Life after death?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What I asked was, had you bothered to read, what do atheists base their moral code on if not some religious basis? Nothing to do with God.

It's a fair question and in fairness some have attempted to answer it to their credit.

As you noted many people have answered you, myself included, and some of them have done it quite patiently, articulately and openly. You have simply skipped over the posts and not replied to any of them in favor of going on an anti atheist rant in general, and on an anti nozzferrahhtoo rant in particular.

This is a discussion forum as I keep reminding you and discussion goes two ways. Rather than driveling on in an anti atheist empty rhetoric why not engage in replying to some of the answers you have had so far, ask questions about some of them, understand them better, see where they are coming from.

I for one base my morality on a socio-democratic application of the golden rule concept. I am _more_ than happy to elaborate on what that means to me and how I see it working if you wish to engage in actual conversation rather than soap boxing, throwing toys out of the pram, and wanton straw man generalizations about atheists as a whole.

krudler

The idea of what happens your consciousness is pretty fascinating, "heaven" seems terrifying to me, eternal awareness? no thanks. I'd much rather not exist at all.

RobbieTheRobber

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Another one incapable of reading. I never said that there has to be a God to have morals.

What I asked was, had you bothered to read, what do atheists base their moral code on if not some religious basis? Nothing to do with God.

It's a fair question and in fairness some have attempted to answer it to their credit.

If the words of religious texts are not the words of a god/gods then what exactly is it that religious people base their morality on?

krudler

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As you noted many people have answered you, myself included, and some of them have done it quite patiently, articulately and openly. You have simply skipped over the posts and not replied to any of them in favor of going on an anti atheist rant in general, and on an anti nozzferrahhtoo rant in particular.

This is a discussion forum as I keep reminding you and discussion goes two ways. Rather than driveling on in an anti atheist empty rhetoric why not engage in replying to some of the answers you have had so far, ask questions about some of them, understand them better, see where they are coming from.

I for one base my morality on a socio-democratic application of the golden rule concept. I am _more_ than happy to elaborate on what that means to me and how I see it working if you wish to engage in actual conversation rather than soap boxing, throwing toys out of the pram, and wanton straw man generalizations about atheists as a whole.

There seems to be a trend in the OP's type of poster, ask a question, get reasonable well thought out counterpoint, ignore said points and go off on one accusing people of ignoring the questions they just answered in a rational manner. It's a bizarre mentality tbh.

In answer to what I base my morality on? not being a dick basically. How I was raised, my background and where I grew up, being aware of right and wrong. Don't need god for any of this.

Kermit.de.frog

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On THIS thread you asked a question then got offended that people actually answered it. Hardly clever kid.

Correction - interpretations have been given not answers. As for offence - no. I'm not offended by anything I have seen here.

sbsquarepants

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it does.

But is any of it true, that is the important question.

Exactly. The easter bunny offers chocolate eggs, atheism doesn't. Some Nigerian bloke keeps offering me 16 million dollars. What something offers has nothing to do with how true it is!

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What I asked was, had you bothered to read, what do atheists base their moral code on if not some religious basis? Nothing to do with God.
.

What does a puppy base it's morals on? Why don't dogs just go around biting people, or each other? It's not for fear of devine retribution, cos as we all know all dogs go to heaven, Disney said so!
All animals have an inbuilt moral compass - it's no good for the survival of any species to just go around indiscriminately harming others.

Kermit.de.frog

krudler wrote: »

There seems to be a trend in the OP's type of poster, ask a question, get reasonable well thought out counterpoint, ignore said points and go off on one accusing people of ignoring the questions they just answered in a rational manner. It's a bizarre mentality tbh.

What reasonable well thought out counterpoint would that be? There has not been any. I have not ignored anything incidentally. And incidentally a counterpoint to what exactly?

You don't have to read the thread. Plenty going on elsewhere.

kylith

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Can't they base it on Not Being a Twat??

I've never murdered anyone, and I don't intend to. Why? Because I know murdering someone is wrong. You don't need to have God or anything else to base that on, you just need to have empathy.

The thing is, the really scary thing, is that it is perfectly acceptable, nay mandated to murder people under the rules of many religions, provided that they are gay, don't believe in the same god as you, are a woman who has had sex with someone she's not married to, or under several other rules. And then they have the gall to say we have no morality when their own god demands that they kill people just for disagreeing with them!

What the absolute frak?

Corkgirl210

nc19 wrote: »

Where did I say there was evidence???

btw, what evidence is there to support any theory about what happens after death????

PLENTY!!! ********************************

Walk into any spiritualist or spiritist church and you will be given some evidence by mediums..
Go experience past life regression/hypnois and make up your own mind.. Or read books from the likes of Brian Weiss/Dolores Cannon to look at their past life/future life evidence..
Go to a physical seance where you will be given irrefutable proof....

fizzypish

kylith wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else, but I base mine on 'not being a dick'.

Spot on. Try to knock as much crack out of life while alive without interfering with everyone else crack. No need to worry about death. More than likely your consciousness will cease to exist. There won't be blackness, there will just be nothing and a nothing that you won't even be aware of because you don't exist anymore.

RobbieTheRobber

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

PLENTY!!! ********************************

Walk into any spiritualist or spiritist church and you will be given some evidence by mediums..
Go experience past life regression/hypnois and make up your own mind.. Or read books from the likes of Brian Weiss/Dolores Cannon to look at their past life/future life evidence..
Go to a physical seance where you will be given irrefutable proof....

:D:D:D:D:D

krudler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What reasonable well thought out counterpoint would that be? There has not been any. I have not ignored anything incidentally. And incidentally a counterpoint to what exactly?

You don't have to read the thread. Plenty going on elsewhere.

I dont even think you know what your own thread is about anymore, I just answered your question. What stops me from killing people? knowing it's wrong. That's it. I dont believe in god so an afterlife is no value to me. Are you really suggesting without a fear of a higher power we'd all just be rampaging around murdering everyone we see?

krudler

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

PLENTY!!! ********************************

Walk into any spiritualist or spiritist church and you will be given some evidence by mediums..
Go experience past life regression/hypnois and make up your own mind.. Or read books from the likes of Brian Weiss/Dolores Cannon to look at their past life/future life evidence..
Go to a physical seance where you will be given irrefutable proof....

If by evidence you mean, y'know, bullshit, then yes there's plenty of that.

The Backwards Man

If I end up anywhere with any of you lot I'm coming straight fcuking back.

Corkgirl210

krudler wrote: »

If by evidence you mean, y'know, bullshit, then yes there's plenty of that.

Take it you are well uneducated when it comes to these types of matters! :eek:

Mr.Micro

Life after death? No, dead is dead.

nc19

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Someone asking for my input on something constitutes an organised pursuit? If thats relatively organized in your world view I would hate to see how you run your life

But nice out on replying to anything I actually said in most of my posts



Exactly. You are expressing yours. I gave you mine. Only one of us appears bothered by the other person having done so though. You might want to dwell on that for a moment.



Good life lesson then. Often when you express an opinion in life.... people sometimes go "Oh really? What makes you think that?".



My point exactly. There is none. We simply have no evidence that there is anything after death. None. Nadda. Nichts. Nothing. Feck all. Diddly squat.

We do however have much evidence linking human consciousness to the brain.

So when ALL evidence we do have suggests the two things are inextricably linked and NO evidence we have suggests the possibility of a disconnect.... you can probably imagine if you try hard why I go one way and not the other.

One does not need 100% conclusive proof to notice that if given choices X and Y that all the evidence points towards X so far and no evidence points towards Y so far.

Oh, I see now. You're one of them people. Pfft

I am not in the slightest bothered by your opinion, just taken aback a bit by the tone and condesending nature of it.

I would agree with your opinion in a large part. My 'opinion' was more of a hope hence why I typed /hope

while it is most likely based on science and our understanding of it at present that there is nothing after death where is the harm in hoping?


The whole point of a belief is that it is a belief and therefore not necessarily grounded in fact nor does it have to be.


Ignored btw

krudler

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

Take it you are well uneducated when it comes to these types of matters! :eek:

Mediums? Educated enough to know they're nothing but scam artists. Nobody is psychic, if they were they'd willingly prove it under measured and clinical studies, but since nobody has and are more willing to prey on the vunerable and grieving to extort what money they can from them, I'll call bullsh1t until the cows come home.

nc19

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

PLENTY!!! ********************************

Walk into any spiritualist or spiritist church and you will be given some evidence by mediums..
Go experience past life regression/hypnois and make up your own mind.. Or read books from the likes of Brian Weiss/Dolores Cannon to look at their past life/future life evidence..
Go to a physical seance where you will be given irrefutable proof....

How do you let someone know you find what they say comical on the internet again?

oh, thats right, LOL

im LOLing at your irrefutable prove.

apparently the bible is irrefutable prove of god and the koran is irrefutable prove also. Im sure Scientologists have some irrefutable prove too........lol


everything you suggest is just for weak minded people imo. These people yoy mention, are they benefitting from your shortsightedness per chance?

TwoShedsJackson

nc19 wrote: »

Oh, I see now. You're one of them people. Pfft

I am not in the slightest bothered by your opinion, just taken aback a bit by the tone and condesending nature of it.

I would agree with your opinion in a large part. My 'opinion' was more of a hope hence why I typed /hope

while it is most likely based on science and our understanding of it at present that there is nothing after death where is the harm in hoping?


The whole point of a belief is that it is a belief and therefore not necessarily grounded in fact nor does it have to be.


Ignored btw

There's no harm in hoping at all, but religions are using this hope and faith to try and influence matters in the here and now. That's causing problems for people who do not subscribe to these beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Correction - interpretations have been given not answers.

You were given answers. Relabeling them does not make them go away. As I said you would do better to discuss in a two way fashion those answers and learn more about them and see where people are coming from.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have not ignored anything incidentally.

Except the majority of this thread it seems. You harp on with the idea atheists have nothing to base their morality on while all the while ignoring them telling you what they are basing it on.

You not liking answers does not mean they are not answers.

nc19 wrote: »

Oh, I see now. You're one of them people. Pfft

So you are choosing to join the OP in dismissive ad hominem one liners used to cover your refusal to respond with substance to what others have said?

nc19 wrote: »

I am not in the slightest bothered by your opinion, just taken aback a bit by the tone and condesending nature of it.

One sad thing about textual forums such as this is that readers tend to assign tone to posts that is not actually there. Or use their imagined tone to avoid actually answering anything in those posts.

nc19 wrote: »

while it is most likely based on science and our understanding of it at present that there is nothing after death where is the harm in hoping?

There is no harm in ANY emotion in my opinion. Even hate and anger. It is what one DOES with their emotions that good and bad results come from. There is nothing wrong with hope. But many people use that hope to waste this life as their eye is on an after life. An after life there is NO reason to think anyone is going to get.

And that is truely tragic. It becomes exponentially more tragic when people do this on behalf of others..... such as the aforementioned parents that watch their children die painfully of easily treated diseases..... because they "hope" their lack of medical intervention is pleasing to god and these children will live a much happier after life due to it.

NO emotion is bad in and of itself. What we do with it however can be.

nc19 wrote: »

The whole point of a belief is that it is a belief and therefore not necessarily grounded in fact nor does it have to be.

Speak for yourself. I am not currently aware of holding any belief that is not grounded in substantiation. Nor am I capable of doing so. If there is no reason to believe X I can not simply flick a switch and CHOOSE to believe X.

If YOU can then well done, but I certainly can not. The lability of your credulity is not something I share.

Joe prim

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The fact is, whether atheists like it or not, the vast majority across the world take their code from a religion and act accordingly. I don't believe many of them would be satisfied by nothingness.

It's a point often ignored by those that preach atheism and such. I'm not religious, far from it, but I recognise this issue and the reality is that the theory of nothing after death does leave a void and something has to fill it. Simply living and no aspiration to something better afterward won't bind society together or make people act good in my opinion.

Look at the crime rate in Ireland now compared to 40 years a go for example. Some would say life was worse in Ireland then but others would say life was safer and better for it under a more catholic and religious country. I do agree more often than not.

You've summed up the whole source and purpose of religion(s) (at least the ones that tout an "afterlife") right there.i.e many people find the concept of non-existence at best puzzling and at worst terrifying, and therefore throughout history, we have invented religions to comfort us with the thought of an afterlife, without the slightest shred of evidence .If you want to know about "moral compasses". look up Stephen Fry's talk on Humanism on Youtube, it's a bit glib, but as good a summary of why we don't need religion to prevent us from eating each other as your'e likely to find.May your god go with you!

Terrlock

Life after death, absolutely, it's the 2nd death people should be worried about.

To be Born - to live and then to die and cease to exist - what's the point in that. It would make everything that happens utterly pointless.

Maximus Alexander

Terrlock wrote: »

To be Born - to live and then to die and cease to exist - what's the point in that. It would make everything that happens utterly pointless.

The problem is that the universe isn't under any obligation to have a point to it.

Corkgirl210

krudler wrote: »

Mediums? Educated enough to know they're nothing but scam artists. Nobody is psychic, if they were they'd willingly prove it under measured and clinical studies, but since nobody has and are more willing to prey on the vunerable and grieving to extort what money they can from them, I'll call bullsh1t until the cows come home.

Many not educated enough to know about scientific testing that does go on then?

There are many many books written on the scientific facts based from psychic experiments.. I would challenge you to read Arthur Conan Doyles the history of spiritualism ... he was a dedicated skeptic who set out to disprove life after death.. but found nothing but evidence so became an avid supporter of the spiritualist movement.

Also many do offer up their time to undergo testing.. some even made it their life long ambition. But for every supporter there is a skeptic so it will continue to be debated until people actually come out from behind their cloak of fear and have an open mind to see the other side of the argument..

I aint afraid of no ghosts!
I was once though.. until I challenged my beliefs and actually went to the trouble of testing these theories out myself..

krudler

Terrlock wrote: »

Life after death, absolutely, it's the 2nd death people should be worried about.

To be Born - to live and then to die and cease to exist - what's the point in that. It would make everything that happens utterly pointless.

Who says life has to have a point?

Maximus Alexander

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

I would challenge you to read Arthur Conan Doyles the history of spiritualism ... he was a dedicated skeptic who set out to disprove life after death.. but found nothing but evidence so became an avid supporter of the spiritualist movement.

Arthur Conan Doyle believed the Cottingley Fairies were real, yet the perpetrators later came out and revealed it had been a hoax. I wouldn't be putting too much faith in what he believed.

krudler

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

Many not educated enough to know about scientific testing that does go on then?

There are many many books written on the scientific facts based from psychic experiments.. I would challenge you to read Arthur Conan Doyles the history of spiritualism ... he was a dedicated skeptic who set out to disprove life after death.. but found nothing but evidence so became an avid supporter of the spiritualist movement.

Also many do offer up their time to undergo testing.. some even made it their life long ambition. But for every supporter there is a skeptic so it will continue to be debated until people actually come out from behind their cloak of fear and have an open mind to see the other side of the argument..

I aint afraid of no ghosts!
I was once though.. until I challenged my beliefs and actually went to the trouble of testing these theories out myself..

What evidence? like fairy photographs?

Tony EH

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Arthur Conan Doyle believed the Cottingley Fairies were real, yet the perpetrators later came out and revealed it had been a hoax. I wouldn't be putting too much faith in what he believed.

Also, he died in 1930.

We've moved on...thank fuck

sbsquarepants

Terrlock wrote: »

Life after death, absolutely, it's the 2nd death people should be worried about.

To be Born - to live and then to die and cease to exist - what's the point in that. It would make everything that happens utterly pointless.

This in my opinion is the kind of fúcked up, nonsensical thinking that has allowed religion to gain the strangle hold it has on the world.
There is no point - why should there be?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

why does there have to be some "point" to your life? There's no rational thought behind "life after death exists because I don't like the thought that it doesn't", that's just ego.

You're carrying around three pounds of the most incredible living matter in the known universe in your pointless little skull. It's simultaneously creating and perceiving an entire consciousness and reality for you. You have empathy and love and literature and music, flippin sunrises and walks in the rain and puppies and all that shít. Isn't that enough? Just because it's temporary doesn't mean it's not amazing and wonderful, and just because it IS amazing and wonderful it doesn't at all follow that it has to go on forever.

ETA: basically y'all need Buddha but that's a whole nother can of worms probably

krudler

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Arthur Conan Doyle believed the Cottingley Fairies were real, yet the perpetrators later came out and revealed it had been a hoax. I wouldn't be putting too much faith in what he believed.

He also thought Houdini was a genuine magician with real powers, even though Houdini showed him how he did his illusions.

nc19

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you are choosing to join the OP in dismissive ad hominem one liners used to cover your refusal to respond with substance to what others have said?

One sad thing about textual forums such as this is that readers tend to assign tone to posts that is not actually there. Or use their imagined tone to avoid actually answering anything in those posts.



There is no harm in ANY emotion in my opinion. Even hate and anger. It is what one DOES with their emotions that good and bad results come from. There is nothing wrong with hope. But many people use that hope to waste this life as their eye is on an after life. An after life there is NO reason to think anyone is going to get.

And that is truely tragic. It becomes exponentially more tragic when people do this on behalf of others..... such as the aforementioned parents that watch their children die painfully of easily treated diseases..... because they "hope" their lack of medical intervention is pleasing to god and these children will live a much happier after life due to it.

NO emotion is bad in and of itself. What we do with it however can be.



Speak for yourself. I am not currently aware of holding any belief that is not grounded in substantiation. Nor am I capable of doing so. If there is no reason to believe X I can not simply flick a switch and CHOOSE to believe X.

If YOU can then well done, but I certainly can not. The lability of your credulity is not something I share.

I feel from aggressively you are responded to everyone and from the context of your other posts that you dont believe in god and think less of people who do and think I do because I hope there is something after death.

I am the least religious person you could meet. I still would hope that death is not the end no matter how much science says otherwise.


in terms of you not being capable of hope, what about your kids future? I have a child and I hope the best for them through their life. Do you not hope the best for your kids/nephews/nieces/relatives???

have you never said 'I hope that rain stops soon so I can X and Y'

Oh, and I thought I ignored you.......

Corkgirl210

everything you suggest is just for weak minded people imo. These people yoy mention, are they benefiting from your shortsightedness per chance?[/QUOTE]

not one bit..

Funny how people have lots of opinions about something they have not experienced? (So unless you have driven a porche then your views on what a porche can do or what it can provide are somewhat invalid.. )

However, that is my opinion and I completely respect yours...

krudler

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

everything you suggest is just for weak minded people imo. These people yoy mention, are they benefiting from your shortsightedness per chance?

not one bit..

Funny how people have lots of opinions about something they have not experienced? (So unless you have driven a porche then your views on what a porche can do or what it can provide are somewhat invalid.. )

However, that is my opinion and I completely respect yours...

You mean like mediums claiming to speak to the dead? :pac:

Corkgirl210

krudler wrote: »

He also thought Houdini was a genuine magician with real powers, even though Houdini showed him how he did his illusions.

Yes & spiritualists would agree with this also... They hate the imposters too...

However, the main point was that based on ALL the evidence given.. he came a believer...

bb1234567

Marcos Fit Rehearsal wrote: »

why does there have to be some "point" to your life? There's no rational thought behind "life after death exists because I don't like the thought that it doesn't", that's just ego.

You're carrying around three pounds of the most incredible living matter in the known universe in your pointless little skull. It's simultaneously creating and perceiving an entire consciousness and reality for you. You have empathy and love and literature and music, flippin sunrises and walks in the rain and puppies and all that shít. Isn't that enough? Just because it's temporary doesn't mean it's not amazing and wonderful, and just because it IS amazing and wonderful it doesn't at all follow that it has to go on forever.

ETA: basically y'all need Buddha but that's a whole nother can of worms probably

Life isnt amazing and wonderful for a lot of people

Ave Sodalis

I've found in my own experience, that's it's generally people who are afraid of death that believe in a life after death. People who need something outside themselves to live for. A lot of people aren't content enough with their own person, and feel the need to have something external to justify their actions.

It's a pity, because humans in themselves are incredible. They're just so full of rubbish, they can't see it...

krudler

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

Yes & spiritualists would agree with this also... They hate the imposters too...

However, the main point was that based on ALL the evidence given.. he came a believer...

What evidence though? he was fooled by a famous hoax and a magician, that's not evidence. Anyone can claim something as "evidence" but unless it's tested and proven as such it isn't, simple as that.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

bb1234567 wrote: »

Life isnt amazing and wonderful for a lot of people

That's a given, but I'm not sure I see your point.

Ave Sodalis

bb1234567 wrote: »

Life isnt amazing and wonderful for a lot of people

Yeah, life can be a bit rubbish for some people. It doesn't take away from the fact the life, in itself, is amazing and wonderful. The very fact we exist... the odds are incredibly small and yet, here we are, complex build and complex nature and all. I think that's what electro is getting at.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I've been watching too much Neil Degrasse Tyson.

House of Blaze

Of course it would be lovely to think that the suffering that occurs in this life is just a preamble before the main event so to speak, and that our struggles have value and meaning. But if you ask me, the belief that it doesn't should really act as a better motivator for the people of the world to treat each other better and try to make all of our lives on this plane as happy comfortable as possible.

Shame it doesn't really work like that though.

The One Who Knocks

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course we know.

Science doesn't tell us exactly how 3 pounds of brain generates a self-conscious mind, but we can see how damage to the brain affects the mind: localised damage affects parts of the mind, and severe damage damages it severely.

If your mind in the afterlife can see, and recognize others, and remember, why does damage to a small part of your brain cause you to go blind, or stop recognizing faces, or forget?

There is absolutely no reason in the world to think killing the brain will somehow detach a mind from the physical realm and send it to magic land. It's a fairy tale, a ghost story. We know better.

You can't prove we don't have souls just as I can't prove we do.

Who’s to say that the physical interactions of neurons and delicate chemical balances in our brains are not just the consequence of a more subtle, energetic process? Perhaps our brain is merely an organic computer, and our soul is the user who sits behind it and makes it work.

Son Of A Vidic

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Life after death?

Haven't a clue and if I could answer that with undisputable certainty, I'd probably be a very rich man.

Ave Sodalis

Marcos Fit Rehearsal wrote: »

I've been watching too much Neil Degrasse Tyson.

I love that man. Him, and Brian Cox... If we could have Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox and Alan Watts in the same room as me, my life (for want of a better phrase) would be complete.

House of Blaze

Marcos Fit Rehearsal wrote: »

I've been watching too much Neil Degrasse Tyson.

He's a king!

Did you see cosmos yeah?

Class!

krudler

House of Blaze wrote: »

Of course it would be lovely to think that the suffering that occurs in this life is just a preamble before the main event so to speak, and that our struggles have value and meaning. But if you ask me, the belief that it doesn't should really act as a better motivator for the people of the world to treat each other better and try to make all of our lives on this plane as happy comfortable as possible.

Shame it doesn't really work like that though.

To be honest I find the idea of suffering in this life to be happy in the next a truly abhorrent concept.

Maximus Alexander

Marcos Fit Rehearsal wrote: »

I've been watching too much Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Does not compute.

faceman

Afterlife?

It's just a violet light and a hum.