It would also mean that unless you were aware of the fact that your hallucinations were not real, that you would personally believe them to be representative of reality....which contradicts your statements regarding how you can have a position of 100% certainty based on what your senses and perception tell you.
Description of Afterlife?
- Thread starter ispy
- Start date
It would also mean that unless you were aware of the fact that your hallucinations were not real, that you would personally believe them to be representative of reality....which contradicts your statements regarding how you can have a position of 100% certainty based on what your senses and perception tell you.
Seriously there are far many more traceable and certifiable reasons to define Yahweh and any other God than there ever have been for unicorns and fairies :x
Maybe correct, but by your logic here, God, religion and afterlife and any other similar things are also hallucinations in the same way that my pink elephant is, which is kind of the point behind the pink elephant analogy.
I'll further explain my position of 100% certainty as being based on healthy brain function. And may I ask you to what degree of uncertainty do you believe that living humans dont have blood flowing through their veins?
As well as a possible answer to my planetary ice sheath hypothesis presented earlier?
Maybe correct, but by your logic here, God, religion and afterlife and any other similar things are also hallucinations in the same way that my pink elephant is, which is kind of the point behind the pink elephant analogy.
I'll further explain my position of 100% certainty as being based on healthy brain function. And may I ask you to what degree of uncertainty do you believe that living humans dont have blood flowing through their veins?
As well as a possible answer to my planetary ice sheath hypothesis presented earlier?
Last edited:
I think what he was trying to say is that because both have been given more weight of belief through the ages they deserve to be given more credibility, which makes no sense for the reasons I stated.
A unicorn has a specific material definition.....it is a horse with a single horn (we can track the changes in this definition over a period of time, which is why I referenced Pliny).
My opinion reflects current historical, archaeological, paleontological and scientific evidence regarding the ideas that you presented, or rather the statements you gave.
Oh, so now if there no kind of evidence for any hypothesis, then that means you cant hold a view on it? Yet werent you telling me in another thread (or maybe this one) that a hypothesis doesnt require any kind of observable evidence to be formed and discussed?
Why did you suddenly change your mind against that?
Just because one myth is passed down from generation to generation over thousands of years (eg afterlife) doesnt mean that it is any more valid than any myth invented today (eg planetary ice sphere).
Last edited:
You keep asking Castiel about evidence and testable hypotheses yet have ignored my own questions aimed at you in this vein several times. This thread has become a waste of my bandwidth, lamentably. There's no point me sitting up until 2am watching this go around in circles while my contributions are ignored. Have fun guys.
^^ I'll answer you then, I only just dug back and found this post:
I have no reason to believe in any such myth which lacks supporting evidence, or at the least a scientific explanation. The idea of consciousness surviving after death is incredibly contradictory to my understanding of how the brain functions. Also the probability of there being any kind of creator is nowhere near 50/50, the idea vastly lacks logical probability and possibility, just as the idea of an afterlife does.
I dont believe how anyone can give credible support for ideas that were invented in the stone ages when man had absolutely no understanding of the world around him, simply on the basis that such myths have been passed down across the generations since then, and most people who believe them simply do so because they have been brainwashed from an early age, or lack the skepticism to question their own beliefs.
And so does this:
That doesnt make it real. There is no evidence within taxonomy or fossil searches to even suggest that either Unicorns or Ganesh were ever real. And the latter comes from the oldest religion in the world, far predating any forms of western monotheism.
I have no reason to believe in any such myth which lacks supporting evidence, or at the least a scientific explanation. The idea of consciousness surviving after death is incredibly contradictory to my understanding of how the brain functions. Also the probability of there being any kind of creator is nowhere near 50/50, the idea vastly lacks logical probability and possibility, just as the idea of an afterlife does.
I dont believe how anyone can give credible support for ideas that were invented in the stone ages when man had absolutely no understanding of the world around him, simply on the basis that such myths have been passed down across the generations since then, and most people who believe them simply do so because they have been brainwashed from an early age, or lack the skepticism to question their own beliefs.
And so does this:
That doesnt make it real. There is no evidence within taxonomy or fossil searches to even suggest that either Unicorns or Ganesh were ever real. And the latter comes from the oldest religion in the world, far predating any forms of western monotheism.
Last edited:
There is a difference between organised religion and a belief in either a God(s) or afterlife....while you can (to some degree) track the evolution of a religion, it is more difficult to assess the veracity of a specifc concept. Essentially whether we are talking about any number of God(s) the basis is the same. For example we can see comparisons in what are essentially unrelated belief systems, the progenitor of the Norse Gods was a primeval cow called Audumbla, which is compatible with Kamadhenu, the cow divinity of Hinduism and Hathor of Egyptian belief and Amaltheia, the goat who raised Zeus in Greek Mythology.....while interpretative to some degree each was a representation of a primeval concept of maternalism and creation....the same can be said for Yahwey, Allah, Brahman and so on, each representative of a Universal Godhead concept that has evolved for all we know as long as humans have been capable of expressing such concepts.
Just a random search on google came up with this for me:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Heaven-fairy-story-people-afraid-dark.html
But of course, please carry on pretending that you know more than he does if you believe otherwise
Also the comments are hilarious:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Heaven-fairy-story-people-afraid-dark.html
But of course, please carry on pretending that you know more than he does if you believe otherwise
Also the comments are hilarious:
Last edited:
Huh?
You can discuss creationism, or any hypothesis you like, you asked what my opinion on those two ideas was, I gave it....if you want to discuss your ideas of the age of the Earth or the formation of the Oceans then so be it, but I don't have to agree with you to discuss something, and where there is no current consensus, evidence (unlike the formation of the Earth etc) or specific position then speculation of an hypothesis is a perfectly acceptable way of discussing a problem.
You seem to be confusing one thing with another.
There is a difference between a broad concept and a definitive proposition.
Couple of arguments as to why I think, even if there is an after life, it does not really matter:
Consciousness is dependant on brain function.
After life there is no brain function (i.e. after brain death).
The after life is well... after life.
So we have no consciousness in the after life.
My soul goes to the after life rather than my physical body
Who I am is dependant on my soul
What defines who I am is the choices I make
The choices that I make are dependant on my experiences
Experiences are shown to be stored as memories in the brain
So my choices are dependant on my brain
This implies that who I am is dependant on my brain
My soul goes to after life, but not my brain (my brain is dead)
As who I am is dependant on both my soul and my brain, "I" cannot go to the after life.
Consciousness is dependant on brain function.
After life there is no brain function (i.e. after brain death).
The after life is well... after life.
So we have no consciousness in the after life.
My soul goes to the after life rather than my physical body
Who I am is dependant on my soul
What defines who I am is the choices I make
The choices that I make are dependant on my experiences
Experiences are shown to be stored as memories in the brain
So my choices are dependant on my brain
This implies that who I am is dependant on my brain
My soul goes to after life, but not my brain (my brain is dead)
As who I am is dependant on both my soul and my brain, "I" cannot go to the after life.
Last edited:
And so does this:
That doesnt make it real. There is no evidence within taxonomy or fossil searches to even suggest that either Unicorns or Ganesh were ever real. And the latter comes from the oldest religion in the world, far predating any forms of western monotheism.
In fact Ganesha is a representation or personification of a deity rather than a definitive description of a material animal. This is why we can more easily dismiss the Unicorn than the God, as one has a far more defined parameter in which to judge.
And no one said it makes either of them real, only that it affects the potential value we attribute to each and the way in which we treat each objectively.
But of course, please carry on pretending that you know more than he does if you believe otherwise
Stephen Hawking is as entitled to speculate and hold his beliefs as anyone, it should be mentioned however that some of his theoretical compatriots do not share the same opinion as he does....
Hawking also once stated that he didn't believe in the Higgs Bosun either, with a long standing bet that it will never be found. He paid Prof Gordon Kane $100.
Indeed, to you. I am not as presumptive as to know the definitive nature of the Universe. As far as religion goes, anticlericalism is not the same as atheism...as much as it seems to get confused as such by some.
Anyway, it's late and I'm going to bed. Goodnight chaps.
Last edited:
Thank you. You must understand that my capacity for participation is rather limited, along with my bandwidth. I'm just trying to eke out the best 'value' from my contributions that I can.
As it stands I think you're continuing to confuse the physical brain with consciousness and are once again attempting to address a philosophical/theological problem with a limited scientific framework. You can't have your cake and eat it my friend; either an idea needs to be scientifically testable to be a valid hypothesis (as you assert when people talk about afterlife hypotheses), or else you don't (as you assert when you say you believe there is no afterlife, even though it's completely untestable). You can't have it both ways by saying that those open minded to survival of consciousness are deluded cranks high on pseudoscience, and then continue to use an opposing belief system in retaliation which is admittedly nothing more regardless - an untestable belief system.
Whilst it's wonderful and admirable that Prof. Hawking has such a determined attitude to his life and has formulated his own opinions on the afterlife (or lack thereof), he's no more theologically qualified than you or I. As such his eminence in theoretical physics is about as relevant to the weightiness of his proclamation regarding the existence of a soul as is my qualification in touch typing...
Goodnight big fella. Happy dream walking.
EDIT: Just posted that thinking what an early night you're taking, then had an 'Oh, it actually is 2am. Again.' moment... I'm also off, but I'll be back when I can. Goodnight all.
Last edited:
What does "limited scientific framework" even mean, as far as I can see it is the only framework in existence for us to make reasonable assumptions based on?
There is absolutely no evidence hint or legitimate theory to suggest the mind and soul are not inherently linked to the brain and thus need it to survive... whereas we know that every time somebody dies all activity and trace of a soul is dead with no evidence or suggestion of continuation. Any 'theory' that does exist to suggest a soul or afterlife is real should be treated with as much credibility as that of fairies or sky monsters.
No but your presumptive enough to disregard all known evidence that exists within it.