Why are WE here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
su·per·sti·tion

sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif 
noun 1.a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2.a system or collection of such beliefs.

3.a custom or act based on such a belief.

4.irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

5.any blindly accepted belief or notion.
Click to expand...
I’ve just had another look at this, and it made me laugh out loud. Don’t you realise that item 4 is actually referring to religion as the superstition?
 
Neildown said:
That’s why people should read my post on the previous page. Though I as well must disagree largely with Mr. Sock, I find your statement a bit too generalized [forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you] - do you really think this represents ALL of Christianity or religion in general? Personally, but respectively, I think the viewpoint you’ve illustrated is hypocritical. If there is no such thing as God, and if we are the complete arbiters of our own purpose, “unnecessary damage” means nothing unless one wants it to - thus rendering your argument completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Individuals find individual value and purpose in many things, that doesn’t for one second imply that “unnecessary damage” can only be defined objectively by God. And if it were so, then we’d be in trouble, because “he” never defined it.
If I kill someone for the fun of it, it may be considered unnecessary, barbaric damage by someone else, but according to this line of thinking - as far as I can currently see - other people’s opinions don’t really matter if I’m convinced that it is purposeful to kill people for fun. Thus, it would almost seem unlawful to subdue someone with that mindset, despite the fact that most people nowadays hold murder as bad. Essentially it seems like it makes the individual a god unto himself - and I’d hate to see the results of that on a global scale.
Click to expand...
You’re completely representing secular morality - I’m really starting to believe that theists have some sort of blockage in their brain that renders them unable to see the flaws in such arguments. To spell it out: The two options aren’t “what God says”, and “what I, the individual, happen to fancy doing.” If you can’t see that, then you have no real business discussing the point.

Ironically, history is littered with cases of people killing people “because God told them to” - objectively no different from your heinous misrepresentation of secular morality. Is “God told me to do it” a reasonable defence? If you believe in God, why do you not believe that someone might murder someone else because God really did tell them to? Surely that person should go free unless someone can prove that they didn’t get a message from God?
 
wanstronian said:
su·per·sti·tion
Click to expand...
The **ominous **significance of a blindly accepted infallible belief (not based on logic or knowledge) is a perfect description of materialism which amounts to the worship of the magical power of purposeless particles to create absolutely everything that exists - apart from themselves, of course, because they obviously either popped into existence by themselves or they are inscrutable, eternal demigods but that is no problem whatsoever for individuals who stake everything on what they can see, hear, touch, smell and taste while surreptiously or unwittingly introducing their power of insight and reasoning into the proceedings! :bowdown:
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
It depends on what you mean. Enjoy or be joy filled?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5129VDGLOSL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01.jpg

Might be worth a read.

Life After Death: The Evidence

Is death the end? Or, as bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza argues, do the latest discoveries in physics and neuroscience, the most convincing philosophical deductions, and the most likely conclusions from anthropology and biology lend increasing credibility to the prospect of life after death?

Life After Death: The Evidence presents a reasoned, scientifically based case that life after death is more than possible, it is highly probable. Indeed it has far more evidence on its side than atheistic arguments about death marking our complete and utter extinction. In a stunning tour de force, D’Souza reveals:

How modern science lays the groundwork for a science-based belief in life after death
The distinctions between mind and brain—and why it is perfectly reasonable to assume that your immaterial consciousness can survive the dissolution of your material body
The great atheist philosopher who provided one of the most ingenious proofs for the likelihood of an afterlife
How the theory of evolution, far from undercutting the idea of life after death, supports it
The evidence of Near Death Experiences—what it tells us, what it doesn’t
Why the Christian view of the afterlife is the most compelling and best suits the evidence
What the probability of life after death means for our lives before death

Provocative, and combining a mastery of the arguments from philosophy, physics, and biology with an incisive analysis of how the world’s major religions have viewed the afterlife, D’Souza shows why we can expect that what Shakespeare called the “undiscovered country” will be discovered by us all.
Click to expand...
“Life after death: the evidence.” I haven’t clicked on the “Look inside,” but presumably one is greeted with a series of blank pages because, of course, there IS NO evidence of life after death. None at all. Zilch.

Apparently, D’Souza’s whole argument here is based on the oft-debunked premise of a universal moral code. Quite aside from the **demonstrable fact **that we don’t need an invisible puppet-master to make us good, such a hypothesis also has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of an afterlife.

So it’s total nonsense. As most of us have come to expect from D’Souza, who has a very skewed view of reality.
 
davidv said:
Post Robert Sock’s view is not based on Catholic teaching, in fact it is clearly at odds with it. So you conclusion “…damage religion causes” does not follow.
Click to expand...
My conclusion is not based solely on poor Robert’s self-loathing.
 
tonyrey said:
It must be horrible to be unaware that your entire interpretation of reality is based on substition, i.e. the unjustified assumption that rational beings are derived from that which is subhuman, substandard and** sub**terranean!
Click to expand...
What’s “substition?”

And you clearly have a very poor grasp of etymology if you believe that a “sub” prefix implies inferiority.

You’re a joke, mate.
Certainly not by atoms miraculously making themselves into masters of themselves who proceed to explain themselves as permutations of atoms… :whistle:
Click to expand...
So… how? If you’re so sure that (your horribly egregious, dishonest, fallacious misrepresentation of) naturalism is wrong, put your money where your mouth is. Tell us what really happened.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Who regards this life as merely a test? Where do I state that?

And how can this life be viewed as both a vale of tears and a source of joy and delight? Isn’t it better to see that we live in a miserable and corrupt world and postpone the joy and laughter to the Hereafter?
Click to expand...
Boy, are you going to be disappointed when you die.

Although actually you won’t, because you’ll be dead.
 
tonyrey said:
The **ominous **significance of a blindly accepted infallible belief (not based on logic or knowledge) is a perfect description of materialism which amounts to the worship of the magical power of purposeless particles to create absolutely everything that exists - apart from themselves, of course, because they obviously either popped into existence by themselves or they are inscrutable, eternal demigods but that is no problem whatsoever for individuals who stake everything on what they can see, hear, touch, smell and taste while surreptiously or unwittingly introducing their power of insight and reasoning into the proceedings! :bowdown:
Click to expand...
Look, Tony. Please try and understand what you are talking about before you try and discuss it. You clearly don’t know what materialism is.If you’re going to decide to hate something, at least find out about it first. Otherwise, as you’re doing now, you just make yourself look like a total idiot.

Are you aware of how dishonest your tactics are? Or do you genuinely believe that everything you say is sensible? I only ask because, if it’s the latter, it’ll be impossible to get through to you using reason. If it’s the former, there’s always the chance that you can decide to reform and become a more rational person. You need to develop some critical thinking facilities, and quick sharp.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I backed up my position using prayer (Post #100), a biblical verse (Post #100) and the writing of a great saint (Post #110). If you wish to refute me, I think you would need to address my sources.
Click to expand...
  1. Trust and confidence that Mary is our life, our sweetness, our hope and our loving Mother is sufficient to give us overwhelming joy throughout our life on this earth.
  2. “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” doesn’t mean that you must hate yourself. Otherwise it would be absurd to tell us to love our neighbour **as **ourselves. We certainly don’t make them joyful by telling them “We were never meant to enjoy this life”. Should we tell them they should be miserable like the Puritans?
  3. Canonisation doesn’t imply that every statement by a saint is infallibly true. Many of the saints, like St Francis, were overjoyed by the beauty of nature which glorifies God…
 
You said:
How do you know nothing happens after you are dead?
Click to expand...
Because it’s been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that consciousness and all its facets are a product of brain function. When you die, your brain stops functioning. Your consciousness therefore stops and you, as a person, cease to exist. It’s reasonable to assume that a non-existent person can’t experience emotion.
 
wanstronian said:
The
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
You clearly don’t know what materialism is.If you’re going to decide to hate something, at least find out about it first.
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
Otherwise, as you’re doing now, you just make yourself look like a total idiot.
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
Are you aware of how dishonest your tactics are?
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
Or do you genuinely believe that everything you say is sensible?
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
I only ask because, if it’s the latter, it’ll be impossible to get through to you using reason.
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
If it’s the former, there’s always the chance that you can decide to reform and become a more rational person.
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
You need to develop some critical thinking facilities, and quick sharp.
Click to expand...
  1. Irrelevant.
Please confine yourself to the topic:

Is materialism based on faith in the power of purposeless particles to create absolutely everything that exists - apart from themselves?
Click to expand...
 
wanstronian said:
Because it’s been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that consciousness and **all **its facets are a product of brain function.
Click to expand...
How do you** know** this?
When you die, your brain stops functioning. Your consciousness therefore stops and you, as a person, cease to exist. It’s reasonable to assume that a non-existent person can’t experience emotion.
Click to expand...
How do you **know **a person ceases to exist?
 
wanstronian said:
No, because it’s invented by a creationist to try and make his woo look like science. It’s an arbitrary number

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/dishonest_dembskithe_universal_1.php
Click to expand...
Arbitrary?

Uh no. - the bound is a calculation of all the computational resources of the universe since its beginning.

An atheist will not like it when a targeted search comes up higher then the UPB because they know what it means to their own faith.

But I welcome what you think the bound number should be.
 
wanstronian said:
“Life after death: the evidence.” I haven’t clicked on the “Look inside,” but presumably one is greeted with a series of blank pages because, of course, there IS NO evidence of life after death. None at all. Zilch.

Apparently, D’Souza’s whole argument here is based on the oft-debunked premise of a universal moral code. Quite aside from the **demonstrable fact **that we don’t need an invisible puppet-master to make us good, such a hypothesis also has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of an afterlife.

So it’s total nonsense. As most of us have come to expect from D’Souza, who has a very skewed view of reality.
Click to expand...
Another book reviewer that says it is nonsense without reading it. You are in good company with Ayala and his review of Signature in the Cell. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top