I'm not an atheist, and for reasons I never hear argued

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

And it would be the single biggest thing if it was actually true. I mean, that would totally turn around how we would perceive everything and how we would live our lives, so I don't see how you can say it wouldn't influence how we'd act.

How would it? I don't see how it would. Not for people like you & I anyway, & normal religious believers would continue to do as they are told, so it wouldn't change their behavior either. And specifically here I'm talking about nde, out of body, and consciousness being elsewhere besides an effect of the brain, so we don't get confused as to what we're talking about.

[TheRobin]

If there was life after death (and it could be proofen with good certainty) then death-threats (and so governments really) would become useless/powerless almost overnight. Helping the straving people would be pointless (as they'd be happier dead and in the afterlife). You would live your own life very differently, as there would be no limit to how long you'd exist, there would be no need for urgency in anything, as you've got time for all you want to do in the end. Also everyone could just go on a huge spendthrift and then suicide themselves once the bill comes (since they would still be alive anyway afterwards and supposedly in a lot less stresful place in terms of survival etc.)The question of whether you'd want to stay and do something here or "move on" would be a very important one before every new undertaking. Also assuming a less stressful (and presumable) more happy afterlife, what WOULD there be to stay for in comparison? If only say 30% just went and killed themselves, that would alos mean a lot less productivity here on earth and less life quality. Also how many people would still want to have children then?These are just a few things that come to mind.

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

Remember that most people are religious, believe there is an after life, & believe they have sufficient evidence to support that, & your scenario is widely not the case. If it were proven with certainty to all atheists, I don't think moral atheists are that different from any other human in that they would find their own purpose, meaning, or reasons to stay alive this lifetime; family, self knowledge, relationships, hobbies/art/work, education, creating a better world, etc.

 

To stay on topic we are discussing the existence of an after life, not the quality there of, so no we can't assume a less stressful & more happy after life.

[dsayers]

Remember that most people are religious, believe there is an after life, & believe they have sufficient evidence to support that

 

If they had sufficient evidence to support that, they wouldn't use the word "believe."

 

Besides, lack of proof is where they believe virtue is found. To prove that which requires faith would invalidate the whole thing.

 

Also, whether most people believe something or not doesn't alter the truth.

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

Also, whether most people believe something or not doesn't alter the truth.

of course it doesn't but I'm talking about how they behave, & they don't behave like theRobin's example.

[TheRobin]

Well, don't most have some sort of "if you kill yourself you go to hell"-thing in their belief anyway? Also I'd assume unconciously they don't truly belief it anyway (seeing how they react to tragedy and such. Like look at 9/11 as a gross example: How many Christians were happy, that people went to heaven there?)Also, I've never heard of a negative NDE, so assuming the afterlife would be less struggle is pretty much granted, from all the NDE's people seemed to have imo.

 

In general, peopel know it's bullshit to a large enough degree, that they don't act on it, but they ignore that knowledge to a degree, so they can keep hoping/wishing for something better as a method of not having to confront the problems that would cause in their life/community/relationships.But if an afterlife (and as a result a somewhat accuaret idea of it's quality) could be scientifically proven, then yes, I'd assume that would have a huge impact, precisely because people do act on facts rather than fiction.

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

Well, don't most have some sort of "if you kill yourself you go to hell"-thing in their belief anyway?

Superstitious Christians yes, or else they recognize the damage it will do to the people you know, not to mention how fucked up everything has to be to get there to the point where you're not having a good life and have given up trying to fix things.

Also I'd assume unconciously they don't truly belief it anyway (seeing how they react to tragedy and such. Like look at 9/11 as a gross example: How many Christians were happy, that people went to heaven there?)

Most are sad that tragedy happens, & rather than being happy, "hope & pray" that as many as possible went to heaven depending on their version of what they are supposed to believe or pray. Irrational I know but at least they don't want people to die. Only a radical minority would be happy about it.

Also, I've never heard of a negative NDE, so assuming the afterlife would be less struggle is pretty much granted, from all the NDE's people seemed to have imo.

I've heard of bad experiences, similar to descriptions of bad drug trips, where they come out of it wanting to be better people and treat people better, because what they experience seems to be a just punishment for how they have been treating people. But that's where the savior mythology steps in to tell Christians that they'll be saved from all that regardless.

In general, peopel know it's bullshit to a large enough degree, that they don't act on it, but they ignore that knowledge to a degree, so they can keep hoping/wishing for something better as a method of not having to confront the problems that would cause in their life/community/relationships.

You're still assuming it would cause all these problems & everybody would kill themselves for some reason if they "knew" there was an after life. They have to invent the savior mythology because they intuit that their psychological problems & guilt will carry over if they don't deal with those problems here. Weather it's legitimate guilt from violating the non aggression principle, or invented guilt from the clergy turning every other action under the sun into a sin, is another matter entirely.

But if an afterlife (and as a result a somewhat accuaret idea of it's quality) could be scientifically proven, then yes, I'd assume that would have a huge impact, precisely because people do act on facts rather than fiction.

I thought that we are going by this principle: that the more accurate humanity's knowledge & perspective of truth is (aka taxation is theft), the better life we can make for ourselves & the less we will aggress against others.Now you are saying in this example: if an afterlife did exist & was scientifically verified, that everyone acting on that knowledge of the truth would fuck up society, economics, relationships, & life in general. Seems like an inconsistency.

[TheRobin]

okay, I'm out. I don't think repeating what I say once more will do the trick and you start putting words in my mouth at the end (that the truth will somehow fuck up society), which is usually a sign to stop having a conversation (at least for me).

[Patrick Stephen Mangan]

If there was life after death (and it could be proofen with good certainty)

...

Also assuming a less stressful (and presumable) more happy afterlife, what WOULD there be to stay for in comparison? If only say 30% just went and killed themselves, that would alos mean a lot less productivity here on earth and less life quality.

... they ignore that knowledge to a degree, so they can keep hoping/wishing for something better as a method of not having to confront the problems that would cause in their life/community/relationships.

[Tenko]

Attempting to prove that God exists, or to disprove an argument that He does not exist, by attempting to prove the validity of contradictions, or the existence of self-contradictory things, will get nowhere. Neither can it be done by separating God's traits from boolean values of true or false. One cannot hide from logic and reason by declaring that logic and reason do not penetrate God, and one cannot reserve the existence of a self-contradictory God likewise. If one wants to step into the arena, one has to be willing to use a sword. If one wants to debate, one has to be willing to use logic. Logic traveling one's way cannot be ignored, if one wants their logic to be heard.

 

Also, when attempting to disprove the existence of God using deductive reasoning, the only thing a logical analysis does is prove the non-existence of a self-contradictory god. If God exists, He would obviously have to be non-self-contradictory to exist, thus defeating the purpose of trying to disprove His existence using deductive logic.

 

It's not a matter of faith vs reason, because God employs no deceit. Reason is not the enemy of God; it is the enemy of evil. God is not the author of confusion. The serpent lies. Wisdom comes to us from reason, specifically from God's reason, and is supported by our reasoning when we apply it correctly without human error. If it's not a matter of faith vs reason, then who is the one lying while claiming that it is? That would be the serpent.

 

It's a matter of faith vs no faith. Reason can lead you only so far without all the pieces to the puzzle. With so few pieces as we have been given, reason can only construct a partial image at best, assuming no error during its construction.

The reasoning in the Bible is good enough a foundation for belief, but not every detail of every thing in heaven can fit into a book as we know books to be, even if it were a book the size of the Earth. Should one expect divine knowledge to arrive before one is expected to believe? And if so, how could all that knowledge be learned by one in only one lifetime? Don't setup impossible requirements for your faith, and then knock them down thus assuming the need for faith is also knocked down.

 

We are obviously creations. The universe screams out as a creation would; with all kinds of curiosities developing in every new being. With renewing cycles of birth and death, both microscopic and macroscopic. With the birth of the totally ignorant yet of perfect free will, like a sponge waiting to absorb something and grow. Need you know every single detail of places beyond your view before you believe there are such places? If we are creations, and if this universe is a creation, then it must have been created from somewhere, by someone (God). And it makes sense that creation has a purpose, and that the Creator would attempt to communicate that purpose to us by some means.

 

Are these solid deductive arguments proving beyond a doubt the existence of anything outside the universe? No. It's an attempt to show that ignorance does not equate to proof of non-existence. And just because the tools to relieve that ignorance are not present (we cannot see outside the universe), that does not logically lead to the conclusion that "an unprovable argument can be assumed to be false, and its opposite true, due to its [current] unprovability." If so, a thiest would only have to say that the non-existence of God is unprovable, therefore He must exist, or an athiest would only have to say that the existence of God is unprovable, therefore He must not exist.

 

Do you think there is a Creator? Do you believe in a soul? Are all the things around us eternal? Is there purpose to your life? Or do we just die and blink out of existence? I think the odds are that, more than likely, we are creations, our creation has purpose, and our life does not end with the death of the flesh.

 

Even if you're not religious or believing, would it be a total waste of time to spend some more reconsidering the words in the Bible from that perspective of, "perhaps it all really is a creation?" Even if you think nothing would come of it, it could at least be entertaining. Start with the new testament (King James Version - the public domain one). This is the new covenant (contract) offered by God to every single person who failed to fulfill the law of obedience from the old testament. And the law is done, as Jesus had said in the new testament, it is finished.

[dsayers]

"Their logic," "our reasoning," it's not up to us.

 

The reasoning in the Bible is good enough a foundation for belief

 

Absolutely not. Some of its claims are internally inconsistent.

 

We are obviously creations. The universe screams out as a creation would; with all kinds of curiosities developing in every new being.

 

A buddy of mine is an engineer for Ford. He's never created anything that went on to be more than the sum of its parts. That life is an emergent property of matter is not proof of creation at all. That matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and that the sum of all matter and energy is constant leaves no room for creationism.

 

not every detail of every thing in heaven can fit into a book as we know books to be

 

Then a deity would not be all powerful if they were bound by real world constraints.

 

You went on to speak about faith as if its necessary, which begs the question. Faith simply means, "I believe because I want to believe." Like, "I had a dream about a sparrow," it has no use in a conversation between people who are bound by the objective world.

[Tenko]

I agree that when you percieve a contradiction you should either try to resolve it through a higher level of complexity, or by finding a different way of interpretation. If no logical resolution is found, the assertions must be placed on hold with a certain skepticism until they can make sense; Indefinitely if no sense ever comes from them. I'm with you there. And everyone determines how far they will go in examining anything.

 

What I'd like to ask is, how deeply have you tried to resolve these percieved contradictions before giving it up as nonsense? Have you tried imagining a more complex situation which could allow for the contradiction to resolve? Have you read other parts of the Bible which may seem irrelevant to the contradictions at first but might shine some new light on the problem? Have you stopped to think, maybe there's something I'm misinterpreting? Many people in distress from organized religion dismiss ancient wisdom in the quickest, easiest way possible, in order to disassociate themselves with the claimed obligations of institutions, or to just get away from their insanity and their marraige to the evil powers that be. One does not have to be a part of an evil institution to consider the existence of God. If you don't want to consider reexamining the word to try and find sense in it, for what reason is that? If the only reason is because the first glance produced some contradictions, I might say you may have given up too early.

 

I admitted that life from matter is not a deductive argument for creation, rather one element in an inductive argument. You illustrated more points for my induction. That the universe contains a fixed amount of parts which are at their core deterministic and unchangeable is another inductive hint for creation. With enough of these hints together, combined with total ineptitude to measure anything outside the universe to confirm one way or the other, one might just approach a best-case scenario from which faith is their only tool of advancement forward. How do you know what's out there? You can believe that they are out there, or you can wait for a message from them, or you can toss it over your shoulder and chalk it up to something forever unanswerable.

 

Such a strict interpretation of God's power as being capable of every possibility, including that which is not logically possible, is just a common belief which happens to be wrong. It's not actually described that way in the Bible. If you want to throw some quotes my way, I'd be glad to take a look at them. The truth is that these impossible traits are not really in the Bible, and that knocking down a self-contradictory [non-existent] god does nothing to the stability of the idea of an existing God.

 

Faith does not necessarily equal belief with no reason at all. Many people come to faith through induction and although it's not proof like deduction, it's a far cry from "I believe because I want to believe." Granted, lots of people are whimsical like that, but the real path makes no room for jumping about, or for making things up out of thin air.

[dsayers]

I agree that when you percieve a contradiction you should either try to resolve it through a higher level of complexity, or by finding a different way of interpretation.

 

Let us test that theory.

 

1) Gravity causes objects to be attracted.

2) Gravity causes objects to be repelled.

 

Please utilize the behaviors you described to reconcile this contradiction.

[Tenko]

Let us test that theory.

 

1) Gravity causes objects to be attracted.

2) Gravity causes objects to be repelled.

 

Please utilize the behaviors you described to reconcile this contradiction.

 

The mechanism which causes attraction also causes repulsion under different circumstances.

I just created a more complex theory which incorporates the same matter/energy into different behaviors using different circumstances.