[Closed] God and the Afterlife......?

9 pages!!!

This tread is closed now.

The religion threads general get more interesting and less argumentative after about 9 pages, because there're generally only a handful of people contributing at that point, who are all genuinely interested in the discussion.

As a matter of fact, I find the recent threads about religion far, far less hostile and nasty than they were a few years back.

I'd agree. Certainly less hostile and argumentative than really controversial issues like how much molgrips spends o his lunch 🙂

@ Iam Munro
It is still not as a valid as its not really testable [ and other accounts have some evidence to support them] but yes it may still be correct
as mike notes what made me first doubt my religious indoctrination /education in primary school was that it answered no questions instead of asking what made me i now just ask what made god.

god as a creator is a perfectly valid and reasonable argument. The problem is that it's impossible to derive anything else from that initial assertion and as such isn't a particularly useful starting point. But it's still a perfectly valid starting point.

It is still not as a valid as its not really testable [ and other accounts have some evidence to support them] but yes it may still be correct

There are various possible answers to the question of [url= http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm ]what existed before the big bang?[/url]

The religious would probably start with god as an answer and work forward from there. Science starts with what we know and works backward.

As I said earlier, the answer (if it's ever found) will probably turn out to be "not god".

Yup I absolutely agree Junkyard and Mike, god as an answer serves no useful purpose.

You're also then left with another question: what created god? Or, science discovers the cause of the universe and you're left with no god.

I guess partly the problem with such questions is that we are working on the assumption that the universe as we perceive it actually exists, and isn't just a pretty basic computer simulation running in a universe infinitely more complicated that our senses could perceive. Of course again such conjecture doesn't really get you anywhere useful, but I reckon it's one of the things that's always worth remembering in who created god, or what created the universe arguments.

Junkyard. And possibly others. Let me spell this out really clearly.

The creation story in the bible is clearly and verifiably wrong. We know this. Don't bother asserting it.

However, if it is wrong, that does not mean that God does not exist.

An answer which has not been correct every time so far isn't as valid as any other

The question "did God create the universe?" has never been answered. Lots of other questions have, but like I said not the big one.

As IanMunro said, there is absolutely nothing that can prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why it's called faith. You believe that there is no God (as do I) but it's just a belief. Impossible to prove otherwise, which is where we leave science behind and enter philosophy. It's not even a scientific debate.

molgrips - Member

Junkyard. And possibly others. Let me spell this out really clearly.

The creation story in the bible is clearly and verifiably wrong. We know this. Don't bother asserting it.

Actually, it's no more 'wrong' than poetry is 'wrong'. It recounts something in the language of antiquity to explain what appeared to be a reality.

Is The Odyssey wrong? Perhaps if people used it to describe exactly what happened at a certain point in time to a certain man. But that is NOT why any sane person would read the Odyssey.

You are quite right of course SaxonRider. I am of the opinion that people write creation stories as an art form rather than a supposed factual account. For a start, how would anyone know what God did? Man didn't even exist then.

I was pointing out that just because we can prove that the world was not created according to Genesis does not mean God does not exist.

It's not even a scientific debate

*ignoring for the moment that obfuscating **** Pascal
**cheers Mike I shall be using that next time I discuss religion with my sister 😀

With respect to Genesis, I am sure SaxonRider chose the word poetry for a reason!?!

The religious would probably start with god as an answer and work forward from there. Science starts with what we know and works backward.

For the record, the religious don't actually think about it much. The religio-philosophical tradition and questions regarding origins tend to be limited to philosophers of religion. Professional theologians take existence for granted (or just assume that questions about existence can not be proved), and spend their time thinking about hermeneutics, exegesis, history, ethics, systematics, etc.

What we tend to discuss on these threads is not so much religion [i]per se[/i], as philosophy of religion - and that on the most cursory of bases (due principally to the limitations inherent to an online forum).

Professional theologians take existence for granted (or just assume that questions about existence can not be proved), and spend their time thinking about hermeneutics, exegesis, history, ethics, systematics, etc.

*substitute religious text of your choice for "the Bible" (above) before somebody goes off on one.

well you can weigh up the evidence,look at the probabilities and take a gamble

No, you can't.

Of course you are right that theologians start from a divine text. They just don't read it the way it is being caricatured on here.

I can't remember the thread, but I remember explaining on here somewhere that a theologian approaches texts like art or poetry. In reading them, s/he seeks to peel back the layers to understand what is being said, what questions are being addressed. S/he does NOT take them literally any more than - as I say - the Odyssey might be taken literally. I mean, some archaeology has been done to reveal that certain locations mentioned by Homer existed, and that there was an historical basis for talking about creatures like the minotaur (eg. a human sacrifice cult on Crete).

So being religious is like being a Nazi?

Not at all. The Nazis were not the only people completing atrocious acts. Japanese, Soviets, and Allies - all to differing extents and amounts.

well you can weigh up the evidence,look at the probabilities and take a gamble
No, you can't.

We all know you cannot prove a negative [ or we would have no need for this debate] but what you keep ignoring is that this fact does not automatically make the argument put forward credible or equally valid to the alternatives.

Your view would be me saying the invisible honey monster kick started the universe with fart when he was bored is as valid as the scientific account - again you cannot prove this is false so you will respect it and call it equally valid then.
Only a fool *would agree they are "equally valid or plausible"

In reading them, s/he seeks to peel back the layers to understand what is being said,

* I mean no offence but really it is a daft position to claim these accounts are all equally valid

Read about Milgram's experiment on conformity for interesting schizzle about how scarily sheeplike we all are.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ]Linky[/url]

yes they are the keepers of the true knowledge as god is really crap at passing on the message.
FWIW i agree much of the book is vague/open to interpretation but comparing it to a work of fiction is probably not the best defence you can mount IMHO

I am not really comparing the Bible to a 'work of fiction'. I am saying that the Homeric texts (The Iliad and the Odyssey) were written down to serve an almost identical purpose as the Biblical texts.

And yes, if you - or anyone - thinks that if God existed he should have just made it known in no uncertain terms, and intervened in creation, or established things differently to the way they are, then your comment about theologians being 'keepers of true knowledge' is bang on.

It's just that a substantial number of people over the course of human history haven't shared your expectation. Wished for it, perhaps; but not shared it.

IMO there may be some kind of higher being(s)...but not in the manner that religions would have us believe.

I respect others beliefs...until they start trying to indoctrinate me, whereupon I get very irate...please also respect the fact I'm a non believer! 🙄

Can anyone define who/what god is supposed to be?

Everyone else can make a reasonable "guess" when presented with the evidence

What evidence? Evidence of the lack of a supreme being? Or are you talking about BBC News articles about cosmology?

Meh

if there is a point there molgrips it is lost on me
Do you wish to claim the honey monster is equally valid or not?

Perhaps the afterlife does exist in so much as only in the minds of those who have recently experienced bereavement, wishing those they have known an eternal happy life. Is that enough to give it credence?

Death is terrifyingly sad & our lives have such finality, I don't want to die.. I love life.

I don't believe in god but did any of you stop and think that after defending and rationalising your right not to believe in god, that you should let people take comfort however they see fit be it in god, valium or jack daniels as sinatra once put it.

Get some humanity, you smug unenlightened troop of shit throwing apes. That is all, this thread is utterly predictable and so philosophically and intellectually boring that I won't play any further part in it.

Scratch that, there were snippets in this thread that were mildly interesting such as Mikes link.

Perhaps people looking to not have their belief in the afterlife shaken shouldn't look at forum threads about the afterlife?

Besides, of this thread is enough to shake your faith, it's not going to survive something like the death of a loved one.

I believe in the power of American natives

Perhaps people looking to not have their belief in the afterlife shaken shouldn't look at forum threads about the afterlife?

I need to step away from this thread, I burned a lot of time in here yesterday! 🙁

miketually - Member
Besides, of this thread is enough to shake your faith, it's not going to survive something like the death of a loved one.

Having just gone through this myself - losing my father who was a religious person - I can say that it was his faith that helped more than anything else over the past few weeks. This is not the place to go into details, but the whole experince strengthened rather than weakened my belief in life everlasting and the existence of God, albeit in a different manner to my father's.

I enjoy studying the worlds different religions and focus on the common ground rather than the differences between them. For me that study is very uplifting and helpful and a powerful aid in facing the challenges that life presents. I am very happy to question the obvious inconsistencies that may/may not exist within and across the world's religions (and that includes The Blble and other sacred texts) and, more importantly, the way that humans interpret them, but that doesn't detract me (at least) from the far more powerful, positive and strengthening messages that each contain. Faith should not be forced on anyone. It is a wonderful gift IMO but it should be left to each person to chose whether to accept or reject it themselves. Free will is an important part of that gift after all!!!

Hold on THM - so Russell Brand is somehow less worthy of our attention for having 'a skewed moral compass' but yet your delusional fantasy world/religious escapism is perfectly valid..?

that's double standards surely?

If you remember my ACTUAL point, Brand has his valid opinions (most of which I agree with) but there are better people IMO to represent them.

Meanwhile I will happily delude myself in a fantasy world of shallow escapism. Cheers.

I object* to being labelled "non religious" or "not believing in god". It's an entirely human concept, it's a valid as labelling everyone, non orange hat wearers or something else obtuse. The zero point on the scale should just be a person, if I hadn't been told about a god I wouldn't form an opinion therefore the control state should be exactly that. A few years ago people were classed as non-smokers, now it's heading toward just, people and smokers. Maybe this will happen with the god story.

* I don't actually object but the word serves a purpose.

I object* to being labelled "non religious" or "not believing in god".

In the confines of this discussion it does serve a purpose though doesn't it?
I think I've been called stupid (perhaps indirectly) but I get the point being made within this thread.

Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like? Or would the idea be rightfully relegated to the level of fairy stories?

Has Christopher Hitchens' open question been answered on here yet?

"Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply."

My apologies if it has already been posted.

No. Anywhere.

Nice to see your feeling better Woptit

Is that an attempt at sarcasm? Kind of infantile, isn't it?

"you're", BTW.

... and I'm not, completely, as it goes.

So you got my gist even if I wasn’t grammatically, or you could say factually, correct.

Did you read my post using interpretation ?... Now there's a thing.

Sorry to hear you're not at full strengh... being ill is rubbish.

Take it easy... don't let 'em work you too hard and don't get wound up on here. 😀

So you did actually call me "Woptit", it wasn't a spelling mistake?

It would seem that the previous post regarding idiots having left the thread and sensible, interested people remaining to discuss the subject in a mature way was premature.

I'll bump it because I'm actually interested in any thoughts on the subject:

Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like? Or would the idea be rightfully relegated to the level of fairy stories?

😳

Sorry

Sausage finger

BTW I did answer your question.

Interpretation

molgrips - Member

well you can weigh up the evidence,look at the probabilities and take a gamble

No, you can't.

Isn't that what the religionists are doing? Taking a gamble? Or do they have a bunch of evidence that they're not sharing? They are going off some very dubious texts and possibly some witness testimony (people who claim to have communed with god) and possibly first person experience. Thing is there's lots of enlightening uplifting experiences that can feel almost spiritual. A really good mountain bike ride, snowboarding all the way down a mountain without crashing my brains out, standing on top of a mountain and taking in the vastness/beauty of [s]creation[/s] our planet, frosty morning commute looking out over a quiet sleepy landscape, some proper world class sex and really good drugs. But that's just me, obviously those things will be different for each person. Why do we feel the need to attribute that to a higher power? We certainly seem prone to it, me too, I'm quite often blessed/cursed by the puncture fairy - see you made me invoke her, if I get a flat on the way home it's your fault

Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like? Or would the idea be rightfully relegated to the level of fairy stories

That's how everything lasts the test of time....by teaching the next generation. Otherwise we'd have to relearn everything every generation.

I get that faith (I use that word rather than religion) is different from scientific fact, but I believe in God so of course I'll teach my kids about it. I'm also a reasonably analytical chap so I'll teach them a bit of that too and I'm sure they'll have their own opinions.

Yes - it's like a sort of virus that infects by passing from the parent to the child.

Not always successfully. The attempt to indoctrinate me wasn't made until I was 11 (at the insistence of the stepmother), by which time I had developed a baseline ability to examine the thing skeptically, so the germ didn't take hold.

...I believe in God so of course I'll teach my kids about it. I'm also a reasonably analytical chap...

Clearly not.

I wish there was some machine people could plug into my head so that observers could see what my reaction is to religious believers. It's exactly the same as most peoples reaction to someone telling them that (e.g.) there cat just recited the whole works of Lear.

It tricky, because I have family member's who believe, so in that case I've convinced myself they don't actually believe (I can't have family member's that stupid) and that they just do it to 'fit in' with their peer groups.

Edit: How can anyone believe in something that there is absolutely zero evidence to support?

Yes - it's like a sort of virus that infects by passing from the parent to the child.

You tell your kids stuff you think is true, right and helpful, yep? That's responsible parenting. Different people think different things fit into that remit. I like to think of it as good bacteria rather than a virus.

How can anyone believe in something that there is absolutely zero evidence to support?

That's the thing about receiving the virus as a child. By the time you reach the age of natural independent analytical thought, your psyche has become damaged by the indoctrination to the extent that the ability is at least severely damaged, if not wholly absent.

there's a scent of "there's not a SHRED of proof, you'd have to be an eedjit to believe in god".

Imagine you were talking to an adult who argued passionately for the tooth fairy or the easter bunny - its hard to address this faith without sounding like you are insulting them as their view has no evidence. Sometimes this makes us appear rude , some folk want to do this, some do it unintentionally.
Rowan williams [ clearly a very bright and clever human]for example said non believers were a little less human than believers - I was not warmed by that comment personally. Their general description of non bleivers tend to be unflattering as well as they attempt to "save " us. It cuts both ways though much less so on STW.

but it feels a bit like someone asked the question, people have been answering, and more people have been going "well, that's b@lls".

Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like? Or would the idea be rightfully relegated to the level of fairy stories?

that is many intelligent belief believe in god. Personally i dont understand how they can but it is true they do.

See above.

I wish there was some machine people could plug into my head so that observers could see what my reaction is to religious believers. It's exactly the same as most peoples reaction to someone telling them that (e.g.) there cat just recited the whole works of Lear

Yeah, I get that it doesn't make sense to you, but it does to me. I also am able to understand why it doesn't make sense to you because I do think about it and ask questions. You know what? It doesn't make sense to me sometimes but it certainly feels like a real thing to me....Is that a hallucination? Maybe but we won't find out just yet. I'm happy with the way things are for me and accept that people think differently. Some folk don't like mountain biking you know? (and yes I get that that's different).

You tell your kids stuff you think is true, right and helpful, yep? That's responsible parenting.

* on more than one occasion I have been accused on child abuse for this but obviously only on the internet not the real world

EDIT:Whoppit you would need to ignore all the millions of folk who convert/revert in adult life through "free will". I am not really prepared to debate this in your style as it is deliberately rude. I accept I am rude occasionally on this subject but i try my best to not do it deliberately.

if there is a point there molgrips it is lost on me

Yeah, I know, every time we have these threads 🙂

Get some humanity, you smug unenlightened troop of shit throwing apes.

+1 that's been my point all along.

Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like?

Of course. Just goes to show you really have noooo idea what this is all about. You (and the others) go on about religious people being really stupid because they believe in God, but it's YOU that's apparently too stupid to understand their thoughts and opinions of intelligent people. Dunning Kruger at work.

Isn't that what the religionists are doing? Taking a gamble?

Why do you think they call it FAITH?

Imagine you were talking to an adult who argued passionately for the tooth fairy or the easter bunny

Missing the point. The Easter Bunny doesn't provide solace to billions of people and make them feel profoundly better about their short difficult lives. THAT'S why God is a popular concept. Many people don't really give a shit about the big bang or the origins of life.

I am not being deliberately rude. I'm just describing it as I see it.

I agree that there are "conversions" to superstitious thought, often from mental breakdown (St Paul for instance) or suffering from hallucinatory attacks from drugs and the like...

on about religious people being really stupid because they believe in God

Please indicate where I have described religious people as "stupid".

I believe in God so of course I'll teach my kids about it. I'm also a reasonably analytical chap so I'll teach them a bit of that too and I'm sure they'll have their own opinions.

Please indicate where I have described religious people as "stupid".

From dozens of previous threads, I thought that was your stance. If not then I apologise, but it's certainly a common sentiment on STW.

Why do you think they call it FAITH?

The Easter Bunny doesn't provide solace to billions of people and make them feel profoundly better about their short difficult lives.

And of course I'm looking forward to crushing their spirits when I tell them they aren't real - I'm an atheist it's what we do (apparently)

Its a difficult one as clearly your belief in god is no sign of your intelligence - that is many intelligent belief believe in god.

I can't get my head around that, I truly can't. Does not compute.

so we are allowed to gamble then?

I think you can do what you like!

I can't get my head around that, I truly can't.

You aren't that intelligent then 🙂

Yeah, I know, every time we have these threads

Missing the point. The Easter Bunny doesn't provide solace to billions of people and make them feel profoundly better about their short difficult lives

The point is not whether it brings solace - religion does - but if you get solace from something not real its rather difficult to respect this and not sound like you are saying they are an idiot.

Is it reasonable to suppose that if there were no child-abusive indoctrination into religious dogma, humans would still imagine the actual existence "higher powers" and the like? Or would the idea be rightfully relegated to the level of fairy stories?

There is something hardwired into our brains that seems to make us think there is some sort of higher power.

If all religious knowledge were wiped off the face of the Earth and we had to start again, I think we'd probably construct a new set of stories to try to explain 'difficult' issues around creation and death. However, they would bear only passing resemblance to the current stories.

If all scientific knowledge were wiped off the face of the Earth and we had to start again, we'd come up with exactly the same set of explanations, eventually, as we have now.

Incredible that someone who believes in something with zero evidence that was invented by Iron Age goat-herders would call people who don't 'unenlightened' with a straight face and no sense of irony.

You aren't that intelligent then

I didn't claim to be.

I'm confused... am I stupid or an idiot or both.... 🙂

There is something hardwired into our brains that seems to make us think there is some sort of higher power

Clearly not. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many atheists in the world. The seed is planted in children's minds by their parents.

if you get solace from something not real its rather difficult to respect this

Really?

Clearly not. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many atheists in the world.

There aren't many.

There are a lot of people in secular countries (ie this one) who haven't had a religious upbringing but still think there is 'something'. I don't think it's hard wired into everyone's brain, of course, that'd be silly, but it's a common tendency I think. Hence the existence of religion and spirituality in the first place.

My eldest daughter decided that she was an atheist at a relatively young age. She didn't know the word, of course, but she came to the conclusion that there wasn't a god and all the bible stories that she was told were nonsense. There was no pressure or indoctrination from me, in fact the opposite: while they were younger I went along to church with my wife and both kids most weeks and I deliberately didn't push against it.

I think some of us are wired such that we can't believe, while others are wired such that they do. She's very similar to me, and I remember sitting in assemblies at primary school thinking it was all so obviously untrue.

Whether people get a feel-good feeling from their beliefs is for another thread. Hitler got a feel-good feeling from some of the nonsense he believed in, are we suggesting it makes his beliefs more acceptable?

I think some of us are wired such that we can't believe, while others are wired such that they do.

You are absolutely correct. I'm reading a book called 'The Believing Brain' and it goes into detail about the differences in brain chemistry between people who believe in various things and who don't. By citing scientific studies.

If god is not true and these people can feel its presence, even if it is not real, then how would you describe them? Its hard to respect a belief that is false no matte rhow heartfelt it is.

Hitler got a feel-good feeling from some of the nonsense he belived in, are we suggesting it makes his beliefs more acceptable?

I think the debate has moved past your level of competence Tucker.

For me, when something really horrible happens, it just kind of leaves me adrift in a chilly ocean of confusion and loneliness, which is rubbish.

For me, I just go 'shit happens' and move on. Nothing confusing about that.

molgrips - Member

Please indicate where I have described religious people as "stupid".

From dozens of previous threads, I thought that was your stance. If not then I apologise, but it's certainly a common sentiment on STW.

Well, making accusations of stupidity is not a "stance" - it's actually using the word. Which I haven't. I accept your apology for your unsafe assumption.

If you examine my recent contributions, you'll see that I ascribe otherwise intelligent people's belief in religion to agencies and events outside of their innate intelligence, whatever it's level.

I think the debate has moved past your level of competence Tucker.

We've already seen what you think molgrips, which clearly undermines your ability to make that call.

Would you like me to post the questions that have you stumped and your ridiculous attempts at answers?

Yes - it's like a sort of virus that infects by passing from the parent to the child.

Not always successfully. The attempt to indoctrinate me wasn't made until I was 11 (at the insistence of the stepmother), by which time I had developed a baseline ability to examine the thing skeptically, so the germ didn't take hold.

I think there's more to it than that.

At primary school, I had church once a week. Reverand came into school once a week. Hymms sang every morning, and I went to Sunday school.

It didn't work on me.

Would you like me to post the questions that have you stumped and your ridiculous attempts at answers?

Sure.

Ditto.