davros4269

Actually, mntbdky, it is you that is getting frustrated. Calm down, partner, and consider the following:

Let me start with this: the only thing I conceded was that perhaps you found a chap that is both an atheist, and a believer that we can't artificially reproduce sentience. But, that's about it You couldn't explain it in your own words, you asked me to start another post on it, I may at some point. Case closed for now.

You said not to mix science and philosophy - I wasn't directly quoting you; I was too lazy to dig up exactly what you said, however, it is my intention that when you _used_ science to disprove one form of reincarnation, you _mixed_ them as far as I am concerned. You of course didn't say, "and now I will mix science and philosophy and use science to disprove a philosophy", but that's what you in fact did.

I use science to disprove angels, gods, and any other supernatural and/or bloopless phenomena, rather, to point out their utter implausability.

As to my dragon - you know nothing about my dragon. You said it cannot be red, because that would mean it not be immaterial, right? This is why I quit using "immaterial", since thought and energy can both be detect and are immaterial, while dragons, gods and angels are immaterial and _can not_ be detected, hence, bloopless.

How can you say I am using bad philosphy? If philosophy is "after physical", ergo, supernatural or bloopless, you don't know anything more than I do! I can say that we are put on earth to discover dragons, those that do not fail and go to dragon hell, those that do turn red and live forever. This is the realm of the imagination! You cannot and have not disproven this. You escape science into an "anything goes abyss" known as metaphysics and philosophy. Plato said x and y, sure, but we know so much more than they did. Also, you haven't considered the philosophers on other planets - perhaps they say that dragon gods are red and all knowing, but not omni-present. You think this nonsense, but no more so than your idea of the soul, think about it.

As your own argument against reincarnation points out, you cannot remain in lala land for long. You think in your head that have a notion of god? Of course I can't disprove this, but in and of itself, it's meaningless. If you try and reach out and say, for example, that you will live forever and should wait until after marriage to have sex, then I _have you_, because there is zero evidence outside of your head extending into the really real world. This is the point you don't like and, I suspect, the cause of your frustration.

You seem like a reasonably smart guy - perhaps it bothers you to believe in something with zero evidence to back it up.

If you say that I concede that you believe in god, well, of course you seem to believe. This is an _admission_ on your part. It's silly to believe in something with no evidence.

Further, who are you to say that science somehow has limits and beyond this "line", metaphysics takes over? We won't know the limits of science until we have applied science to everything, which leads nicely back to one of SF's early and major points.

My red dragon is as contradictory as anything in your head, innate or otherwise it seeks to explain that once you enter metaphysical lala land, anything goes, anything.

As for experiencing god, quite honestly, if I 'thought' I did, I'd have myself committed

You don't have any clue if you will liver forever! What evidence do you use to demonstrate your immortal soul? You were quite vauge on this notion. Is this 'identity over time' deal in the same textbook that shows that energy has a certain color or smell?

All you've got is your innate sense of god in your head. We can prove the Bible wrong, like we can prove reincarnation wrong, using history and science. Make the leap from your mind, and this vauge sense of god to eternal life in heaven?

Once your god notion leaves your mind it is open game to attack because you have left the supernatural and have entered the really world where evidence and science come into play

Seriously man, quite escaping reality as we know it. You are smart enough to know that any theistic argument for god fails, you said so yourself. All you've got to cling to is ancient philosophy on the soul, the Bible, and your funky dream or near death experience, which can be reproduced in a lab? Here's a simple question: if these experiences _can_ be reproduced in a lab, how can you ever know if it was real or not?

If we could implant rape memories and terrors in a lab, would not some rape victims doubt their own experiences based on this? At least a rape victim can know she's not just feeling funky because rape happens and is plausible.

No, my friend, it is you who has lost the debate really before it began. You not only loose in the court of law - reasonable doubt, you loose in the court of plausibility. It's not that you have circumstancial evidence, you have none at all.

If SF is frustrated it's because you bogged him down with definition debate - i've seen the technique used before. SF may be tired of just one more theist that thinks that god chose not only this universe (a subject we haven't touched on yet), not only this cluster of galaxies, not only this galaxy, not only this star system, but you, in this time, to reveal himself too. Aren't you lucky!

And, you avoid any area of attack, such as the Bible and the real world, by escaping into the metaphysical. Can you blame SF if indeed he is frustrated?

As to your last post, i must be tired, because I don't have a clue what you are saying or what the significance is

Oh, lastly, before I forget, god is not hypothosized at all. Evidence is required for a hypothesis. You can't say existence is evidence when we both know that it is evidence for red dragons.

Tootles and g'nite,

Davros

mnkbdky

I did not say I could not, I said I would not.

Let me give you one more quote from myself which you might be taking out of contexted.

Notice here that the word used is not philosophy. Rather it is metaphysics, which is an aspect of philosophy. It is metaphysics that is beyond the scope of science, not philosophy itself. So you are wrong! I did not say do not mix science and philosophy. I said do not mix science and metaphysics.

This means that in the areas of metaphysics ,which deals with abstracta, the nature of necessity, realism and anti-realism, possible worlds, universals, nominalism. etc., science has nothing to offer. These are matters that only philosophy can discuss. Science has no bearing on the subject.

Perhaps you need to be a bit less lazy. If you don't remember what I said, then don't say I said it.

Perhaps you really need to do some reading on the topic of what immaterial means. You insist on saying energy is immaterial. But you are wrong. You offer no reason for such a claim. Furthermore, you claim is neither backed by science or by philosophers of science.

I never said philosophy was "after" the physical. I said metaphysics was "after" or "beyond" the physic. Why? Because "meta" is a Greek term meaing, "with", "among", "after" or "beyond". The term actually has many meanings. And physics is from the Greek term "phusis" or "physis" meaning, "nature", "material", "natural law".

Philosophy, on the other hand, is from the two Greek terms "philos" meaning "love"and "sophia" meaning wisdom.

There is a big difference between the two.

Here is a challenge to you. I want you do give me evidence of why one should believe that science can give the answers to all questions about the nature of reality. The challange is not to explain what science has discovered, but rather for the belief.

It does not bother me in the slightest. What bothers me is that you think your belief that science is the end all is demonstrable, when it most clearly is not.

Now let me make this perfectly clear, I am not discrediting science or its discoveries. What I am discrediting is your belief that it can provide evidence for your belief. Science cannot provide evidence for your belief that only sciencic truths should be believed.

This is my challange to you: provide someone with physical evidence for your belief that only things discoverd through science should be believe.

Guess what, it is impossible. You cannot provide any physical evidence for that belief. The belief is self-destroying.

Then I guess your belief is silly too.

Perhaps you think everything that is material has to have color or smell. Again you are wrong. That is not the criteria for material. Material can be oderless and colorless. Matter can even be invisible, for instance Dark Matter. To be material is to made of some matter that has extension. Anything that has extension, that is anything that takes up space and has shape is material. Energy takes up space, software takes up space, atoms take up space, electrons take up space, neutrons take up space, protons take up space. It does not matter how small the space is that is taken up or what shape it is, if it takes up any space and has shape it is material.

Let me give you a small argument for the soul. Do you believe you are the same numerical person who started reading this post? If so, you must believe that you have an immaterial soul that does not change. If you do not believe in this immaterial soul and yet believe you are the same person that started reading this you are irrational. Let me explain,

If you gave me a radio with one green nob and three pink nobs and I changed the one green nob to black, did I give you the same radio back? No. The radio you gave me had a green nob, the radio you have now has a black nob. Now lets say I replace all the parts with similar looking parts and rebuild yours. Is the new stereo yours or the rebuilt one? Obviously it is the rebuilt one.

The same goes with our bodies. The materialist claims that a person is identical to their material body. Therefore, in order for a material body to remain the same person one cannot lose or gain any parts. That is, in order for a material body to remain the same person the body cannot change. However, material bodies are constantly changing by losing and replacing parts (e.g., hair, cells, etc.). Therefore, a material body does not remain the same person. In fact, all the parts of the body are replace at some point.

According to a materialist view of persons one is a completely different person everytime they lose or gain a hair or a skin cell. The only way to remain the same person through time is for the person to be identical to an immaterial immutable substance--the soul. Every culture that has had philosophy has recognized this problem. This is why Buddhist say there is no Self. This is why the soul has been postulated. It is obvious that we do remain the same person through time. I am the same person that was born. I once was a fetus, I progressed through childhood, into adolesence, young adulthood and now am approaching thirty. This is my life, not a series of persons. This is the life story of one person. Materialists are forced to say this is the story of an almost infinite number of people, for everytime I gained or lost a hair I became somebody different.

That is the quick argument.

I am sure you have studied the bible a lot and are making educated statements. The fact, is the bible cannot be proven wrong, as of yet. It might be proven wrong in the future. But to this date is has not yet been proven wrong. Either historically or scientifically. You might think that Genesis does not square up with what we know about the creation of the world. However, it was never meant to.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. don't forget to give that physical or scientific evidence for your belief that one should only base their beliefs on scientific evidence. Actually, I would rather you didn't responde to any of the above except for this last statement. There are to many topics. Let's cut them. Just provide the evidence for that one belief, that only things of science should be believed. Unitl this evidence is presented I will not respond. I really want to respond so please provide the evidence.

p.s.s SF left because he couldn't even form a valid argument (e.g., Frogs are grass). And his definitons were to vague, so he kept committing the fallacy of equivocation. Precise defintions are not to be scorned, without them philosophy cannot even be done because valid arguments cannot be given. This was SF's mistake.

SecularFuture

Mnkbdky
I left?! The last two posts I put up in this thread you ignored. I did not leave. You’re just ignoring me.

You’re the only person here that believes that I’m “committing the fallacy of equivocation.” What is SO vague about the words ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural?’

If someone was to say, "I'm going to go out and have some fun", would you waste time asking them, "Which definition of fun are you using? Fun means many things. Fun is a source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure. Take notice of the word 'OR' in the definition. Now, are you going to go out and have enjoyment? Or are you going to go out and have amusement? Or are you going to go out and have pleasure? Please define.... blah - blah - blah."

It is not irrational or impossible to use more than one definition at once when using a word.

========================

I didn’t say ‘material' only. I said ‘material beings’.

A “brain scientist” can explain how material beings can have thought. Why can’t you, a theologian in training, explain how an immaterial being can have thought?

So your “theory” isn’t consistent? “- From time to time -” Theories are consistent. Assumptions, like your statement, are not.

No amount of belief can turn something into a fact or a theory. Like I said earlier: For the average person, worshiping is much easier than trying to make sense of macroevolution and quantum mechanics. People would rather have comfort through fantasy than mystery through realism.

The more primitive the society, the more religious it is; have you noticed this?

The material world is objective. The supernatural / metaphysical / “immaterial” world is very subjective; opinion based. The material world consists of facts, theories, and assumptions. The supernatural world consists of assumptions only. There is a difference. As a theist, you can’t confirm anything that you believe.

Saying that you've experienced an immaterial being and proving that you've experienced an immaterial being are two - totally - different concepts. You have not proven anything.

But if he doesn't, he exists only in your mind.

Read this, and read it hard!
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...xperience.html

========================

5 Points against Religious Theism
--- by ME (REVISED)


The existence of a god can not be tested by science, seen by the naked eye, nor detected by electronic devices. Therefore, “God” must be a supernatural being if he/she/it is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Definitions for the word ‘supernatural’:
- of or relating to existence outside the natural world
- attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
- of or relating to a deity
- of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous

Definitions for the word ‘natural’:
- present in or produced by nature
- of, relating to, or concerning nature
- conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
- not acquired; inherent

1) What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “blind religious-faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

2) Unlike non-religious history books, many religious scriptures include stories about supernatural worlds and events that can only be believed and not tested. Freethinkers dismiss religious scripture because it is subjective and inconsistent when compared to the objective and consistent nature of the natural world. Unlike religious scripture, non-religious history can be accepted though “reasoned-faith”, a kind of faith that is supported by the five senses, reason, and/or supporting evidence.

3) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. A god is not the only being capable of inspiring or writing books.

4) If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being a violation of a natural law, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested and personal interpretations of so-called supernatural events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

5) Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through the promotion of subjective thinking alone.

========================

Philosophical questions require philosophical answers.

- Because you can’t find answers about reality by searching through [fictitious] worlds that are not apart of reality. If you wanted to find a new computer, would you waste time looking for one in a grocery store?

Here’s my challenge for you:
Why should I believe in a god? If it is possible that “divine experience”, and all of the other arguments for the existence of a god could [eventually] be given natural explanations, why should I surrender my rational mind to a blind religious faith?

WHAT?! Could you please define what you mean by “numerical”?

To believe in an immaterial soul takes a lot more imagination than it does to believe in a brain. Do you believe that the brain evolves and learns? Or do you believe that the brain is just there, and everything happens within an invisible soul concept?

Oh my..... Loosing a skin cell is not the same as loosing a brain cell. And you are not a “completely” different person after you loose a brain cell either. A change is made, but it is not as drastic as you are describing.

You believe it. Okay - Prove it! Instead of just sitting around and making shtuff up, it’s a lot better to just say “I don’t know” when you can not explain something rationally.

When a person is 80, are they still acting the same way that they did when they were 4? People do change. I'm a completely different person than I was so'n'odd years ago.

The biblical flood has been proven wrong 1,000,000 times over.
http://www.talkorigins.org

========================

davros4269

mntbdky, your frustration is really starting to show. Relax, it's just a debate. If your ideas have no basis in reality perhaps you should switch belief systems - jk

As for your challange, more on that later - see below. If you don't choose to respond that's your option, though I have no doubt you will at least skim this to see how I responded It does seem a bit childish to say that if we don't play your way, we won't play at all - it's not only your playground, after all. Didn't you ask SF once, in a "personal attack" kind of way, how old he was? I might ask the same of you, but i won't.

Now then, as to the reasons why we can never make an artificial mind/sentience being, I wasn't prodding you - I really did mean case closed. However, I don't doubt that you would _try_ to show your case. I imagine you'd make a false disctinction between the physical mind and the metaphysical mind (which doesn't exist), and then paraphrase a philosopher who might uses metaphysics to make the case, which is already mute, since you can't seperate the physical gray matter from thought...

Concerning your latest "misquote" charge, I wasn't being lazy, not really, in that case. I used what you said, you think it was out of context. I disagree. Your new re-explanation is yet another trip to definition-avoid-the-issue-land. Consider this: throughout our whole debate, I have used the words philosophy and metaphysical more or less synonomously without your objection. when I call you on a statement you yourself made, using science to disprove a philosphy, you use this tactic? I don't accept this any more than your supernatural/immaterial tactic.

Look at it this way - if metaphysics is "outside the scope of science", then this must mean it lacks evidence, therefore, I won't accept metaphysics in general until some evidence surfaces. i do not accept the bloopless. You are basically saying what less educated theists would say in this manner, "God is supernatural, so you can't use science to disprove Him!".

Well, if you escape into a region which by definition is outside of nature then no, I can't disprove it, but, what have we accomplished? Nothing. But, we also have no evidence of said region, so I don't accept it as a valid argument in any case. And, don't forget, once we enter this "region", i pull out my _red_ dragon god. CAUTION: he eats angels.

Reread what you said here, I'm sure it was just a typo: Perhaps you really need to do some reading on the topic of what immaterial means. You insist on saying energy is immaterial. But you are wrong. You offer no reason for such a claim. Furthermore, you claim is neither backed by science or by philosophers of science.

First you say that I offer no reason for such a claim, then you say that you don't like my reasons

Does energy take up space? My first reaction would be to say no. While I'm no scientist, I'd like to think that a stationary baseball takes up no more space than a baseball in transit with kinetic energy - it would seem their mass is the same....still, Einstein did say that if an object approaches light, it's mass increases, so if we take this to mean that a baseball going 90mph has a slight mass increase, then you might be right that energy does take up space - unless, it's the energy's _effect_ on the matter of the baseball that is increasing? I honestly don't know. But I will say that if software takes up space, so does thought - this works for me either way. If true, then thought isn't immaterial, as you say (or did you say it was bloopless?).

But I will say this, the energy we experience is only though it's effect on matter. Energy itself can't be seen (seen is subjective, of course). I take the definition of immaterial to mean not made of matter but still detectable. We can use no instrument to discern any structure to energy. We can discern some structure to other "invisible" forms of matter, as you say. While an individual atom may not have a color because we don't image them with photons but with electrons, we know that it has a certain form. The "smaller" we get, the harder it is to put a form onto a particle because we get into quantum probablity and have several possible "looks" for the particle, but we can still describe it in some dimensional way; we can sketch an approximation.

Sketch the kinetic energy of a baseball, with good probablity, without the baseball? You can't do it.

Didn't I say once that the universe is made of matter and energy? While I am aware that they are interchangeable, energy while in it's energy form is massless by definiton, is it not?

Energy is immaterial, but not bloopless, like gods and angels.

Try this angle: without using matter, can you detect energy? Can you see (I mean detect in any way, of course) "raw" energy, without it's effect on matter? I tried to think of an example of energy-detection without detecting it's effect merely on matter and I could not - can you?

What were you saying about misquoting? You said: [b[]Here is a challenge to you. I want you do give me evidence of why one should believe that science can give the answers to all questions about the nature of reality. The challange is not to explain what science has discovered, but rather for the belief.[/b]

Did I say that science can give answers to all of the answers of reality? Or, did I say that science can bring us as close to any truth that exists, ever closer, gradually?

Despite your definition split in bloopless realm, you yourself used science to show that the hindu philosphy isn't accurate. Certainly, we can use science to show that the Bible isn't accurate.

Would you at least agree, that using science to kick off of the table those ideas which are scientifically false is a good start to approaching the really real truth?

As to this statement: This is my challange to you: provide someone with physical evidence for your belief that only things discoverd through science should be believe.

"discovered" by science? I will expland this to include those things verified and accepted by science, since I'm not sure you mean by discovered, exactly. We discovered fire and water long before we knew what they were, we merely used science to get a closer, more accurate, explanation of fire and water. In any case, this question is a bit loaded (in my favour), because there _is_ nothing that isn't accepted and verified by science. Everything that _is_, that is material or immaterial (but not bloopless/supernatural) is my evidence.

The default position is to accept what we know that is, _is_. We can extend this, as we have, and apply to trickier stuff like fire, air, dark matter and so forth. Angels and gods aren't on the radar scope except as someone's imagination. That very imagination and thought are also immaterial but slighly detectable now, and fully detectable in the future, of course.

Well, my belief isn't silly. It has concrete results. I am using a computer, which is detectable. I can walk on the floor, and not float and be forever stuck at the core of the earth until the planet blows up, right? I have a physical form which obeys the laws of nature.

Nothing bloopless affects me, of course, by definition. Now, your voidless massless god-concept has no provable affect. If you say for example that god makes you happy, i can say it is your thought that god exists that makes you happy. What would be counter example for my belief? That my arms work because my muscle fibers obey that laws of nature, therefore I am happy that I can move?

Your challange really only applies to someone that accepts the bloopless in some fasion, metaphysical or otherwise.

Should I believe in things not accepted by science? Should I walk into the wall, thinking that beyond all reason, sense and science, that I can walk through it? If I do it and hit the wall with bruises as the result, will you accept that as your physical evidence ? As for the soul as proof, look me up when die. If we can find each other, you win.

There is nothing self-destroying about only believing that which is not bloopless.

What, besides psycological benefits, are the perks of believing in the bloopless, as you do? Can _you_ provide any evidence without first dying and haunting me?

BTW, I didn't say that science was the be all and end all, though it does bring us closer to the truth than god concepts ever will. It's the only tool we have that I know of that tells us about the world.

I don't accept your soul-explanations for several reasons. First off, my head is the seat of my sentience - the interactions of my neural network gives me the ability to think. If you were to remove my head and place it on life support, I could still think, right? I don't require numerical idendity over time, for me to be "myself" I merely need my sentience and conciousness. Each of us changes permanently every instant. Perhaps I don't fall into either of your two categories, because I certainly don't think loosing an arm changes me significantly.

I see no reason why my brain can't be scanned with good accuracry into a machine of the future. Turn this machine on, and you will have cloned "me". What does the body matter? It's like taking cpu from one machine to another, or, say, a cpu with ram, while on - consider a hotpluggable cpu+ram, swapped into another machine. The machine might have a different printer and ethernet card, but the brain and software running in it would be the same. A different ethernet driver may have to be loaded to run the new hardware, just as I may have to get used to not walking anymore because I don't have legs being a mind in a machine, as it were.

I can't see the link, in any case, for your argument of identity and immortality, or, the soul existing outside of the body all together?

You sound quite reasonable at times, growing worse when you escape into lala-land, but when you speak about the Bible, you drop down into irrational land, no offense intended.

It seems that the Bible is the weak link in your equation. You said:
You might think that Genesis does not square up with what we know about the creation of the world. However, it was never meant to. [/b]

Obvious question: Why was it not meant to? You understand of course that there are many Christians who would disagree with you. kgov.com is just one of a million examples.

Do you mean by "studying the Bible" that I am somehow to deduce, from the _same_ book, the magic formula as to which chaper is to be taken literally and which to be taken with a grain of salt? You can't find 2 Christians who would agree - you have it figured out? This is not an argument you want to take up with me, but kgove.com has a forum I believe, they'd love to blast you there.

Yes, it's a fundie site and a fundie might be an extreme example but still!

Are you _serious_? If you have a sense of humor, you haven't shown it thus far - is this your first attempt?

What about the flood story, as SF mentioned? Let me guess - we weren't meant to take this one seriously, right?

Tootles,

Davros

SecularFuture

Mnkbdky
I have a post waiting for you above Davros4269's post.

haverbob

Haven't read all the replies in this thread (too many) but I did skim them. Wow! This looks like the dog chasing it's tail. You know, I 've found that the people who are the MOST concerned with death, and afterlife or no afterlife, are people who don't know what to do with THIS life. Otherwise they would be too busy experiencing the fascination of the present moment. Discover THIS life, THIS person (yourself) and the rest will take care of itself (all I can say about that for now).

During the moments that one thinks about death and after life possiblities (or lack of them), they cease to LIVE in THIS life. Who needs to die if your not living in this life anyway. Who cares? Only when one drops the question do they begin living again. Note: Living is not to be confused with existence. We always exist until we die, we just usually don't LIVE during this existence.

It's kind of like our desires, fears... put us to sleep. We sleep walk. If you wonder about death, you are sleepwalking. and you are having a nightmare. Too bad. I'd like to say "wish I could help", but I really don't wish that because I can't help. One can only help themselves. Good luck.

davros4269

haverbob,

I agree with you to a point - live life, i'm all for that!

But I think _how_ you live your life depends on death what one thinks will happen after. there are many practical examples. If you have sex before marriage, will this mark your cosmic score-card and will you have to deal with this after death? You can see the dilema.

I think of death as a biological fact. So is the fear of death; isn't it our most primal fear? I'm not sure I like the idea of accepting death somehow. I don't really like any form of delusion, unless it's controlled, like getting drunk, perhaps

Finding a way to extend life would conquer our most basic bilogical fear. conquering the _fear_ of death is about as worthwhile as, in some sense, as living a celibate life.

Understand, that I don't live in constant daily fear of death, because although chance could see any of us go at any time, most including me consider that I probably have quite a few years left.

Davros

haverbob

Davros,


I know whre you are coming from and i understand (at least i used to understand), but you are still missing the fundamental point. Probably my fault. Awareness or awakening is the easiest, most simplistic and yet most difficult concept to explain (because we trick ourselves)

Let's take your quote:
Yes if you think about death. Suppose no one did? Suppose they were too busy being fascinated by the present moment, and the onwe after that and after that....? If one is concentrating on the present moment (or some would say "living in the present moment"), then how could you think about death? As soon as one thinks about death, they are now considering the future and therefore distracted from the fascination of the present moment.

Alot of people get this "consequences for your actions" stuff from the bible. Consider the following 2 words "everlasting" and "eternal" Everlasting means it lasts forever (which denotes time). Eternal means "without time". It's funny because the bible uses the term "eternal damnation" or "eternal life". Sleepwalking people (almost everyone, especially Christians) misinterpret those statements to mean "everlasting damnation" and "everlasting life". But that's not what was said. It's "eternal damnation". Eternal life is living in the present moment. When you cease to carry the past and future in to the present, what else is there but the present moment (which goes on and on and on...).? When you carry the past and future in to the present you haved damned eternity or eternal life or "timeless life". You become a sleepwalker with opinions (and although you exist, you are not really LIVING).

Opinions are different from perception. Opinions put the good or bad or evil in to a circumstance when in reality it is none of those things. These, in turn cause fear or dislike. You have to have an opinion to have a negative opinion. Then the negative opinion causes the fear. Suppose one could have no opinions at all. Think it's impossible? I don't think an animal would say so (assuming they could talk) In fact, aren't we the only living things that have an opinion?

Consider pain and suffering (notice the expression uses AND and not OR. Very important. Pain will always exist, no way around that. But when does pain become suffering? When we form an opinion of pain. Correct? The suffering comes after the pain which is why it's pain AND suffering and why the phrase orders the words the way it does. So which is worse, the pain or the suffering? I think it's the suffering. Drop the opinion and there will still be pain, but there will never be suffering. This is what happens one one "wakes up".

As mentioned, we are sleepwalking because of the opinions that we create and apply. These keep us asleep and as mentioned, if your afraid or concerned about death, then you are having a nightmare. Wake up!! It's great. There is no such thing as suffering. Imagine never suffering again for the rest of your life. You can't do that if your sleepwalking. I can't help you to wake up, only you can do that by seeing your opinions for what they really are. They are your creation and they have nothing to do with reality. Can't go any further on this for now.

So the bible really means living moment by moment (not to be confused with day by day). But it's rare you will find anyone who figures this out. Eternal life or damnation is not an afterlife. If you have eternal life (timeless), who needs an afterlife? Sorry this stuff is really abstract but once you wake up, it will be as simple and evident as the nose on your face.

mnkbdky

I am only responding because you seem to not understand the challenge. Here is your response:

It is the second bolded section that is the problem. You say there is nothing that isn't accepted and verified by science. I beg to differ.

Is this claim/belief verified by science? Can you provide me with scientific evidence that this statement is true?

That is my challenge to you: Provide me or anyone with scientific evidence that proves it is silly to believe things without scientific evidence.

William Clifford once said a similar thing. He said "it is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" Your claim is a bit stronger in that you are saying "it is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe something with no [scientific] evidence."

Do you see the problem? There is no evidence for that belief.

This claim is self-refuting because if it is true it is incompatible with what it claims. The claim itself is a belief that cannot be supported by scientific evidence. Futhermore, it is self-destroying because it is an instance of what the claim says should not be believed.

The challenge is not to provide me with the truths that science has demonstrated. The challenge is to provide me with the evidence that the belief that it is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe something with no [scientific] evidence."

I am only frustate in that I am talking with people that don't seem to understand the import of what they are claiming. I am not frustrated in that I am losing the debate. I am frustrated in that the people with whom I am speaking don't even understand the debate.

It is not childish. The tactic is called parity. My opponent claims that it is wrong to believe things without evidence and asks me to provide him with such evidence for my belief that God exists. I return the challenge and ask him/her to provide me with evidence for the belief that it is true that one should only believe what one has evidence for. It is called parity. If the opponent cannot supply that evidence then the conversation is over. Why? Because the point has been demonstrated. It is false that one should only believe what one has evidence for.


Thanks,

--mnkbdky

soulofdarwin

Actually, aren't we presently expanding our knowledge of the mechanism of genetic decay? Perhaps someone in this forum can shed some light on this. It seems to me to be entirely possible that we will come to understand how to stop the process of aging and, perhaps, to even reverse that process. However, it seems equally likely that the developers of that technology will be disinclined to share it.

Of course, such a technology is not an antidote for death. We will yet have disease, war, homicide, accidents, natural disasters, and the like, so that the four horsemen will just keep on riding. Which just about guarantees that we will always have at least a few folks claiming that goddidit. At least we can take comfort in the knowledge that some things never change (now there's an immortal idea).