| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Klawrence
Status: Offline
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 851
$poons: 86.40
Location: Melbourne
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
Bar despising every religion almost equally, what really pisses me of, as an agnostic, is people who say they are an atheist because they believe in science (i was once one of these). These people are just as ignorant as religious people defending their religion using 'religious evidence'.
What I mean is, If you ask a person the question: do believe a higher power exists who has at some point in time influenced life?
If they say yes, they are religious, and have no scientific evidence.
If they say no, they are atheist, and also have no scientific evidence.
If they say, there is a unit of probability however discrete that such a power could exist - however, many aspects of fundamental belief in modern and past religion is scientifically flawed by evidence (creationism for example), then they are agnostic.
Strong agnostics like myself argue that based on scientific evidence available at the moment, its impossible to rule out the possibility of a higher power influencing life however improbable such an idea exists.
And to demonstrate how improbable I believe such a higher power to exist I will correlate this probability with the probability that a person can run through a wall (as Richard Dawkins has done in the past).
What he and I mean by that is, your body is made of atoms, the wall is made of atoms, the majority of atoms are free space, there is a unit of probability that is not = 0 that you can navigate your atoms protons, neutrons and electrons through the free space in the atoms in the wall. Its simple quantum mechanics, and as crazy as that sounds one physicists actually tried it. haha ouch!
so summing up, there is no more scientific evidence for a belief that a higher power exists who has at some point in time influenced life, than there is for a belief that such a power does not exists. Scientifically at this point in time, atheism is no more supported than religion.
/end rant.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
^ So you're saying that in order for an atheist to be justified in their position they have to have scientific proof that the other side is wrong? I'm sorry but add that to the list of things that tick me off. I have not seen any evidence of a higher power, therefore I do not believe in such a thing, end of story for my beliefs. I'm not going to go and search for evidence to satisfy a bunch of people who also have no evidence.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James
EveryonePlays - Fix R18+ Ratings
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Mar 2002
Posts: 4428
$poons: 0.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Klawrence wrote: | | so summing up, there is no more scientific evidence for a belief that a higher power exists who has at some point in time influenced life, than there is for a belief that such a power does not exists. Scientifically at this point in time, atheism is no more supported than religion. |
Technically, that's not strictly true. Using the scientific method one can say, if a religion is a theory, then lets make predictions based on that theory and try to prove them true. So for example if we theorise that there is a God who listened to and acted on prayers, then people who prayed would be in some way better off, than those who don't. Since scientific studies don't support this, it pushes the scientific evidence hugely towards the side of atheism.
Additionally you can look at the scientific theories of memetics that pretty much explain how and why people would believe in a religion regardless of its basis in truth.
You should probably read more of Richard Dawkins work who covers all of this and is certainly atheist, not agnostic.
::EDIT:: I should probably say though, I'm not personally such a huge fan of Dawkins any more. I think his hard-lined militant atheist approach is too extreme. Despite their flaws, I think there are many reasons why religions are good for people to believe in.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crestfallen
Status: Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 3428
$poons: 228.80
Location: frayed ends of sanity
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I think he means that being 'atheist' is just another form of religion....whose religious views is that there is no higher power to devote a religion to. If that makes sense.
Athesits, just like all other religions, are based off BELIEFS, not scientific evidence as such, making them religions in themselves.
| Spancs wrote: | | I have not seen any evidence of a higher power, therefore I do not believe in such a thing, end of story for my beliefs. |
Well you're the law-talking guy while me and Klaw are the scientific dudes. (unless Klaw dropped out of uni by now).
For a scientific theory to be valid you must fail to find evidence that your theory is incorrect, NOT to find evidence which makes your theory correct, and NOT fail to find evidence of another theory. There is a subtle difference between those circumstances.
So when you explore all the universe's possibilties then you can come back and say there is no higher power and now you're in scientific/agnostic, and not religious, terms baby.
Its all formalities though..and that's my take on them anyway. Buddhism is the best for this planet.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klawrence
Status: Offline
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 851
$poons: 86.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | ^ So you're saying that in order for an atheist to be justified in their position they have to have scientific proof that the other side is wrong? |
Yes exactly, If your a self confessed atheist you believe that there is no chance in hell (pun intended) that a god or higher power exists, if you believe this because of scientific evidence then you are ignorant, because there is no scientific evidence that completely out rules the possibility of a 'god'. hence people who use scientific evidence as reason for being atheist are wrong and piss me off.
essentially, when you say your atheist you refuse the possibility of the existence of a 'god'.
when you say your an agnostic, depending on your level of agnosticism, you are essentially saying there is a chance however significant or insignificant that a 'god' may exist. Its a more open minded approach
| Spanca wrote: | | sorry but add that to the list of things that tick me off. I have not seen any evidence of a higher power, therefore I do not believe in such a thing, end of story for my beliefs. |
In order for you to 'believe' that no god exists based on evidence two thing must be true;
1. as you stated "I have not seen any evidence of a higher power" - there must not be any evidence for such a power.
2. there must be absolute evidence such a power could not exist.
So, You've seen no evidence for the existence of a higher power, and this is the cause of your belief, but have you seen any evidence that a higher power could never exist?
The answer is no, no evidence exists that refutes the possibility of a 'god', so why don't you believe that a god could exist? - evidence also suggests this is a possibility.
For example a hypothetical sort of thing; When i think about it, life is the interaction of matter, specifically atoms, and more importantly electrons. Essentially all matter on earth is a derivative of hydrogen where all elements naturally occurring are created by our sun, we know this there is scientific evidence for such a thing. What cant be explained is why the interaction between hydrogens proton and its electron is of a force of a magnitude of what it is. It is possible, perhaps not probable, that a higher power specified this force and being really smart envisioned that these physical and chemical interactions would one day create the earth and life as we know it.
If you can prove with scientific evidence that the 'higher power' does not exist then by all means I will be an atheist and you have the right, by your 'evidence' definition to be one too, but the fact is this cant be done at the moment, so i will call myself agnostic and you should too as you cant refuse the possibility, based on evidence (the medium you use to justify your current belief), that a higher power can exist.
EDIT: Yep still in science, well biotechnology now crest, hows your degree going btw.
EDIT @ James: Admittedly I haven't read much of Dawkins work, however i find he attacks aspects of 'fundamental' religion that scientific evidence is defiantly disproves. i.e creationism vs. speciation by the mechanism of natural selection. And really fights these fundamental views (readings of texts as literal truths) due to the harm they inflict on the development of science. However, I dont agree with many of the things he says for example this section of a review on his book 'The god delusion' pretty clearly states what I mean.
| review wrote: | The Poverty of Agnosticism
Dawkins now attacks agnostics. Thomas Huxley, the originator of the word ‘agnosticism’ said that when it comes to issues that are still open to debate, refusing to commit to a particular belief is the smartest position to take.
Dawkins says that there is nothing wrong with being agnostic in cases where we lack enough evidence one way or the other. Without any evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to not take a position. Unless, according to Dawkins, you are talking about God.
He then splits agnostics into two groups, those who won't commit yet for lack of evidence, and those who believe it is impossible to know. The difference between the two is whether the question of God's existence can ever be answered using science. Dawkins claims that it can be.
According to Dawkins, agnosticism is flawed because it assumes that the probability that God exists is equal to the probability that God does not exist. This is an important claim, because it is his only solid argument against agnosticism, and he promises that he will prove that the probabilities are unequal later in the book.
He admits that for many agnostics, claims about probability are meaningless. If there are no measurable quantities from which the probability can be calculated then it is only a matter of possibilities, not probabilities. But he then dismisses this argument using a quote from the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, who said that the responsibility is on believers to prove God's existence rather than on atheists to disprove it. No rational person believes in tooth fairies or flying spaghetti monsters and yet they are also impossible to disprove.
It is here that Dawkins makes his first serious conceptual error by saying that an object like a flying teapot that affects the physical universe is impossible to disprove, rather than saying that within the limits of our technology it is impractical to disprove.
He also fails to properly differentiate between an interventionist and non-interventionist God. With a non-interventionist God, there would be absolutely no observable difference in the physical universe and therefore no way to either prove or disprove God's existence. |
longest post in the history of posts by me.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ObsoletE
Status: Offline
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 20357
$poons: 34.20
Location: Perth, WA :: Jubei'Thos
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
^ the problem with your argument comes about in your definition of scientific evidence.
like Crestfallen said: Laws of science are law, until a better one comes along, such is our lack of true understanding of the nature of things, and why we strive for a Theory of Everything.
the concept is given an informal name of "Lies to Children".
the best way to explain the concept is through looking at your evolving understanding of matter.
1) we start out thinking that things are things, and that's it.
2) then we're told that things are actually made of tiny things called atoms, and these are the smallest things there are.
3) then we learn that atoms are made of 3 particles, and these are the smallest things there are. (and typically we learn that these are present in the so-called "plum pudding" model.)
4) then we'll learn the nucleus/orbital electron model.
5) then we learn that electrons exist in probability "clouds" - rather than as discrete particles.
6) then we'll learn that protons and neutrons are also made up of smaller particles - Quarks, Gluons, Neutrinos, Photons and so on (the so-called Fermions and Bosons)
and i'm sure there are probably other "layers" of knowledge beyond this that i simply haven't learnt.
the point is, that each of these are correct for any given stage of a persons development. there are simply different levels of correctness, and knowledge is dependent on the beholder.
and, imo, the same is true of proof of god's existence, or non-existence.
personally, i don't care.
i'm of the belief that god is neither proveable, nor disproveable, and so until he makes him or herself known absolutely, then why should i care?
there is a specific name for this branch of agnosticism, but i can't remember it at the minute.
_________________
My Play-Asia Affiliate Link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James
EveryonePlays - Fix R18+ Ratings
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Mar 2002
Posts: 4428
$poons: 0.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
That's definitely true Klawrence. There's certainly a limit to the disproof.
That last 1% i.e. the non-interventionist God, is something you can only really examine with memetics. Given that there are an unlimited number of things you can never prove or disprove, why would people choose to believe in one unprovable idea and not others. What is it that makes you want to believe? Memetics gives some pretty nice explanations. Although a little dated, Daniel Dennet's Consciousness Explained along with Richard Dawkins' Viruses of the Mind are a good read if you're interested.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klawrence
Status: Offline
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 851
$poons: 86.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| ObsoletE wrote: |
personally, i don't care.
i'm of the belief that god is neither proveable, nor disproveable, and so until he makes him or herself known absolutely, then why should i care?
there is a specific name for this branch of agnosticism, but i can't remember it at the minute. |
I agree with you Obs. I think that at the moment, science driven by humans, due to our own limitations, can neither prove or disprove the existence of a 'god'. That's not to say that it cant be done in the future.
I mean if by some way we as society figure a way to treat each other 'humanly' and introduce some form of selection pressure, genetically we may alter our brain so that this and quantum mechanics actually make some sense haha.
What ever that branch of agnosticism is, I think I belong to it also. However, i do encourage the idea of atheism as it moves to oppose modern day religion, something I believe and cannot prove to be incorrect. So i cant really tell what i believe, maybe ill call myself agnostic weighted towards atheism due to 'evedence' problems with fundamental religion.
@James
Sounds really interesting i think im experiencing abit of these memetics myself... lol, I'll definitely keep an eye out for those books.
EDIT:
It appears that Dawkin proclaims himself to be agnostic, at the level where he correlates the probability of the existence of god with that of the existence of a "fairy or a unicorn".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md2QmME7s_g
I think I'm of a similar belief of god as he is. I knew he had to have a level of agnosticism in him, he doesn't make sense otherwise.
_________________
Last edited by Klawrence on Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Why does a lack of belief need to be characterised as a structured belief system itself? It isn't.
Coming from a legal and humanities background, I feel that something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Non-existent until proven existent, just as the accused cannot be believed to have
committed an offence until it is proven otherwise.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Puddingfork
Status: Offline
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 2708
$poons: 209.15
Location: Brisbane, QLD
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | Why does a lack of belief need to be characterised as a structured belief system itself? It isn't.
Coming from a legal and humanities background, I feel that something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Non-existent until proven existent, just as the accused cannot be believed to have
committed an offence until it is proven otherwise. |
_________________
Unofficial PALGN Ventrilo Server 203.14.173.58:5704
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
And I disagree with him that you need evidence to refute the belief of something. It is precisely the lack of evidence that discredits my belief in religion. You start with nothing and add to that what you can prove. You don't just assume everything until it's disproved.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unlachs
Status: Offline
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 881
$poons: 138.10
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Klawrence wrote: |
EDIT:
It appears that Dawkin proclaims himself to be agnostic, at the level where he correlates the probability of the existence of god with that of the existence of a "fairy or a unicorn".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md2QmME7s_g
|
i agree with dawkin's basic stance on religion/science and faith/reason, and he's got some good points to make, but does he really need to be so arrogant about it? 
i'm writing an essay on whether or not the big bang theory provides support for theistic creation for one of my philosophy subjects atm, and the basic answer is that neither science nor religion has anything worthwhile to say on the matter at this point in time
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jellyfish
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 5186
$poons: 22.60
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Terry Pratchett wrote: | | People need to believe in small things there is no evidence for, such as Hogfathers and Tooth Fairies, in order to believe in larger things, such as Justice and Hope. |
The End. Please.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klawrence
Status: Offline
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 851
$poons: 86.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: | | And I disagree with him that you need evidence to refute the belief of something. |
In your own profession, isnt the role of the lawyer defending the defendant to find evidence that refutes the belief that defendant may be guilty.
if evidence or 'proof' isn't what's needed to change a belief in something, then what is?
| Spanca wrote: | | Coming from a legal and humanities background, I feel that something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Non-existent until proven existent, just as the accused cannot be believed to have committed an offence until it is proven otherwise. |
And from a scientific back ground, such a 'feeling' is wrong, things still exist without proof i.e Speciation by natural selection 'existed' long before it was proven with evidence.
The guilt of an individual 'existed' before it was proven. Fact of the matter, things are believed in before they are proven. The individual may have been believed to be innocent, but evidence shows they weren't. Hence people are believed to be innocent until proven guilty and not proven to be innocent until proven guilty, as this would be contradictory.
you say actively acknowledge that you don't believe in god becasue there is no evidence that god exists.
There is also no evidence that he doesn't exist, so why don't you believe that he does exist?
Is the absence of evidence from one theory more meaningful than the absence of evidence from another theory? Of course not.
Theory - God does exist.
evidence: none
Theory - God doesn't exist.
evidence: none
Inference:
God may/ may not exist.
You're Inference:
God doesn't exist becasue there is no evidence to support his existence.
Flaw:
You don't acknowledge that for god to not exist, there must be no evidence for his existence as well as absolute evidence that he doesn't exist. Since there is no absolute evidence that higher power doesn't exists there is a chance, based on evidence that god may exists.
Do you see the fundamental flaw and difference in inference?
EDIT: And I'm done, i have way too many chemistry problems to worry about with an exam on Monday than worrying about this. Plus we are amazingly off topic... sorry doesn't that just tick you off.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Klawrence wrote: | | In your own profession, isnt the role of the lawyer defending the defendant to find evidence that refutes the belief that defendant may be guilty. |
No that is not correct. A defence lawyer need not find any evidence that disproves guilt, they need only establish doubt about the credibility of the prosecution's case that guilt exists. They win unless guilt is proven to exist.
| Quote: | you say actively acknowledge that you don't believe in god becasue there is no evidence that god exists.
There is also no evidence that he doesn't exist, so why don't you believe that he does exist? |
Because I'm not going to start believing in something so fanciful unless there is evidence of its existence. Until there is such evidence I believe in nothing. You don't need to have proof both ways. It is up to those claiming an omnipotent being to provide some evidence.
| Quote: | You're Inference:
God doesn't exist becasue there is no evidence to support his existence.
Flaw:
You don't acknowledge that for god to not exist, there must be no evidence for his existence as well as absolute evidence that he doesn't exist. Since there is no absolute evidence that higher power doesn't exists there is a chance, based on evidence that god may exists.
Do you see the fundamental flaw and difference in inference? |
Go ahead and use that reasoning to support a belief in tooth fairies, elves, goblins, santa, ghosts, aliens and vampires.
Seeking for proof of nothing is some of the most specious logic I've heard.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klawrence
Status: Offline
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 851
$poons: 86.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
FUCK, WHY DID I CHECK!
| Spanca wrote: |
Because I'm not going to start believing in something so fanciful unless there is evidence of its existence. Until there is such evidence I believe in nothing. You don't need to have proof both ways. It is up to those claiming an omnipotent being to provide some evidence. |
But you don't believe in nothing, you "have not seen any evidence of a higher power, therefore [you] do not believe in such a thing." - you believe god doesn't exist.
And since you refuse to provide evidence for reason of why "an omnipotent being" can with absolute certainty not exist and argue that the inverse of such a task is the responsibility of "those claiming an omnipotent being to provide some evidence", you exert pure arrogance thus demonstrating my very point that an atheistic zealot is no better than a religious one.
| Spanca wrote: | | Quote: | You're Inference:
God doesn't exist becasue there is no evidence to support his existence.
Flaw:
You don't acknowledge that for god to not exist, there must be no evidence for his existence as well as absolute evidence that he doesn't exist. Since there is no absolute evidence that higher power doesn't exists there is a chance, based on evidence that god may exists.
Do you see the fundamental flaw and difference in inference? |
Go ahead and use that reasoning to support a belief in tooth fairies, elves, goblins, santa, ghosts, aliens and vampires. |
You simply don't, or refuse to understand. From this reasoning there is no 'support' of any belief; that is a characteristic of neutral agnosticism - YOU SIT RIGHT ON THE FENCE. views on such things as unicorns, fairies, goblins are simply beliefs and attach no link to evidence. Beliefs are not characterised by evidence, proof is.
I'm an agnostic who believes in atheism but that's its not due to any evidence against an omnipotent being, its purely a choice. 'Believe' what you want Spanca, just don't tell anyone that your belief is justified because of the absence of evidence, because it's not.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James
EveryonePlays - Fix R18+ Ratings
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Mar 2002
Posts: 4428
$poons: 0.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I think you're both arguing from different angles. One can both not believe in something and think its not impossible.
Spanca is saying that lack of evidence means you shouldn't believe.
Klawrence is saying that lack of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
These aren't conflicting ideas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
As an analogy; one might believe that man has landed on the moon, but it's not impossible that it might have been faked.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrAndyPuppy
Status: Offline
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 1257
$poons: 205.00
Location: Sydney, NSW
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm a Christian who firmly believes there IS a god, so you can all go ahead and think I'm crazy... 
_________________
GAMEparents
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B3NBO
Status: Offline
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 2904
$poons: 80.80
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well there has got to be something after death. Surely we dont just die and never see the world again. i reckon theres a strong chance of reincarnation. how can something so meaningless such as an ant be born and die within a day or two, and thats the end of its life.
i reckon theres a high chance of a higher spirit after reading a bit about religion. but i do believe that the judgement day and rubbish like that is total BS.
but yeah whenever i think about death im close to throwing up and if there really is a hell i dont want to be there..
surely better to play it safe and just be open to the fact there may be a higher being among us.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeoSanity
Status: Offline
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2988
$poons: 17.20
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
For me religion explains the why, as science and history explains the how. Now for me believing in inherit nihilism (Born without meaning) and eventual existentialism (Retrospective meaning by the affect you have on others), from that perspective I'm an atheist.
If action occurs in this world that affects nothing, why would it occur? It'd imply that any higher being creates action without meaning. Thus there is a flaw in any sort of higher being, thus the fundamental reason for believing in a perfect higher power is flawed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Taco
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 6591
$poons: 301.80
Location: WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| B3NBO wrote: | Well there has got to be something after death. Surely we dont just die and never see the world again. i reckon theres a strong chance of reincarnation. how can something so meaningless such as an ant be born and die within a day or two, and thats the end of its life.
i reckon theres a high chance of a higher spirit after reading a bit about religion. but i do believe that the judgement day and rubbish like that is total BS.
but yeah whenever i think about death im close to throwing up and if there really is a hell i dont want to be there..
surely better to play it safe and just be open to the fact there may be a higher being among us. |
There has to be. You can't live for no reason.
Something that suggests this is people who die during surgery then live again, and tell people they saw dead relatives welcoming them, and things like sightings of ghosts.
_________________
 R.I.P Tanya
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vae
Status: Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 236
$poons: 144.20
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I think this whole Agnostic/Athiest argument is going round in circles. James has conveniently summed it up for us, and I don't think any further argument is going to get us anywhere. So I'm going to hold myself back and not argue with anyone, despite however much I want to and get back on topic.
And MrAndyPuppy, I'm all for you. No tearing to shreds from this angle.
What ticks me off is getting a cold, having it go away, but being stuck with a cough a full week after your colds gone, and having no sign of it going away. Gah. I hate this part of Winter. Still, I guess its better than Hay fever.
Oh, and also, having your soap smell horrible. Thats just... ugh.
_________________
Truly awesome Ads.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeoSanity
Status: Offline
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2988
$poons: 17.20
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| El Taco wrote: | | B3NBO wrote: | Well there has got to be something after death. Surely we dont just die and never see the world again. i reckon theres a strong chance of reincarnation. how can something so meaningless such as an ant be born and die within a day or two, and thats the end of its life.
i reckon theres a high chance of a higher spirit after reading a bit about religion. but i do believe that the judgement day and rubbish like that is total BS.
but yeah whenever i think about death im close to throwing up and if there really is a hell i dont want to be there..
surely better to play it safe and just be open to the fact there may be a higher being among us. |
There has to be. You can't live for no reason.
Something that suggests this is people who die during surgery then live again, and tell people they saw dead relatives welcoming them, and things like sightings of ghosts. |
Endorphins in the brain act like a hallucinogenic, your brain pretty much releases all sorted endorphins when you die, so your last memories are in fact nothing more than hallucinations. Coupled with the fact that your mind knows when it's dying it's most likely to relate these hallucinations towards dead realities or anything your mind associates with death.
Want a shock, try to remember your earliest memory, then go back further. Then try to remember before you were born. You can't, there was nothing, and when you die outside that dying hour in your mind there is nothing. Easy for me to accept.
Come on life is what we make of it. Yes it's probably hard to accept that we are beings of no reason but we make reason for ourselves. In how we are remembered and our legacy on this world. Even the mass of your body leaves it's mark on this world.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3mt
Status: Offline
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 1578
$poons: 327.90
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
although i personally believe that there is evidence for God to exist (such as supernatural encounters which some of my family members have encountered), i dont think we should pursue this matter any further in this thread and stay on topic. If you want to continue the argument, i'd recommend you start a new thread.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frozencry
Status: Offline
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 9277
$poons: 1628.10
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| MrAndyPuppy wrote: | | Well, I'm a Christian who firmly believes there IS a god, so you can all go ahead and think I'm crazy... |
La Li Lu Le Lo?
I'm sorry..I'll leave now.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
