Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this case, yes. Not Proof, but Evidence. And I find it quite compelling.
If there's nobody there but you, it's proof that you're alone. There will never be enough proof for people who demand that we prove evolution works, of course.
Pretty much any and all evidence of the afterlife points to that.
Errrrrr what evidence? You have never once presented any of an after life. Anywhere. Ever. What are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Read anything written by someone not by a fundamentalist, and especially something by Deepak Chopra. He neatly lays out as a doctor and someone who grew up under Christian and Hindu teachings why there definitely is an afterlife
Adumbrate his arguments and evidence for this for me then because I am not aware from his writings, or his talks on you tube, of him establishing any such thing as remotely credible....... let alone "definite" as you pretend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by readytofly
It seems like the majority of world religions believe that for a lot of humans suffering awaits them after their death in their afterlife. Is it possible there is truth behind this belief?
I do not see how given there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that even suggests there is ANY kind of after life, let alone a specific one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by readytofly
Where would people get this notion from the beginning? These beliefs developed out of thin air?
Oh I would say it was through a slow memetic evolution. It probably had many prongs to it but I would say five main ones are
1) When they invented a wonderful after life of bliss too many people rushed to get there (suicide or wanton reckless stupidity) so they had to invent a hell scenario for people to go to to counter balance it
2) It allows for the threats and manipulation through fear of others to help sell your religion to them and
3) when militant homophobe and convicted criminal Dinesh DSouza asked Christopher Hitchens "If creating a heaven is wishful thinking in your view, then why invent a hell, which is clearly not wishful thinking?" Hitchens merely answered "Simple, hell is for OTHER people to go to".
4) It allows for insidious but subtle incitements to hatred of non-believers or false believers. Rather than have to tell your followers outright "Hate or kill the other" you now can use hell to instill in the minds of your followers the idea that the non-believer or false believer is a threat to the eternal well being of you or your loved ones. So you can instill hatreds and even violence without being openly seen to do so. Very handy psychological manipulation that.
5) We are a species of extremes and we like everything to have extreme opposites. We can not know the meaning of darkness without first knowing light. We require reference points in our mind and often those references have to be opposites or ends on a continuum. So the moment we as a species invented a heaven concept..... a hell concept could not be far behind.
Why would anyone worship a god that promises eternal torment if they don't worship Him?
Because they actually believe that if they don't worship him, he can and will eternally torment them. Or in the alternative, they deploy muddled thinking along the lines of Pascal's Wager, figuring that they will "hedge their bets" just in case, not realizing that there is no way to hedge one's bets with an omniscient being, and also that they might be completely misinformed about the nature and claims of such a being anyway (what if it's Vishnu rather than Jehovah?).
Also, as Nozz points out, if you subscribe to that nonsense then you can always claim to be destined for the opposite of hell, and to smugly compartmentalize hell as being for "other people" who are so foolish as to "reject" the "forgiveness" of god. That is certainly what I did, back in the day. Hell was a self-inflicted problem for Other People who inexplicably want to go there over something as trivial as refusing to take the correct side in the matter.
Because they actually believe that if they don't worship him, he can and will eternally torment them. Or in the alternative, they deploy muddled thinking along the lines of Pascal's Wager, figuring that they will "hedge their bets" just in case, not realizing that there is no way to hedge one's bets with an omniscient being, and also that they might be completely misinformed about the nature and claims of such a being anyway (what if it's Vishnu rather than Jehovah?).
Also, as Nozz points out, if you subscribe to that nonsense then you can always claim to be destined for the opposite of hell, and to smugly compartmentalize hell as being for "other people" who are so foolish as to "reject" the "forgiveness" of god. That is certainly what I did, back in the day. Hell was a self-inflicted problem for Other People who inexplicably want to go there over something as trivial as refusing to take the correct side in the matter.
When faced with Pascal's Wager I just cite Cthulhu's Corollary: What if you're wrong?
I've seen the number of named gods to be about 330,000,000 or so. Out of that list we have to pick one that is the True God.
When faced with Pascal's Wager I just cite Cthulhu's Corollary: What if you're wrong?
I've seen the number of named gods to be about 330,000,000 or so. Out of that list we have to pick one that is the True God.
Indeed and if one looks at a religion like Christianity..... belief in the WRONG god appears to be more dangerous than believing in NO god. After all false belief, and not non-belief, shows up in their big "10 commandments". Non belief MAY be bad.... but belief in the wrong god is one of the big no no's there.
So if one is going to do belief based on WAGERS then in the lights of some religions NON belief is a better and safer wager than NO belief.
Indeed and if one looks at a religion like Christianity..... belief in the WRONG god appears to be more dangerous than believing in NO god. After all false belief, and not non-belief, shows up in their big "10 commandments". Non belief MAY be bad.... but belief in the wrong god is one of the big no no's there.
So if one is going to do belief based on WAGERS then in the lights of some religions NON belief is a better and safer wager than NO belief.
Plus: Pascal is saying "I don't have to be sincere about my belief, God won't know the difference." Seriously, if belief is based on one single thing, the desire to go to Heaven, then why not "believe" in ALL THE GODS?
When faced with Pascal's Wager I just cite Cthulhu's Corollary: What if you're wrong?
I've seen the number of named gods to be about 330,000,000 or so. Out of that list we have to pick one that is the True God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer
Plus: Pascal is saying "I don't have to be sincere about my belief, God won't know the difference." Seriously, if belief is based on one single thing, the desire to go to Heaven, then why not "believe" in ALL THE GODS?
In Fundamentslist Christianity, it's drilled into your head that there is only One True God(tm), which is obviously the Christian God. So that's why Pascal's wager "works" in the minds of fundamentalist believers. Any other potential gods are already out of the picture from the start. "You shall have no other gods before me*" and all that.
I didn't start to question Pascal's wager until I learned about Islam in college. Islam has a similar "hell for non-belief" concept, and sees the Christian God as a false god. I realized that if Allah was the "true god" and my god was a false god, I could potentially go to the Muslim version of hell. In other words, I could be a Good Christian(tm) and go to hell anyway.
*an odd commandment for a monotheistic universe where no other gods exist, but that's a whole different topic
In Fundamentslist Christianity, it's drilled into your head that there is only One True God(tm), which is obviously the Christian God. So that's why Pascal's wager "works" in the minds of fundamentalist believers. Any other potential gods are already out of the picture from the start. "You shall have no other gods before me" and all that.
Which is cheating in my book.
Quote:
I didn't start to question Pascal's wager until I learned about Islam in college. Islam has a similar "hell for non-belief" concept, and sees the Christian God as a false god. I realized that if Allah was the "true god" and my god was a false god, I could potentially go to the Muslim version of hell. In other words, I could be a Good Christian(tm) and go to hell anyway.
I love the idea that both religions consign people to Hell for not believing in their version of god, EVEN IF THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT GOD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So that's why Pascal's wager "works" in the minds of fundamentalist believers. Any other potential gods are already out of the picture from the start. "You shall have no other gods before me*" and all that.
