white as many see it.
I just despise that weakness because it's an illusion. A false hope to control you.
Its not a weakness. There is no harm done in hav… moreing hope. As I said before, people have their reasons for believing what they do. I believe in some sort of spiritual afterlife simply because of what I have personally experienced (I'm hesitant to go into detail on this.. as I have only talked about it with one person ever). You have no argument that these views are an illusion. Don't insult people when you have literally nothing to back it up.
You're making a fuss over it. I was just stating my opinion.
The fact that you're trying to push your opinion as concrete is just silly (we wouldn't be having this discussion if you had done otherwise). You can say you were "just stating your opinion", but you were doing so in a blatantly rude and narrow minded fashion. To imply that people of faith (in regards to afterlife) are in need of growing up… [view original content]
I just despise that weakness because it's an illusion
Sorry for butting in but after this I just have to. How is it a weakness? In n… moreo way does it make me or anyone else weaker for believing in an afterlife. What is it going to change how I become a decaying corpse after I die like you believe? No it wouldn't change a damn thing, so your logic makes no sense. Also you don't even know if it exists or not, how is it an illusion?
Yeah I think I'll stop here I don't want to stick around to find out how much more disrespectful you can get.
we go around creating fantasy concepts about imaginary friends and a happy ending where everyone is alright is very, very childish and unrealistic at all.
Listen, Pal, I'm only pushing my opinion because it's not a debate anymore.
Yes, it is absolutely a debate in terms of you personally being narrow minded or not in regards to this subject. You are being narrow minded (as well as rude..). That much is indisputable. In regards to the actual question on hand, there is no debate. You can't possibly argue for the supposed impossibility of an afterlife. There is nothing to base that argument on.
They used to think the earth was flat, Why? Because they didn't know of something called "Gravity". It's the exact same case. . It's the exact same case. Some mysteries can not be solved right now.
Great. You still don't have anything to push your argument with. Until you do, this point is entirely irrelevant. You're pretty much saying there is no way we can put stock in an idea simply because it is possible that the idea could somehow be scientifically disproven in the future. That is honestly a really illogical stance to take, and it does nothing to add weight to your argument. We currently don't have any evidence to support either side of the argument, so for you to be so obtuse about this is ridiculous:
But that doesn't mean we go around creating fantasy concepts about imaginary friends and a happy ending where everyone is alright is very, very childish and unrealistic at all.
And who are you to say what ideas we should form or not form? Who are you to say these concepts are fantasy? Please don't pretend like you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about (no one does). Again, you have no argument to make. Is it possible that the idea of an afterlife could end up being a fantasy? Yes. However, we have nothing to show us otherwise at this point. Let people have hope. You have no reason or basis for shooting these people down. As long as they aren't forcing their ideas upon you, there is no valid complaint to be made.
You can stop with the "childish" labeling.
The problem with religion is it's no longer just an idea, It has become a belief system that's being held as a sacred truth to many. Paralyzing the progress of humans in many ways, Including taking definitive action against climate change.
I'm not even going to take you up on that... as it is a completely separate discussion from what we are actually talking about. Can we stay on topic? We're simply discussing the fact that writing off the possibility of an afterlife is an illogical stance to take. I'm not here to argue about the merit of religious organizations.
That's my point, There's nothing subjective about it.
Its hard to tell what you're talking about here as you completely changed the basis of discussion, but if you're strictly talking about your views about a potential afterlife, then you are dead wrong (for reasons already explained above..). Your opinion is nothing but subjective in regards to that.
I'm simply stating the facts to why they believe in religion and why it's wrong to believe in organized religion. The idea of a higher power still has its flaws, But it was merely an attempt to understand the mysteries of the universe.
Alright... yeah... you're completely off topic at this point. And no, these things do not go hand in hand (just saying..).
To believe in a happy ending while no such thing exists.
You can't possibly know that. You shouldn't even pretend to possibly know that.
The world is more grey than we'd like to think.
Can you please stop pretending like you actually have a clue?
Listen, Pal, I'm only pushing my opinion because it's not a debate anymore. It's just this idea of religion bugs me. Back in the old days, T… morehey used to think the earth was flat, Why? Because they didn't know of something called "Gravity". It's the exact same case. Some mysteries can not be solved right now. But that doesn't mean we go around creating fantasy concepts about imaginary friends and a happy ending where everyone is alright. That idea is just very, very childish and totally unrealistic at all. The problem with religion is it's no longer just an idea, It has become a belief system that's being held as a sacred truth to many. Paralyzing the progress of humans in many ways, Including taking definitive action against climate change. That's my point, There's nothing subjective about it. I'm simply stating the facts to why they believe in religion and why it's wrong to believe in organized religion. The idea of a higher power still has i… [view original content]
Listen, Pal, I'm only pushing my opinion because it's not a debate anymore.
Yes, it is absolutely a debate in terms of you personall… morey being narrow minded or not in regards to this subject. You are being narrow minded (as well as rude..). That much is indisputable. In regards to the actual question on hand, there is no debate. You can't possibly argue for the supposed impossibility of an afterlife. There is nothing to base that argument on.
They used to think the earth was flat, Why? Because they didn't know of something called "Gravity". It's the exact same case. . It's the exact same case. Some mysteries can not be solved right now.
Great. You still don't have anything to push your argument with. Until you do, this point is entirely irrelevant. You're pretty much saying there is no way we can put stock in an idea simply because it is possible that the idea could somehow be scientifically disproven in the future. That is… [view original content]
I know I'm probably going to sound condescending here, but this really shouldn't even be a debate. Basic logic totally defeats everything the guy is saying in regards to the actual debate.
He goes ahead and pretty much states that people shouldn't form a particular idea about this subject simply because there is no proof, but then he clearly goes on to side with the stance on the other side of the spectrum even though it is equally lacking in proof. One opinion he considers childish, the other he does not (simply because its his own opinion..). I don't feel like debating against such contradictive logic.
Everything is off-topic to you, Isn't it? Talk to me when you learn how to actually understand another point of view. You're failing to see my point, Therefore, I should end this conversation. That's why i don't stick around here and probably will leave for good. Childish users are everywhere on these forums.
Listen, Pal, I'm only pushing my opinion because it's not a debate anymore.
Yes, it is absolutely a debate in terms of you personall… morey being narrow minded or not in regards to this subject. You are being narrow minded (as well as rude..). That much is indisputable. In regards to the actual question on hand, there is no debate. You can't possibly argue for the supposed impossibility of an afterlife. There is nothing to base that argument on.
They used to think the earth was flat, Why? Because they didn't know of something called "Gravity". It's the exact same case. . It's the exact same case. Some mysteries can not be solved right now.
Great. You still don't have anything to push your argument with. Until you do, this point is entirely irrelevant. You're pretty much saying there is no way we can put stock in an idea simply because it is possible that the idea could somehow be scientifically disproven in the future. That is… [view original content]
I understand your view, and I clearly described why it was flawed. I explained to you how the overall topic of religous organizations is irrelevant to the simple idea of there being an afterlife or not being afterlife. Your points were illogical.
I'm childish simply because I'm debating your opinion? It really looks like you're conceding here. It's okay to admit that you were in the wrong.
Everything is off-topic to you, Isn't it? Talk to me when you learn how to actually understand another point of view. You're failing to see … moremy point, Therefore, I should end this conversation. That's why i don't stick around here and probably will leave for good. Childish users are everywhere on these forums.
I don't have anything against admitting that I'm wrong. You've basically just stripped any meaning of my statements above as off-topic. You don't really seem to care to analyze it to find out that it's all connected to one argument. An argument of principles, Not proofs.
I understand your view, and I clearly described why it was flawed. I explained to you how the overall topic of religous organizations is irr… moreelevant to the simple idea of there being an afterlife or not being afterlife. Your points were illogical.
I'm childish simply because I'm debating your opinion? It really looks like you're conceding here. It's okay to admit that you were in the wrong.
I know I'm probably going to sound condescending here, but this really shouldn't even be a debate. Basic logic totally defeats everything th… moree guy is saying in regards to the actual debate.
He goes ahead and pretty much states that people shouldn't form a particular idea about this subject simply because there is no proof, but then he clearly goes on to side with the stance on the other side of the spectrum even though it is equally lacking in proof. One opinion he considers childish, the other he does not (simply because its his own opinion..). I don't feel like debating against such contradictive logic.
Because its totally irrelevant. I don't care if you were trying to compare principles, the two things are irrelevant to one another in terms of simply looking at whether or not there is legitimacy behind believing in an afterlife or not. The merit of religious organizations is a completely separate argument, and it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove either side. It was basically pointless to even bring up.
I don't have anything against admitting that I'm wrong. You've basically just stripped any meaning of my statements above as off-topic. You … moredon't really seem to care to analyze it to find out that it's all connected to one argument. An argument of principles, Not proofs.
Because its totally irrelevant. I don't care if you were trying to compare principles, the two things are irrelevant to one another in terms… more of simply looking at whether or not there is legitimacy behind believing in an afterlife or not. The merit of religious organizations is a completely separate argument, and it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove either side. It was basically pointless to even bring up.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind you taking the stance that there isn't anything after death. My only issue was you going on to shoot down people of the opposite opinion while having nothing to back yourself up with. But hey, if we're all on the same page now, then that's great.
We're not on the same side. I'm just ending this conversation because i need to go to bed. Your answer to your question, To why I'm shooting down religious people is that organized religion brainwashes its followers. Pretty much everything I've said in my "Off-Topic" comment that you didn't pay much attention to. Anyway, I'll just be leaving now.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind you taking the stance that there isn't anything after death. My only issue was you going on to shoot down p… moreeople of the opposite opinion while having nothing to back yourself up with. But hey, if we're all on the same page now, then that's great.
Your answer to your question, To why I'm shooting down religious people is that organized religion brainwashes its followers.
... yes, I understand that you were trying to make that point. I'm simply telling you that that does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove anything to the actual topic at hand. Its really more of a separate argument rather than actual evidence pertaining to what we were actually discussing. You can't just imply that people are brainwashed and then choose to ignore all of the actual points being made in the debate. I don't want to argue about being brainwashed. I want to argue the points of the legitimacy in believing in an afterlife. I want to argue the point that you forcing your completely baseless opinion upon others is an illogical thing to do.
As an aside here, keep in mind that people can believe in an afterlife and yet not be a part of any particular religious organization.
We're not on the same side. I'm just ending this conversation because i need to go to bed. Your answer to your question, To why I'm shootin… moreg down religious people is that organized religion brainwashes its followers. Pretty much everything I've said in my "Off-Topic" comment that you didn't pay much attention to. Anyway, I'll just be leaving now.
Ah, Yes, Afterlife and family reunion. Grow up
What an ironic statement..
Seriously, you don't want to go there. If you want to p… moreersonally choose to totally ignore the possibilities of anything beyond death, then so be it... but that doesn't mean anyone thinking otherwise needs to grow up simply because they won't conform to your way of thinking.
That's your problem, Not mine. You keep diving the principle i'm trying to talk about into facts, Evidences and opinions. That's not how i debate a matter of that significance. So, I suggest we end this conversation since it's going nowhere really. I always try to see things from the other person's perspective instead of mine. That's why i sincerely respect subjectivity, And that's why regarding a sensitive matter such as this, I simply don't argue with just anyone who'd like to debate over it. No offense.
Your answer to your question, To why I'm shooting down religious people is that organized religion brainwashes its followers.
... ye… mores, I understand that you were trying to make that point. I'm simply telling you that that does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove anything to the actual topic at hand. Its really more of a separate argument rather than actual evidence pertaining to what we were actually discussing. You can't just imply that people are brainwashed and then choose to ignore all of the actual points being made in the debate. I don't want to argue about being brainwashed. I want to argue the points of the legitimacy in believing in an afterlife. I want to argue the point that you forcing your completely baseless opinion upon others is an illogical thing to do.
As an aside here, keep in mind that people can believe in an afterlife and yet not be a part of any particular religious organization.
I mean, obviously it was our parents putting those presents under the Christmas tree, and we'll be doing the same thing for our own children (unless you're not into that sort of thing..). Its not even remotely close to being a comparison. You're trying to compare naivety to something that isn't as such. No one has the slightest clue as to what happens when we die.
That's ridiculous.
I mean, obviously it was our parents putting those presents under the Christmas tree, and we'll be doing the same thin… moreg for our own children (unless you're not into that sort of thing..). Its not even remotely close to being a comparison. You're trying to compare naivety to something that isn't as such. No one has the slightest clue as to what happens when we die.
Again, you can't even compare. We know we're going to die at some point. What happens after that, we have no idea. To refute the idea of an afterlife is just illogical. We're not contriving the situation that we're facing (in terms of dying). There is obviously going to be a direct outcome of some kind.
Oh, you absolutely can compare. There being an afterlife is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Just like there being unicorns, fairies, a God etc are unfalsifiable hypothesis'. There is no evidence/reason to believe in an afterlife, the reason people do is they're scared of dieing and/or want to see their dead loved ones again. However there is plenty of evidence of there being no afterlife. One can't be 100 percent sure, but you can't be sure unicorns don't exist either. Yet you'd be pretty silly to believe it.
Again, you can't even compare. We know we're going to die at some point. What happens after that, we have no idea. To refute the idea of an … moreafterlife is just illogical. We're not contriving the situation that we're facing (in terms of dying). There is obviously going to be a direct outcome of some kind.
You're over-complicating the argument, and you kind of completely ignored the actual points I made. You brought up some interesting topics of conversation... but lets try and pull this debate back on course.
Again, we know that we're going to die at some point. What comes after that, indisputably falls into these two categories:
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
One of these two things will happen. That is indisputable. We have no clue which one will, but we're free to speculate/ use our life experiences. You can't tell someone to grow up for believing in a totally valid possible outcome to a situation that is staring us right in the face.
Following your own logic, I would expect you to also refute the idea that there is nothing after we die. I would expect you to tell people who believe in nothing after death to "grow up". Of course that would just be ridiculous though. Again, only following the logic that you're presenting here..
Oh, you absolutely can compare. There being an afterlife is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Just like there being unicorns, fairies, a God etc … moreare unfalsifiable hypothesis'. There is no evidence/reason to believe in an afterlife, the reason people do is they're scared of dieing and/or want to see their dead loved ones again. However there is plenty of evidence of there being no afterlife. One can't be 100 percent sure, but you can't be sure unicorns don't exist either. Yet you'd be pretty silly to believe it.
You seem to think those two chances have an equal possibility. If there is no evidence for something, it is most logical to conclude it doesn't exist. There is a big difference between something (an afterlife) and nothing (no afterlife). My comparison to the belief in unicorns is completely relevant. Just how we don't know what happens after death, we don't know if unicorns exist.
Things that exist have this habit of, you know, having evidence for their existence. If something has no evidence, there is no sound reason to believe it, only that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
You clearly don't follow my logic very well if you think the idea of nothing after death is as equally ridiculous as an afterlife. My logic is: if there is no evidence to support it, it is irrational to believe. There is no evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife, therefore it is most logical to conclude at this time that there is none. That might change in the future, who knows. Maybe evidence for an afterlife will be found in the future, but for now where there is none, it is silly to believe there is an afterlife.
You're over-complicating the argument, and you kind of completely ignored the actual points I made. You brought up some interesting topics o… moref conversation... but lets try and pull this debate back on course.
Again, we know that we're going to die at some point. What comes after that, indisputably falls into these two categories:
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
One of these two things will happen. That is indisputable. We have no clue which one will, but we're free to speculate/ use our life experiences. You can't tell someone to grow up for believing in a totally valid possible outcome to a situation that is staring us right in the face.
Following your own logic, I would expect you to also refute the idea that there is nothing after we die. I would expect you to tell people who believe in nothing after death to "grow up". Of course that would just be ridiculous though. Again, only following the logic that you're presenting here..
You seem to think those two chances have an equal possibility.
There is no body of evidence supporting either outcome, so we can't argue over the probability of either outcome. It's totally impossible. Ultimately, this is irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if they have an "equal" possibility as long as they have a reasonable possibility. Instead of debating about which is more likely, lets look at them individually, and apply reason (look at the example in my previous post..). Based on what we know about this subject, it is impossible to argue for one outcome being reasonable while arguing that the other is unreasonable (remember, we're talking about these things in principle, not anything detailed/specific). There is no way for us to do this. There is zero evidence to support either claim. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that one outcome is more reasonable than the other. It is illogical to see one outcome as reasonable while seeing the other as unreasonable. It makes no sense based upon the knowledge that we have.
If there is no evidence for something, it is most logical to conclude it doesn't exist.
That isn't logical in the least. You can speculate that it does not exist, but you can not reasonably conclude that it does not exist while having no evidence or logical rationale to support such a claim. Of course you can have your own doubts and assumptions, but don't try bringing those to the table in an effort to try and shoot down an opposing argument.
My comparison to the belief in unicorns is completely relevant. Just how we don't know what happens after death, we don't know if unicorns exist.
It really wasn't relevant at all to the logical process we were looking at. You're totally going off on a tangent. You're ignoring my points. Could you please address the reasoning I gave you instead of going off on this other argument? As much as I would like to debate about your unicorn example, it completely removes us from the reasonable argument I gave you in regards to simply looking at the legitimacy behind believing in either outcome following death. I'll copy and paste it, so you can have another look:
"Again, we know that we're going to die at some point. What comes after that, indisputably falls into these two categories:
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
One of these two things will happen. That is indisputable. We have no clue which one will, but we're free to speculate/ use our life experiences. You can't tell someone to grow up for believing in a totally valid possible outcome to a situation that is staring us right in the face."
Could you please address this thought process? I understand where you're trying to go with the whole "unicorn example", but it isn't very relevant to simply looking at the rationality of this process.
Things that exist have this habit of, you know, having evidence for their existence. If something has no evidence, there is no sound reason to believe it
This goes back to the example that I gave you above. We know there are two possible outcomes following death. However, we have no evidence supporting either outcome. There is no evidence to support the total death of our consciousness after death, and there is no evidence to support that our consciousness lives on after death. Yet one of these outcomes exists, and the other does not (if we really want to make this complicated we could argue that both could in fact exist.. but for the sake of this debate lets not go there). We don't know which one is true and which one is false.
You clearly don't follow my logic very well if you think the idea of nothing after death is as equally ridiculous as an afterlife. My logic is: if there is no evidence to support it, it is irrational to believe. There is no evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife, therefore it is most logical to conclude at this time that there is none. That might change in the future, who knows. Maybe evidence for an afterlife will be found in the future, but for now where there is none, it is silly to believe there is an afterlife.
Not to split hairs, but I never said either outcome was ridiculous (just don't want words being put in my mouth here..). Anyway, following your logic, there is no way you can argue for the other side of the spectrum. As I have said multiple times in this post, there is no evidence supporting the total death of the human consciousness after dying. There is no evidence to support your point of view, and there is no evidence to support my own view. What we need to look at is whether or not each individual outcome is reasonable. For reasons explained above, either outcome is a reasonable possibility based on what knowledge we have. It is reasonable to have a personal belief for either outcome.. though it is not reasonable to shove this belief down someone else's throat.
You seem to think those two chances have an equal possibility. If there is no evidence for something, it is most logical to conclude it does… moren't exist. There is a big difference between something (an afterlife) and nothing (no afterlife). My comparison to the belief in unicorns is completely relevant. Just how we don't know what happens after death, we don't know if unicorns exist.
Things that exist have this habit of, you know, having evidence for their existence. If something has no evidence, there is no sound reason to believe it, only that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
You clearly don't follow my logic very well if you think the idea of nothing after death is as equally ridiculous as an afterlife. My logic is: if there is no evidence to support it, it is irrational to believe. There is no evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife, therefore it is most logical to conclude at this time that there is none. That migh… [view original content]
You keep diving the principle i'm trying to talk about into facts, Evidences and opinions. That's not how i debate a matter of that significance. So, I suggest we end this conversation since it's going nowhere really.
As I have already said, these "principles" you are talking about are totally separate from the issue we were originally discussing. You understand that we were originally talking about the legitimacy behind believing in an afterlife, correct? You can't just go off on some rant about religion brainwashing people and then choose to ignore all the points being made against you. Your "principles" against religious organizations does nothing to disprove the other argument. It does nothing to touch on the subject of there being logic behind believing in an after life or not believing in an afterlife.
I mean, are you really saying you brought the topic up just for the sake of bringing it up? You weren't trying to add any sort of legitimacy to your stance on the actual topic at hand? I think that it's pretty apparent that you were doing so, which is why I am still here taking you up on your points. If you don't want to have a debate about it, then I'm not really sure why you're wasting your time.
I always try to see things from the other person's perspective instead of mine. That's why i sincerely respect subjectivity, And that's why regarding a sensitive matter such as this, I simply don't argue with just anyone who'd like to debate over it. No offense.
It honestly feels a little ironic to me that you clearly have no issue being insensitive in regards to calling a group of people immature for the beliefs that they have, and yet here you are backing out of the debate for the sake of it being a touchy subject. Just understand that if you're going to go off and attack a group of people, don't be surprised when someone takes you up on your reasoning.
That's your problem, Not mine. You keep diving the principle i'm trying to talk about into facts, Evidences and opinions. That's not how i d… moreebate a matter of that significance. So, I suggest we end this conversation since it's going nowhere really. I always try to see things from the other person's perspective instead of mine. That's why i sincerely respect subjectivity, And that's why regarding a sensitive matter such as this, I simply don't argue with just anyone who'd like to debate over it. No offense.
Facepalms I told you before i don't want to talk with you and your endless prejudices. You can't really judge my views as separate if i meant them in a collective way, It means that you're doing it wrong. I simply posted this comment to express my opinion, Just like everyone else on here. Don't like it? Ignore it. Simple. I'm simply backing out because i don't have time for you or your endless, pointless, "You make no sense" arguments. I thought i made that clear several times BEFORE that argument. Send someone else to argue with me about religion if you wish to continue this. Because you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. And no, YOU were making conversation about the legitimacy of afterlife, I was debating religion in general. This is what separates us, I see the big picture, I sense the opposite view, You don't. Whenever I'm making a point in any of our debates ever since the Snow debates, I judge them as nonsense or off-topic or whatsoever. You wish to have debates like that, Be my guest, Just try to avoid me because i get annoyed quickly.
It honestly feels a little ironic to me that you clearly have no issue being insensitive in regards to calling a group of people immature for the beliefs that they have.
Maybe because the concept is a complete nonsense? And it's your job to prove me wrong that the concept is serious since I'm judging it? Seriously, If you wish to continue this, Understand my criticism, Address it, And then i will understand. All your arguments are shallow and lack any depth of principles and understanding to the opposite view, You Just like to decorate your comments.
You keep diving the principle i'm trying to talk about into facts, Evidences and opinions. That's not how i debate a matter of that signific… moreance. So, I suggest we end this conversation since it's going nowhere really.
As I have already said, these "principles" you are talking about are totally separate from the issue we were originally discussing. You understand that we were originally talking about the legitimacy behind believing in an afterlife, correct? You can't just go off on some rant about religion brainwashing people and then choose to ignore all the points being made against you. Your "principles" against religious organizations does nothing to disprove the other argument. It does nothing to touch on the subject of there being logic behind believing in an after life or not believing in an afterlife.
I mean, are you really saying you brought the topic up just for the sake of bringing it up? You weren't trying to add any sor… [view original content]
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
In order for B to be possible, it requires an additional assumption that there exists an immaterial aspect of our being that can persist after death. Since A does not require this additional assumption, Occam's razor would favor A over B.
You seem to think those two chances have an equal possibility.
There is no body of evidence supporting either outcome, so we can't a… morergue over the probability of either outcome. It's totally impossible. Ultimately, this is irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if they have an "equal" possibility as long as they have a reasonable possibility. Instead of debating about which is more likely, lets look at them individually, and apply reason (look at the example in my previous post..). Based on what we know about this subject, it is impossible to argue for one outcome being reasonable while arguing that the other is unreasonable (remember, we're talking about these things in principle, not anything detailed/specific). There is no way for us to do this. There is zero evidence to support either claim. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that one outcome is more reasonable than the other. It is illogical to see one outcome as reasonable while s… [view original content]
But could you not argue that option A requires the assumption that there is not an immaterial aspect of our being that can persist after death? I mean, either way, assumptions are being made. That's all we really have. And regardless, even if one option was ruled to be more favorable, that doesn't take away from finding legitimacy in the other option, correct? As in, it wouldn't be proper to label someone as immature or naive for siding with the other option.
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
In order for B to be possible, it requires… more an additional assumption that there exists an immaterial aspect of our being that can persist after death. Since A does not require this additional assumption, Occam's razor would favor A over B.
Facepalms I told you before i don't want to talk with you and your endless prejudices.
Prejudices? You do understand that I'm basically arguing from a spot of neutrality... right? You're the one who came in here and straight up insulted a group of individuals. I've simply been arguing with you over why that was a silly thing to do.
You can't really judge my views as separate if i meant them in a collective way, It means that you're doing it wrong
Because judging in the collective way that you're trying to do isn't a very sound thing to do. Pushing the fact that religious organizations brainwash people into believing in an afterlife isn't really a good idea when there are so many good reasons for these people believing in what they do. It doesn't necessarily have to do with them being brainwashed... that's all I have been trying to tell you.
I simply posted this comment to express my opinion, Just like everyone else on here. Don't like it? Ignore it.
I would have been more than happy to ignore it if not for the insult aimed at people of faith. Your thoughts seemed openly obtuse... and that is something I will generally challenge if I feel like it is something that should be addressed.
I'm simply backing out because i don't have time for you or your endless, pointless, "You make no sense" arguments. I thought i made that clear several times BEFORE that argument. Send someone else to argue with me about religion if you wish to continue this.
"I would have been more than happy to ignore it if not for the insult aimed at people of faith. Your thoughts seemed openly obtuse... and that is something I will generally challenge if I feel like it is something that should be addressed."
Because you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about.
I understand what you're talking about. Can we not have circular commentary like this?
And no, YOU were making conversation about the legitimacy of afterlife, I was debating religion in general.
But what was your purpose? Clearly it was to debunk the legitimacy of an afterlife. Why else would you have said what you said in your original statement? Turning the subject to strictly only looking at the supposed "brainwashing" brought upon society by religious organizations totally ignores all other good reasoning, and it caused you to basically ignore the overall points that I was making in defense of the individuals who believe in the after life for whatever reasoning. Its just silly to throw your hands up and blame "brainwashing" for the reasoning why people believe what they do, as if that was actually a be it be all sort of solution. I simply dislike that sort of reasoning. Its not really necessary, or really an argument of substance.
This is what separates us, I see the big picture, I sense the opposite view, You don't.
Facepalms I told you before i don't want to talk with you and your endless prejudices. You can't really judge my views as separate if i mean… moret them in a collective way, It means that you're doing it wrong. I simply posted this comment to express my opinion, Just like everyone else on here. Don't like it? Ignore it. Simple. I'm simply backing out because i don't have time for you or your endless, pointless, "You make no sense" arguments. I thought i made that clear several times BEFORE that argument. Send someone else to argue with me about religion if you wish to continue this. Because you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. And no, YOU were making conversation about the legitimacy of afterlife, I was debating religion in general. This is what separates us, I see the big picture, I sense the opposite view, You don't. Whenever I'm making a point in any of our debates ever since the Snow debates, I judge them as nonsense or off-topic… [view original content]
Well, A doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of there being an immaterial aspect of our being, only that it doesn't persist after death. But for B to be true, there both needs to be an immaterial aspect of our being and it has to persist after death.
Another problem with A is that in order for the immaterial aspect of our being to be "us" in any meaningful sense, it has to carry with it some aspects of our personalities and perhaps memories. But from what we've observed, those things are directly tied to physical structures in our brains. So you have to further explain how is it that this immaterial aspect of our being is able to extract and retain information from the physical aspects of our being. Basically, there's a whole lot more you need to explain for B than for A.
I wouldn't use the labels "immature" or "naive" but I do think that believing in something without justification is irrational. Especially if that belief requires assuming the existence of something that is outside of the bounds of nature.
But could you not argue that option A requires the assumption that there is not an immaterial aspect of our being that can persist after dea… moreth? I mean, either way, assumptions are being made. That's all we really have. And regardless, even if one option was ruled to be more favorable, that doesn't take away from finding legitimacy in the other option, correct? As in, it wouldn't be proper to label someone as immature or naive for siding with the other option.
Facepalms I told you before i don't want to talk with you and your endless prejudices.
Prejudices? You do understand that I'm basica… morelly arguing from a spot of neutrality... right? You're the one who came in here and straight up insulted a group of individuals. I've simply been arguing with you over why that was a silly thing to do.
You can't really judge my views as separate if i meant them in a collective way, It means that you're doing it wrong
Because judging in the collective way that you're trying to do isn't a very sound thing to do. Pushing the fact that religious organizations brainwash people into believing in an afterlife isn't really a good idea when there are so many good reasons for these people believing in what they do. It doesn't necessarily have to do with them being brainwashed... that's all I have been trying to tell you.
I simply posted this comment to express my opinion, Just like everyone else… [view original content]
Well, A doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of there being an immaterial aspect of our being, only that it doesn't persist after death. But for B to be true, there both needs to be an immaterial aspect of our being and it has to persist after death.
Its honestly fairly inconsequential that option A doesn't necessarily have a set stance on whether we have an immaterial state of being or not. It doesn't really take away from the logic of the situation. That one less assumption doesn't really matter. Neither include anything factual. Both sides of the equation are for all extents and purposes entirely made up of assumption. One is right, one is wrong. We have no possible way to deduce which is which. Seeing that one side of the equation has one less assumption doesn't make that argument correct by any means, and it doesn't even necessarily make it the more prudent one to follow, considering that one less assumption in option A isn't replaced by fact, rather more of an abstention than anything. And I mean... assuming that something is necessarily more correct than something else simply because it involves one less assumption while being backed up by zero facts itself, is honestly a little fallacious. On the other hand, If you're in fact not saying that, then you shouldn't have an issue with someone personally believing in option B, right?
Another problem with A is that in order for the immaterial aspect of our being to be "us" in any meaningful sense, it has to carry with it some aspects of our personalities and perhaps memories. But from what we've observed, those things are directly tied to physical structures in our brains. So you have to further explain how is it that this immaterial aspect of our being is able to extract and retain information from the physical aspects of our being. Basically, there's a whole lot more you need to explain for B than for A.
It depends on what we're specifically talking about in regards to an afterlife. I haven't really specified any particular form of an afterlife. You could theoretically have an afterlife where none of the above is present. Regardless, I'm not sure how fair it is to compare the general idea of not having an afterlife to a less generalized/ more specific idea regarding the afterlife. Its not really an equal/fair comparison at that point. The more specific you make one side of the argument (while leaving the other one in the complete general sense), the more assumptions you're going to encounter. Obviously its hard to really go beyond the general idea that we have in option A, but that's besides the point. We're looking more at a technicality rather than an issue of proper logic here.
I wouldn't use the labels "immature" or "naive" but I do think that believing in something without justification is irrational.
Maybe I'm taking this statement too literally, but there is absolutely a level justification for siding with option B.
Especially if that belief requires assuming the existence of something that is outside of the bounds of nature.
I can respect that thought process.. as long as it isn't used to as reasoning to defeat the opposing idea
Well, A doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of there being an immaterial aspect of our being, only that it doesn't persist after de… moreath. But for B to be true, there both needs to be an immaterial aspect of our being and it has to persist after death.
Another problem with A is that in order for the immaterial aspect of our being to be "us" in any meaningful sense, it has to carry with it some aspects of our personalities and perhaps memories. But from what we've observed, those things are directly tied to physical structures in our brains. So you have to further explain how is it that this immaterial aspect of our being is able to extract and retain information from the physical aspects of our being. Basically, there's a whole lot more you need to explain for B than for A.
I wouldn't use the labels "immature" or "naive" but I do think that believing in something without justification is irrational. Especially if that belief requires assuming the existence of something that is outside of the bounds of nature.
I don't blame you. I only wish that more people around here would admit when they are plainly in the wrong. You're too worked up about defending yourself to be able to admit that. Oh well. That's human nature I suppose.
You keep trying to make me lose my temper to say the exact same argument of "Prejudices" over and over again. Oh yes, I'm the one who doesn't like to admit they're wrong. Makes perfect sense. At least I have done before plenty of times, While you're the one who has never really admitted being wrong before. You just keep repeating whatever you say in your decorated comments. Seriously though, This conversation is over. Don't even try to bring any type of conversation up because as i said, I get annoyed quickly.
I don't blame you. I only wish that more people around here would admit when they are plainly in the wrong. You're too worked up about defending yourself to be able to admit that. Oh well. That's human nature I suppose.
See ya.
It absolutely does matter. Assuming that there's an immaterial essence tied to every human being that persists after their death is a pretty major leap of faith. An option that doesn't have to take that leap of faith is a lot more grounded than one that does. If I told you that there was a car in my driveway, you wouldn't have to make any additional assumptions about the world in order to believe me and so you could reasonably do so. But if I told you that there were an invisible car parked in my driveway, you'd have to assume that there exists an invisible material that a car could be made out of. This additional assumption makes believing my words unreasonable.
I don't quite understand the concept of an afterlife where nothing specific to the consciousness is retained. Doesn't the whole concept of an afterlife require that the entity exists in some form after death? If what exists after an entity dies doesn't carry with it any aspect of that entity, how can it be said that what exists afterwards is in fact that entity?
Well, A doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of there being an immaterial aspect of our being, only that it doesn't persist after de… moreath. But for B to be true, there both needs to be an immaterial aspect of our being and it has to persist after death.
Its honestly fairly inconsequential that option A doesn't necessarily have a set stance on whether we have an immaterial state of being or not. It doesn't really take away from the logic of the situation. That one less assumption doesn't really matter. Neither include anything factual. Both sides of the equation are for all extents and purposes entirely made up of assumption. One is right, one is wrong. We have no possible way to deduce which is which. Seeing that one side of the equation has one less assumption doesn't make that argument correct by any means, and it doesn't even necessarily make it the more prudent one to follow, considering that one less assumption in option A i… [view original content]
It absolutely does matter. Assuming that there's an immaterial essence tied to every human being that persists after their death is a pretty major leap of faith.
All we're dealing with is assumption. I could argue that option "A" is taking a leap of faith in stating that there is not an immaterial state of being. I know you would turn around and say that it isn't necessarily stating that at all, but if the argument was in fact all for the possibility of an existing immaterial state of being, why on earth would it be arguing against the possibility of an immaterial state of being after a material death in the first place? Where is the logic in that? Should we add more assumptions to this argument in order to explain how an immaterial state of being can not possibly survive a material death? If so, that adds advantage to option "B".
Honestly though, using Occam's Razor here is a little pointless, considering both arguments are solely grounded in assumption anyway. Considering this, Its difficult to actually argue for one option to be reasonable and the other unreasonable. Like I said above, its not like option "A" has any sort of factual base to lean on.
And even if we want to act like Occam's Razor does in fact add more legitimacy to option "A", that doesn't make option "B" incorrect. It doesn't make it unreasonable to be a believer of option "B", especially when personal life experiences are factored into that personal decision making.
"Both sides of the equation are for all extents and purposes entirely made up of assumption. One is right, one is wrong. We have no possible way to deduce which is which. Seeing that one side of the equation has one less assumption doesn't make that argument more correct by any means, and it doesn't even necessarily make it the more prudent one to follow, considering that one less assumption in option "A" isn't replaced by fact, rather more of an abstention than anything. And I mean... assuming that something is necessarily more correct than something else simply because it involves one less assumption while being backed up by zero facts itself, is honestly a little fallacious."
The whole point of Occam's Razor is to gravitate towards the simplest answer, and to stray away from assumption. When both arguments are completely grounded in assumption, this becomes a baseless process in terms of actually using it to tell someone their beliefs are unreasonable. The simplest answer is not always the correct one, or the most prudent one to follow. Especially when there is no body of knowledge to base it on. A simple explanation isn't necessarily more likely to be correct (strictly talking about probability here) in comparison to a slightly less simple explanation. That's an abstract idea that doesn't hold true for every given case. It doesn't actually tell us for sure what is more probable (again, this is especially true considering we have no actual body of knowledge to look at).
If I told you that there was a car in my driveway, you wouldn't have to make any additional assumptions about the world in order to believe me and so you could reasonably do so. But if I told you that there were an invisible car parked in my driveway, you'd have to assume that there exists an invisible material that a car could be made out of. This additional assumption makes believing my words unreasonable.
I understand what you're trying to say here, but this example doesn't really coincide with what we were talking about. We know cars exist, we know driveways exist, we know cars can be parked in driveways. These are facts. There is nothing factual about option "A", nor option "B". Both options are completely grounded in assumption.
I don't quite understand the concept of an afterlife where nothing specific to the consciousness is retained. Doesn't the whole concept of an afterlife require that the entity exists in some form after death? If what exists after an entity dies doesn't carry with it any aspect of that entity, how can it be said that what exists afterwards is in fact that entity?
Reincarnation is one. Anyway, us arguing over the properties of an immaterial state of being is really a pointless thing to do considering neither of us has a clue.
That one less assumption doesn't really matter.
It absolutely does matter. Assuming that there's an immaterial essence tied to every… more human being that persists after their death is a pretty major leap of faith. An option that doesn't have to take that leap of faith is a lot more grounded than one that does. If I told you that there was a car in my driveway, you wouldn't have to make any additional assumptions about the world in order to believe me and so you could reasonably do so. But if I told you that there were an invisible car parked in my driveway, you'd have to assume that there exists an invisible material that a car could be made out of. This additional assumption makes believing my words unreasonable.
I don't quite understand the concept of an afterlife where nothing specific to the consciousness is retained. Doesn't the whole concept of an afterlife require that the entity exists in some form after death? If what exists a… [view original content]
Comments
Listen, Pal, I'm only pushing my opinion because it's not a debate anymore. It's just this idea of religion bugs me. Back in the old days, They used to think the earth was flat, Why? Because they didn't know of something called "Gravity". It's the exact same case. Some mysteries can not be solved right now. But that doesn't mean we go around creating fantasy concepts about imaginary friends and a happy ending where everyone is alright. That idea is just very, very childish and totally unrealistic at all. The problem with religion is it's no longer just an idea, It has become a belief system that's being held as a sacred truth to many. Paralyzing the progress of humans in many ways, Including taking definitive action against climate change. That's my point, There's nothing subjective about it. I'm simply stating the facts to why they believe in religion and why it's wrong to believe in organized religion. The idea of a higher power still has its flaws, But it was merely an attempt to understand the mysteries of the universe. And that i can respect. What i can not stand is people believing in religion to ease the pains they're supposed to face. To believe in a happy ending while no such thing exists. The world is more grey than we'd like to think. It's not so black-and-white as many see it.
TTG forums' basic style: Your logic makes no sense.
Read the comment above.
Yeah I think I'll stop here I don't want to stick around to find out how much more disrespectful you can get.
Yes, it is absolutely a debate in terms of you personally being narrow minded or not in regards to this subject. You are being narrow minded (as well as rude..). That much is indisputable. In regards to the actual question on hand, there is no debate. You can't possibly argue for the supposed impossibility of an afterlife. There is nothing to base that argument on.
Great. You still don't have anything to push your argument with. Until you do, this point is entirely irrelevant. You're pretty much saying there is no way we can put stock in an idea simply because it is possible that the idea could somehow be scientifically disproven in the future. That is honestly a really illogical stance to take, and it does nothing to add weight to your argument. We currently don't have any evidence to support either side of the argument, so for you to be so obtuse about this is ridiculous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And who are you to say what ideas we should form or not form? Who are you to say these concepts are fantasy? Please don't pretend like you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about (no one does). Again, you have no argument to make. Is it possible that the idea of an afterlife could end up being a fantasy? Yes. However, we have nothing to show us otherwise at this point. Let people have hope. You have no reason or basis for shooting these people down. As long as they aren't forcing their ideas upon you, there is no valid complaint to be made.
You can stop with the "childish" labeling.
I'm not even going to take you up on that... as it is a completely separate discussion from what we are actually talking about. Can we stay on topic? We're simply discussing the fact that writing off the possibility of an afterlife is an illogical stance to take. I'm not here to argue about the merit of religious organizations.
Its hard to tell what you're talking about here as you completely changed the basis of discussion, but if you're strictly talking about your views about a potential afterlife, then you are dead wrong (for reasons already explained above..). Your opinion is nothing but subjective in regards to that.
Alright... yeah... you're completely off topic at this point. And no, these things do not go hand in hand (just saying..).
You can't possibly know that. You shouldn't even pretend to possibly know that.
Can you please stop pretending like you actually have a clue?
Damn dude...
This is getting heated, let me get my popcorn!
XD
I know I'm probably going to sound condescending here, but this really shouldn't even be a debate. Basic logic totally defeats everything the guy is saying in regards to the actual debate.
He goes ahead and pretty much states that people shouldn't form a particular idea about this subject simply because there is no proof, but then he clearly goes on to side with the stance on the other side of the spectrum even though it is equally lacking in proof. One opinion he considers childish, the other he does not (simply because its his own opinion..). I don't feel like debating against such contradictive logic.
Everything is off-topic to you, Isn't it? Talk to me when you learn how to actually understand another point of view. You're failing to see my point, Therefore, I should end this conversation. That's why i don't stick around here and probably will leave for good. Childish users are everywhere on these forums.
I understand your view, and I clearly described why it was flawed. I explained to you how the overall topic of religous organizations is irrelevant to the simple idea of there being an afterlife or not being afterlife. Your points were illogical.
I'm childish simply because I'm debating your opinion? It really looks like you're conceding here. It's okay to admit that you were in the wrong.
I don't have anything against admitting that I'm wrong. You've basically just stripped any meaning of my statements above as off-topic. You don't really seem to care to analyze it to find out that it's all connected to one argument. An argument of principles, Not proofs.
Doesn't matter, its still entertainment to me!
Because its totally irrelevant. I don't care if you were trying to compare principles, the two things are irrelevant to one another in terms of simply looking at whether or not there is legitimacy behind believing in an afterlife or not. The merit of religious organizations is a completely separate argument, and it does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove either side. It was basically pointless to even bring up.
Yeah, yeah, You're right. Just get off my head, I've had a long day.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind you taking the stance that there isn't anything after death. My only issue was you going on to shoot down people of the opposite opinion while having nothing to back yourself up with. But hey, if we're all on the same page now, then that's great.
We're not on the same side. I'm just ending this conversation because i need to go to bed. Your answer to your question, To why I'm shooting down religious people is that organized religion brainwashes its followers. Pretty much everything I've said in my "Off-Topic" comment that you didn't pay much attention to. Anyway, I'll just be leaving now.
... yes, I understand that you were trying to make that point. I'm simply telling you that that does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove anything to the actual topic at hand. Its really more of a separate argument rather than actual evidence pertaining to what we were actually discussing. You can't just imply that people are brainwashed and then choose to ignore all of the actual points being made in the debate. I don't want to argue about being brainwashed. I want to argue the points of the legitimacy in believing in an afterlife. I want to argue the point that you forcing your completely baseless opinion upon others is an illogical thing to do.
As an aside here, keep in mind that people can believe in an afterlife and yet not be a part of any particular religious organization.
So you wouldn't tell a grown man who still believed in Santa Claus to grow up?
We'll turn into Lexi Porter.
That's your problem, Not mine. You keep diving the principle i'm trying to talk about into facts, Evidences and opinions. That's not how i debate a matter of that significance. So, I suggest we end this conversation since it's going nowhere really. I always try to see things from the other person's perspective instead of mine. That's why i sincerely respect subjectivity, And that's why regarding a sensitive matter such as this, I simply don't argue with just anyone who'd like to debate over it. No offense.
Not the same thing.
Oh god no! I DON'T WANNA DIE!!!
Please explain the difference? Both are believed without evidence.
That's ridiculous.
I mean, obviously it was our parents putting those presents under the Christmas tree, and we'll be doing the same thing for our own children (unless you're not into that sort of thing..). Its not even remotely close to being a comparison. You're trying to compare naivety to something that isn't as such. No one has the slightest clue as to what happens when we die.
He could still exist. Fine, how about fairies then? Unicorns? You'd wouldn't tell a grown man to grow up if he believed in them?
Again, you can't even compare. We know we're going to die at some point. What happens after that, we have no idea. To refute the idea of an afterlife is just illogical. We're not contriving the situation that we're facing (in terms of dying). There is obviously going to be a direct outcome of some kind.
Oh, you absolutely can compare. There being an afterlife is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Just like there being unicorns, fairies, a God etc are unfalsifiable hypothesis'. There is no evidence/reason to believe in an afterlife, the reason people do is they're scared of dieing and/or want to see their dead loved ones again. However there is plenty of evidence of there being no afterlife. One can't be 100 percent sure, but you can't be sure unicorns don't exist either. Yet you'd be pretty silly to believe it.
You're over-complicating the argument, and you kind of completely ignored the actual points I made. You brought up some interesting topics of conversation... but lets try and pull this debate back on course.
Again, we know that we're going to die at some point. What comes after that, indisputably falls into these two categories:
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
One of these two things will happen. That is indisputable. We have no clue which one will, but we're free to speculate/ use our life experiences. You can't tell someone to grow up for believing in a totally valid possible outcome to a situation that is staring us right in the face.
Following your own logic, I would expect you to also refute the idea that there is nothing after we die. I would expect you to tell people who believe in nothing after death to "grow up". Of course that would just be ridiculous though. Again, only following the logic that you're presenting here..
You seem to think those two chances have an equal possibility. If there is no evidence for something, it is most logical to conclude it doesn't exist. There is a big difference between something (an afterlife) and nothing (no afterlife). My comparison to the belief in unicorns is completely relevant. Just how we don't know what happens after death, we don't know if unicorns exist.
Things that exist have this habit of, you know, having evidence for their existence. If something has no evidence, there is no sound reason to believe it, only that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
You clearly don't follow my logic very well if you think the idea of nothing after death is as equally ridiculous as an afterlife. My logic is: if there is no evidence to support it, it is irrational to believe. There is no evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife, therefore it is most logical to conclude at this time that there is none. That might change in the future, who knows. Maybe evidence for an afterlife will be found in the future, but for now where there is none, it is silly to believe there is an afterlife.
There is no body of evidence supporting either outcome, so we can't argue over the probability of either outcome. It's totally impossible. Ultimately, this is irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if they have an "equal" possibility as long as they have a reasonable possibility. Instead of debating about which is more likely, lets look at them individually, and apply reason (look at the example in my previous post..). Based on what we know about this subject, it is impossible to argue for one outcome being reasonable while arguing that the other is unreasonable (remember, we're talking about these things in principle, not anything detailed/specific). There is no way for us to do this. There is zero evidence to support either claim. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that one outcome is more reasonable than the other. It is illogical to see one outcome as reasonable while seeing the other as unreasonable. It makes no sense based upon the knowledge that we have.
That isn't logical in the least. You can speculate that it does not exist, but you can not reasonably conclude that it does not exist while having no evidence or logical rationale to support such a claim. Of course you can have your own doubts and assumptions, but don't try bringing those to the table in an effort to try and shoot down an opposing argument.
It really wasn't relevant at all to the logical process we were looking at. You're totally going off on a tangent. You're ignoring my points. Could you please address the reasoning I gave you instead of going off on this other argument? As much as I would like to debate about your unicorn example, it completely removes us from the reasonable argument I gave you in regards to simply looking at the legitimacy behind believing in either outcome following death. I'll copy and paste it, so you can have another look:
"Again, we know that we're going to die at some point. What comes after that, indisputably falls into these two categories:
A: Nothing happens after death.
B: There is an afterlife of some sort after death.
One of these two things will happen. That is indisputable. We have no clue which one will, but we're free to speculate/ use our life experiences. You can't tell someone to grow up for believing in a totally valid possible outcome to a situation that is staring us right in the face."
Could you please address this thought process? I understand where you're trying to go with the whole "unicorn example", but it isn't very relevant to simply looking at the rationality of this process.
This goes back to the example that I gave you above. We know there are two possible outcomes following death. However, we have no evidence supporting either outcome. There is no evidence to support the total death of our consciousness after death, and there is no evidence to support that our consciousness lives on after death. Yet one of these outcomes exists, and the other does not (if we really want to make this complicated we could argue that both could in fact exist.. but for the sake of this debate lets not go there). We don't know which one is true and which one is false.
Not to split hairs, but I never said either outcome was ridiculous (just don't want words being put in my mouth here..). Anyway, following your logic, there is no way you can argue for the other side of the spectrum. As I have said multiple times in this post, there is no evidence supporting the total death of the human consciousness after dying. There is no evidence to support your point of view, and there is no evidence to support my own view. What we need to look at is whether or not each individual outcome is reasonable. For reasons explained above, either outcome is a reasonable possibility based on what knowledge we have. It is reasonable to have a personal belief for either outcome.. though it is not reasonable to shove this belief down someone else's throat.
As I have already said, these "principles" you are talking about are totally separate from the issue we were originally discussing. You understand that we were originally talking about the legitimacy behind believing in an afterlife, correct? You can't just go off on some rant about religion brainwashing people and then choose to ignore all the points being made against you. Your "principles" against religious organizations does nothing to disprove the other argument. It does nothing to touch on the subject of there being logic behind believing in an after life or not believing in an afterlife.
I mean, are you really saying you brought the topic up just for the sake of bringing it up? You weren't trying to add any sort of legitimacy to your stance on the actual topic at hand? I think that it's pretty apparent that you were doing so, which is why I am still here taking you up on your points. If you don't want to have a debate about it, then I'm not really sure why you're wasting your time.
It honestly feels a little ironic to me that you clearly have no issue being insensitive in regards to calling a group of people immature for the beliefs that they have, and yet here you are backing out of the debate for the sake of it being a touchy subject. Just understand that if you're going to go off and attack a group of people, don't be surprised when someone takes you up on your reasoning.
Facepalms I told you before i don't want to talk with you and your endless prejudices. You can't really judge my views as separate if i meant them in a collective way, It means that you're doing it wrong. I simply posted this comment to express my opinion, Just like everyone else on here. Don't like it? Ignore it. Simple. I'm simply backing out because i don't have time for you or your endless, pointless, "You make no sense" arguments. I thought i made that clear several times BEFORE that argument. Send someone else to argue with me about religion if you wish to continue this. Because you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. And no, YOU were making conversation about the legitimacy of afterlife, I was debating religion in general. This is what separates us, I see the big picture, I sense the opposite view, You don't. Whenever I'm making a point in any of our debates ever since the Snow debates, I judge them as nonsense or off-topic or whatsoever. You wish to have debates like that, Be my guest, Just try to avoid me because i get annoyed quickly.
Maybe because the concept is a complete nonsense? And it's your job to prove me wrong that the concept is serious since I'm judging it? Seriously, If you wish to continue this, Understand my criticism, Address it, And then i will understand. All your arguments are shallow and lack any depth of principles and understanding to the opposite view, You Just like to decorate your comments.
In order for B to be possible, it requires an additional assumption that there exists an immaterial aspect of our being that can persist after death. Since A does not require this additional assumption, Occam's razor would favor A over B.
But could you not argue that option A requires the assumption that there is not an immaterial aspect of our being that can persist after death? I mean, either way, assumptions are being made. That's all we really have. And regardless, even if one option was ruled to be more favorable, that doesn't take away from finding legitimacy in the other option, correct? As in, it wouldn't be proper to label someone as immature or naive for siding with the other option.
Prejudices? You do understand that I'm basically arguing from a spot of neutrality... right? You're the one who came in here and straight up insulted a group of individuals. I've simply been arguing with you over why that was a silly thing to do.
Because judging in the collective way that you're trying to do isn't a very sound thing to do. Pushing the fact that religious organizations brainwash people into believing in an afterlife isn't really a good idea when there are so many good reasons for these people believing in what they do. It doesn't necessarily have to do with them being brainwashed... that's all I have been trying to tell you.
I would have been more than happy to ignore it if not for the insult aimed at people of faith. Your thoughts seemed openly obtuse... and that is something I will generally challenge if I feel like it is something that should be addressed.
"I would have been more than happy to ignore it if not for the insult aimed at people of faith. Your thoughts seemed openly obtuse... and that is something I will generally challenge if I feel like it is something that should be addressed."
I understand what you're talking about. Can we not have circular commentary like this?
But what was your purpose? Clearly it was to debunk the legitimacy of an afterlife. Why else would you have said what you said in your original statement? Turning the subject to strictly only looking at the supposed "brainwashing" brought upon society by religious organizations totally ignores all other good reasoning, and it caused you to basically ignore the overall points that I was making in defense of the individuals who believe in the after life for whatever reasoning. Its just silly to throw your hands up and blame "brainwashing" for the reasoning why people believe what they do, as if that was actually a be it be all sort of solution. I simply dislike that sort of reasoning. Its not really necessary, or really an argument of substance.
Oh please..
Well, A doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of there being an immaterial aspect of our being, only that it doesn't persist after death. But for B to be true, there both needs to be an immaterial aspect of our being and it has to persist after death.
Another problem with A is that in order for the immaterial aspect of our being to be "us" in any meaningful sense, it has to carry with it some aspects of our personalities and perhaps memories. But from what we've observed, those things are directly tied to physical structures in our brains. So you have to further explain how is it that this immaterial aspect of our being is able to extract and retain information from the physical aspects of our being. Basically, there's a whole lot more you need to explain for B than for A.
I wouldn't use the labels "immature" or "naive" but I do think that believing in something without justification is irrational. Especially if that belief requires assuming the existence of something that is outside of the bounds of nature.
I'm not gonna read that. Not by a long shot. Decoration, As usual. I have already withdrawed from your shitshows since my last post. Period.
Its honestly fairly inconsequential that option A doesn't necessarily have a set stance on whether we have an immaterial state of being or not. It doesn't really take away from the logic of the situation. That one less assumption doesn't really matter. Neither include anything factual. Both sides of the equation are for all extents and purposes entirely made up of assumption. One is right, one is wrong. We have no possible way to deduce which is which. Seeing that one side of the equation has one less assumption doesn't make that argument correct by any means, and it doesn't even necessarily make it the more prudent one to follow, considering that one less assumption in option A isn't replaced by fact, rather more of an abstention than anything. And I mean... assuming that something is necessarily more correct than something else simply because it involves one less assumption while being backed up by zero facts itself, is honestly a little fallacious. On the other hand, If you're in fact not saying that, then you shouldn't have an issue with someone personally believing in option B, right?
It depends on what we're specifically talking about in regards to an afterlife. I haven't really specified any particular form of an afterlife. You could theoretically have an afterlife where none of the above is present. Regardless, I'm not sure how fair it is to compare the general idea of not having an afterlife to a less generalized/ more specific idea regarding the afterlife. Its not really an equal/fair comparison at that point. The more specific you make one side of the argument (while leaving the other one in the complete general sense), the more assumptions you're going to encounter. Obviously its hard to really go beyond the general idea that we have in option A, but that's besides the point. We're looking more at a technicality rather than an issue of proper logic here.
Maybe I'm taking this statement too literally, but there is absolutely a level justification for siding with option B.
I can respect that thought process.. as long as it isn't used to as reasoning to defeat the opposing idea
I don't blame you. I only wish that more people around here would admit when they are plainly in the wrong. You're too worked up about defending yourself to be able to admit that. Oh well. That's human nature I suppose.
See ya.
You keep trying to make me lose my temper to say the exact same argument of "Prejudices" over and over again. Oh yes, I'm the one who doesn't like to admit they're wrong. Makes perfect sense. At least I have done before plenty of times, While you're the one who has never really admitted being wrong before. You just keep repeating whatever you say in your decorated comments. Seriously though, This conversation is over. Don't even try to bring any type of conversation up because as i said, I get annoyed quickly.
It absolutely does matter. Assuming that there's an immaterial essence tied to every human being that persists after their death is a pretty major leap of faith. An option that doesn't have to take that leap of faith is a lot more grounded than one that does. If I told you that there was a car in my driveway, you wouldn't have to make any additional assumptions about the world in order to believe me and so you could reasonably do so. But if I told you that there were an invisible car parked in my driveway, you'd have to assume that there exists an invisible material that a car could be made out of. This additional assumption makes believing my words unreasonable.
I don't quite understand the concept of an afterlife where nothing specific to the consciousness is retained. Doesn't the whole concept of an afterlife require that the entity exists in some form after death? If what exists after an entity dies doesn't carry with it any aspect of that entity, how can it be said that what exists afterwards is in fact that entity?
All we're dealing with is assumption. I could argue that option "A" is taking a leap of faith in stating that there is not an immaterial state of being. I know you would turn around and say that it isn't necessarily stating that at all, but if the argument was in fact all for the possibility of an existing immaterial state of being, why on earth would it be arguing against the possibility of an immaterial state of being after a material death in the first place? Where is the logic in that? Should we add more assumptions to this argument in order to explain how an immaterial state of being can not possibly survive a material death? If so, that adds advantage to option "B".
Honestly though, using Occam's Razor here is a little pointless, considering both arguments are solely grounded in assumption anyway. Considering this, Its difficult to actually argue for one option to be reasonable and the other unreasonable. Like I said above, its not like option "A" has any sort of factual base to lean on.
And even if we want to act like Occam's Razor does in fact add more legitimacy to option "A", that doesn't make option "B" incorrect. It doesn't make it unreasonable to be a believer of option "B", especially when personal life experiences are factored into that personal decision making.
"Both sides of the equation are for all extents and purposes entirely made up of assumption. One is right, one is wrong. We have no possible way to deduce which is which. Seeing that one side of the equation has one less assumption doesn't make that argument more correct by any means, and it doesn't even necessarily make it the more prudent one to follow, considering that one less assumption in option "A" isn't replaced by fact, rather more of an abstention than anything. And I mean... assuming that something is necessarily more correct than something else simply because it involves one less assumption while being backed up by zero facts itself, is honestly a little fallacious."
The whole point of Occam's Razor is to gravitate towards the simplest answer, and to stray away from assumption. When both arguments are completely grounded in assumption, this becomes a baseless process in terms of actually using it to tell someone their beliefs are unreasonable. The simplest answer is not always the correct one, or the most prudent one to follow. Especially when there is no body of knowledge to base it on. A simple explanation isn't necessarily more likely to be correct (strictly talking about probability here) in comparison to a slightly less simple explanation. That's an abstract idea that doesn't hold true for every given case. It doesn't actually tell us for sure what is more probable (again, this is especially true considering we have no actual body of knowledge to look at).
I understand what you're trying to say here, but this example doesn't really coincide with what we were talking about. We know cars exist, we know driveways exist, we know cars can be parked in driveways. These are facts. There is nothing factual about option "A", nor option "B". Both options are completely grounded in assumption.
Reincarnation is one. Anyway, us arguing over the properties of an immaterial state of being is really a pointless thing to do considering neither of us has a clue.