Meaning of life with dfeo: Do you believe in some sort of Deity / God / Afterlife?

nozzferrahhtoo

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Fair enough but you're still believing in fairy tales. That tells me someone is not very bright.

As I said above, I genuinely do not believe it does tell you that. That would be your own narrative and not theirs. Take Kenneth Miller for example, one of the heroes of the Dover Trials in keeping creationism out of schools.

He is a devout catholic and he is anything but "not very bright". He is very intelligent, very quick witted, and has on many occasions in his written and spoken word made me look at things in an entirely new light, in an entirely new direction.

Of all the people I have met personally and communicated with online, he is very bright indeed. More so than any lecturer on any subject I myself have had.

And what of Isaac Newton who, eventually when he he hit the personal limits of what his Calculus and Physics could tell him, said the variances in his equations must be explained by the constant minute corrections from a divine arbiter? Are we to suggest Newton was not very bright?

Or what of the art world where quite a lot of people turn out to be religious too? They are not bright? I was only this morning listening to Astral Weeks. The author and composer of that music is very religious, but I never suspected how bright he was when writing it.

Nah I think what we are risking is a simple ingroup-outgroup partisan mentality of "anyone who agrees with me is ok, anyone who does not is stupid" and that is neither A) accurate in this case or conducive to rational and reasoned discourse between the groups.

But do not get me wrong. SOME religious people seem to have a religiosity born entirely of stupidity or ignorance of fact. This very forum has a few of them, just check out the "origin of specious nonsense" thread for one of our more regular examples. But I would merely warn against extrapolating from them to a generalization of religious people as a whole. It will do nothing of benefit, and merely serve to make you look bigotted and judgmental and worse in the eyes of people who in every other way actually share your position.

AudreyHepburn

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Lol

Very intelligent response there, well done.

GerryDerpy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And what of Isaac Newton who, eventually when he he hit the personal limits of what his Calculus and Physics could tell him, said the variances in his equations must be explained by the constant minute corrections from a divine arbiter? Are we to suggest Newton was not very bright?

While I agree with you in general, I think you're being harsh on old Isaac. We are standing on his shoulders. I would be shocked if Newton believed in God if he was alive today. The gaps in his understanding would be a lot smaller and therefore he would be less likely to explain it as the work of a supernatural being.

TerrorFirmer

The poll is very narrow minded and focuses entirely on the textbook catholic idea of heaven. "Do you believe there is something after death" is a much better question to ask, I think.

Tigger

GerryDerpy wrote: »

While I agree with you in general, I think you're being harsh on old Isaac. We are standing on his shoulders. I would be shocked if Newton believed in God if he was alive today. The gaps in his understanding would be a lot smaller and therefore he would be less likely to explain it as the work of a supernatural being.

he was also smart enough not to rock the boat
no point in it

Pac1Man

Nobody knows what will happen.

Vojera

I don't believe in a God / Deity / Afterlife

I want to believe in an afterlife. Maybe it doesn't exist, but it makes me feel better to believe that some day I'll be reunited with those I have lost. And if it's not real, well I won't know, will I? I'll be dead.

Do I believe in God? I don't know. If there is a divine something or other out there, I don't think the human brain could ever comprehend it. Surely it would exist on a level of existence for which our brains are simply not equipped. And if it exists on that level, would it even care about something as insignificant as us? Being unsure about the existence and nature of god/a creator makes me unsure that an afterlife could exist - can one exist without the other?

As for the meaning of life, I don't think you need to believe in a divine presence for that. Make your own meaning. Mine is to bring happiness to those around me. I made a New Year's Resolution for 2016 to make a conscious effort to bring more positivity to the people I meet, to always try to make sure people leave me feeling better than when they arrived. It has worked really well so far. That's good enough for me. I don't need a god or a priest or anyone else to give me a meaning.

nozzferrahhtoo

GerryDerpy wrote: »

While I agree with you in general, I think you're being harsh on old Isaac.

Quite the opposite, I described him above as possibly the best mind our species ever produced. How is that being hard on him? I can think of no greater praise I could offer him. When even lauding the highest praise possible on to someone equates to being hard on them, then I can do little but give up on linguistics entirely

But even people who adore him more way more than I do, are quick to point out that he did subscribe to some very unsubstantiated nonsense. Neil DeGrasse Tyson basically treats his books with the same level of reverence as some treat the Bible, but he says essentially the same things I do.

Great intellect is not a catch all cure for religiosity. And in fact sometimes I think the opposite is true. When people, like him, of great intellect hit the limits of their intellect they are sometimes more prone to invoking the "god of the gaps" at times. And I think that is exactly what happened with Newton.

Whether he would repeat that same error today? I genuinely do not know and can only, like you, guess at. But the point of invoking him is clear...... that conflating religiosity with being "not bright" is not a safe measure.

GerryDerpy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quite the opposite, I described him above as possibly the best mind our species ever produced. How is that being hard on him? I can think of no greater praise I could offer him. When even lauding the highest praise possible on to someone equates to being hard on them, then I can do little but give up on linguistics entirely

But even people who adore him more way more than I do, are quick to point out that he did subscribe to some very unsubstantiated nonsense. Neil DeGrasse Tyson basically treats his books with the same level of reverence as some treat the Bible, but he says essentially the same things I do.

Great intellect is not a catch all cure for religiosity. And in fact sometimes I think the opposite is true. When people, like him, of great intellect hit the limits of their intellect they are sometimes more prone to invoking the "god of the gaps" at times. And I think that is exactly what happened with Newton.

Whether he would repeat that same error today? I genuinely do not know and can only, like you, guess at. But the point of invoking him is clear...... that conflating religiosity with being "not bright" is not a safe measure.

Ok I take back the harsh comment :-) you did heap praise on him.

I still think you are being unfair though. I don't agree that it helps argue your point of religion among the intelligent. Newton lived in a different era. Of course I am guessing, but I would genuinely be shocked if a present day Newton had an ounce of religious faith. He was a man who practiced science. He guessed a theory, and compared experiments with what happened in nature. He was starting at such a raw level of knowledge compared to what we have now. It's thanks to people like him that we don't have to rely on religion to explain things.

nozzferrahhtoo

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Ok I take back the harsh comment :-) you did heap praise on him. I still think you are being unfair though. I don't agree that it helps argue your point of religion among the intelligent. Newton lived in a different era.

Yeah I kinda realized that very thing when writing it which is why I quickly added some contemporary names too. I did not want my point to be anchored to one time zone, but to make it clear that I was giving one single extreme example out of a temporal continuum that is REPLETE with examples.

I threw out one example from physics, one from biology, and one from music&art. I think we could likely pick any one of those areas and trot out example after example after example of very bright religious people.

I am (probably) one of boards.ie most vocal anti religious people and yet I simply would never reduce myself to the out-of-the-box easy move of simply dismissing religious people are stupid or not bright. There is simply too many counter examples, and then some, to rubbish the claims.

In fact I remember a couple of years back or so on After Hours writing heavily in a thread about a study correlating religiosity with lower education to this effect, suggesting people were reading MUCH too much into the study than was actually there.

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Of course I am guessing, but I would genuinely be shocked if a present day Newton had an ounce of religious faith. He was a man who practiced science.

And alchemy!!

As I said I can only guess. And I would like to hope you are 100% correct. I think whether I like it or not however I err slightly towards agreeing with Tyson on this one though. What Newton had was an attack of Hubris. Rather than believe his own great intellect could be wrong or limited, he resorted to a god of the gaps explanation. A "present day Newton" would probably suffer every bit as much from Hubris as the actual one did.

Now if anyone in our species was more deserving of indulging in a bout of hubris it was him but hubris it would have been none the less. But as I say, it is all guess work from both of us, and I would rather think you are right and I am wrong on this one so it is not a position I am invested enough in to be bothered defending in any way further.

I think using him as an example serves the purpose for which it was intended. Which is that Crayfish dismissing the religious as merely being stupid or not bright is simply not born out by examples. In any century. And it is the kind of non-point that is likely to achieve nothing but to be corrosive to open and honest discourse between atheists and theists. Which is more than hard enough to achieve at the best of times.

GerryDerpy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah I kinda realized that very thing when writing it which is why I quickly added some contemporary names too. I did not want my point to be anchored to one time zone, but to make it clear that I was giving one single extreme example out of a temporal continuum that is REPLETE with examples.

I threw out one example from physics, one from biology, and one from music&art. I think we could likely pick any one of those areas and trot out example after example after example of very bright religious people.

I am (probably) one of boards.ie most vocal anti religious people and yet I simply would never reduce myself to the out-of-the-box easy move of simply dismissing religious people are stupid or not bright. There is simply too many counter examples, and then some, to rubbish the claims.

In fact I remember a couple of years back or so on After Hours writing heavily in a thread about a study correlating religiosity with lower education to this effect, suggesting people were reading MUCH too much into the study than was actually there.



And alchemy!!

As I said I can only guess. And I would like to hope you are 100% correct. I think whether I like it or not however I err slightly towards agreeing with Tyson on this one though. What Newton had was an attack of Hubris. Rather than believe his own great intellect could be wrong or limited, he resorted to a god of the gaps explanation. A "present day Newton" would probably suffer every bit as much from Hubris as the actual one did.

Now if anyone in our species was more deserving of indulging in a bout of hubris it was him but hubris it would have been none the less. But as I say, it is all guess work from both of us, and I would rather think you are right and I am wrong on this one so it is not a position I am invested enough in to be bothered defending in any way further.

I think using him as an example serves the purpose for which it was intended. Which is that Crayfish dismissing the religious as merely being stupid or not bright is simply not born out by examples. In any century. And it is the kind of non-point that is likely to achieve nothing but to be corrosive to open and honest discourse between atheists and theists. Which is more than hard enough to achieve at the best of times.

I ain't got nothing to say to that :-D. It is rare and refreshing to engage with such a reasonable and articulate person.

Maximus Alexander

I don't know what happens to consciousness at death. I'm not comfortable with the idea that it just goes out like a light, but I've no reason to believe otherwise. That's probably what happens, unfortunately. That said, I would never be so ignorant as to say I can be absolutely certain about that.

midnight city

Is there anything to be said for saying another mass

Boggy Turf

Wow. 80% don't believe and yet >80% of parents still baptising and christening their children. Madness.

The kids being born today wont be so weak and will abandon religion and the Roman cult.

midnight city

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Wow. 80% don't believe and yet >80% of parents still baptising and christening their children. Madness..

There was no option for my views so i didn't vote in the poll.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

better discussion if it stuck to ppl outlining their own beliefs and not projecting those of others

Not sure if that was aimed at me because I did not project on anybody

aidan24326 wrote: »

Atheism just means lack of belief in a supernatural god. It makes no claims to knowing anything. On the possible existence of some supernatural creator we're all agnostic, as we simply haven't got a clue. But when it comes to the naieve version of a god postulated by the major organised religions it's not quite the same, there's good reasons why that type of god is not only improbable but actually impossible.

Deleted User wrote: »

better discussion if it stuck to ppl outlining their own beliefs and not projecting those of others

anyone claiming to know for certain the answers to these questions can be safely dismissed

an atheist is someone who believes there is no supernatural element to life.

one doesnt choose to believe something. one either believes it or doesnt.

It does reject the notion of a diety:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In that sense, atheism takes the position of knowing there is no deity as its truth (which is fair enough), same as organised religion takes the position that there is a deity as its truth (also fair enough). Agnosticism takes the view that we really don't know anything (although we can still be aware of the high probabilities of what is true or not) and therefore can not lay claim to any kind of knowing or truth.

quickbeam

Agnosticism isn't some half-way point between theism and atheism.

They way I look at it is if you're theist or atheist - it's about what you believe.
If you're gnostic or agnostic - it's about what you know.

You can be agnostic theist; agnostic atheist; gnostic theist; gnostic atheist.

I'm agnostic because I don't know that there's no God or gods.
I'm also atheist because I don't believe in God or gods.

Actually, as there is no proof to the existance of God or gods that can lead to knowledge, I can't understand how everybody isn't agnostic, even if they're agnostic theists.

nozzferrahhtoo

quickbeam wrote: »

Actually, as there is no proof to the existance of God or gods that can lead to knowledge, I can't understand how everybody isn't agnostic, even if they're agnostic theists.

It might have some roots in the fact that there are different definitions in play.

The way you describe it suggest that because there is no proof NOW that can lead to knowledge..... you should be agnostic.

While in modern times many people use the word merely to describe being undecided on an issue.

When Huxley coined the term however he defined it as suggesting that it is UNKNOWABLE. Not that there is no evidence NOW to know anything.... but that there never will be or could be.

And that is why I would never use the term agnostic to describe myself, because it requires I presume to know more than I can..... that I can know what the evidence will be, can be, or should be in the future.

I will not do that. I will only comment on the data I have TODAY. Not the data I imagine having or not having tomorrow.

But I also do not use the term atheist to describe myself so I am an equal opportunity linguistic denier I simply find nothing in either of the a- words which I identify with enough to use those labels for myself.

OTHER people use them to describe me though, and that bothers me not a jot. If someone sees me as atheist, or sees me as agnostic, I am entirely ok with that. Until, at least, the falsely derive attributes from those labels that do not actually describe who or what I am.

5starpool

In my opinion there is a vanishingly small chance of there being any sort of over arching creator or god. There is even far less of a chance that if there is one that it bears any resemblance to any depiction of deities man has concocted.

There is a far greater (but still very tiny) chance in my opinion that we are all living in a simulation as is an emergent theory lately (although probably not that new a theory). It is certainly an idea that has some merit behind it anyhow, but much like the traditional afterlife view, entirely impossible to know for sure, at least given our level of technology for the foreseeable future.

Man made religions are entirely fictional though (again, in my view) and I still fins it very difficult to understand how many people still profess belief in this, especially in first world countries.

Turtyturd

Don't believe in an afterlife, Ideally if there was anything though I'd like it to be a create a character type reincarnation.

I had a fall when I was younger which resulted in me being knocked unconscious. I don't remember any pain or anything that happened afterward until I came around in an ambulance, and if that's what death feels like (without the revival obviously) it's not something I'd be afraid of. The thing that actually scares me most about it now is not seeing my kids again.

Although every now and again the thought goes through my head that I died that day and this is the afterlife...more as a philosophical question rather than a strong belief.

dd972

I don't believe in a God / Deity / Afterlife

Pac1Man wrote: »

Nobody knows what will happen.

The voice of reason, just a few billion God botherers and Dawkinslickers to convince, maybe we could start the Church of Agnoticism.

billyhead

No one came back from the dead to inform us as to what happens when you die so nobody has a clue either way.

unfortunately

I don't believe in a God or Afterlife, there isn't any evidence hence people relying on faith, i.e. they just believe it's true without evidence. Obviously, nobody knows but just because nobody knows doesn't mean it's even remotely likely. Some people here claiming because we are all ignorant of the ultimate truth then anything can fly. I disagree, I don't know that ancient Roman or tribal gods don't exist - does that mean they are likely, at all? For practical purposes they don't exist.

I think there is good circumstantial evidence that there is no god (at least any entity that cares about human beings). Maybe there is an aware creative entity that initiated the universe but I think that's a bit incoherent. Explaining a complex universe by positing an even more complex infinitely powerful and knowing entity that just exists. That's a non-explanation.

We know that the universe is vast and indifferent and that we evolved. I do think Darwin killed god, if you appreciate the fact of evolution then we are just one type of life that arouse in a completely natural process that doesn't need a god's input. Some say that was part of god's plan or that god interferes but I think that's just desperately grasping at straws. We don't need god as an explanation, just discard the hypothesis.

Most religions put humans at the core of the universe, but evolution shows us we are just one type of animal that survived. Religion, gods, souls and afterlives are clearly human inventions because we don't like the thought of death. Death is so obviously the end, the mind is "in" the brain and when that's gone you are gone. We invent souls so we can try to deny death. People here admit that it comforts them, or talk about where the "energy" goes. If you burn a book where does the information "go"? Does the story exist in some other dimension or form? No, it just ceases to exist. We are a pattern of electrical and chemical impulses, and when that's gone we are gone. Most religious people deny animals have souls so they must just be chemical and electrical impulses, but we can see in certain species that they have personalities and thought processes, as evolution shows all life on Earth is related. We may be more "intelligent" or sophisticated in thought but why make the leap that we are specially created separately from animals rather accept the evidence that we are just animals with a certain developed central nervous system.

I don't deny death is the end it so clearly is, when someone dies I know I will never see them again. Which is heartbreaking but I also know that they feel nothing, they cease to be, no pain or worry - I don't pretend they are in some artificial happy state. Don't be worried about the dead, they aren't worried about you, or anything. That actually helps me a bit to accept death.

I hope in the future humanity will stop denying death, death isn't really death if there is an "after"-life. I think it is much better to accept the reality that we are conscious for a short period and then that's it.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I don't believe in a God / Deity / Afterlife

kunst nugget wrote: »

They've every right to say you're wrong just like you've every right to say what you think is true. Doesn't necessarily mean either of ye are actually right…

I do not tell people who don't believe in any higher being that they are wrong. They are entitled to their own opinion, I don't impose mine on anyone and I don't appreciate anyone trying to impose theirs on me so in my opinion they have no right to tell me I'm wrong unless they can prove their statements which they can't. No one can and so no one has the right to tell anyone else they're wrong.

aidan24326

billyhead wrote: »

No one came back from the dead to inform us as to what happens when you die so nobody has a clue either way.

There's most likely a good reason that nobody ever came back, because there's nothing to come back from. I tend to think the afterlife will be the same as the before life, I simply won't exist. It's a very uncomfortable side effect of human intelligence that we're the first animals to have this realisation, and in response we've invented so many ways to try and circumvent this uncomfortable reality with heaven and the afterlife and so on. It's understandable but it's still clutching at straws.

bobbysands81

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

And there is equally absolutely no evidence to suggest none of it is true. The reality is that absolutely no one knows where or how we all came to be here. Some people believe that a Devine God created everything, others believe it just happened as a result of some unimaginably big event back at the beginning of time, we (you included) will never know in our lifetime.

I believe in God, I just do and you nor anyone else has any right to say I'm wrong without providing a logical and proven reason to say otherwise.

I'm glad you believe in God. That's your opinion and I respect it and have no issue with it. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

I have provided a logical reason as to why I believe there's no God, there's absolutely no proof that there's a God. You're judging me to higher standards you're setting yourself considering you say that "I believe in God, I just do..." ignoring logic and reason in much the same way that Thomas Aquinas believed in blind faith.

222233

I don't believe in God, the afterlife, heaven etc. I was baptised etc but would not identify as a Catholic, will not be buried etc.

But I think it's nice that some people find solace in these beliefs. My opinion on the census is that every parent or house owner put their kids down as being catholic.I believe in spirituality but think it is incredibly individualistic.

Realistically, I think it's a simple case of "lights out" and that's it.
PS, I've only read the first post.

FishOnABike

Canis Lupus wrote: »

THey debated this in the religion forums. Pets don't go to heaven.

Nooooooooooo! All dogs go to heaven. Haven't you seen the movie documentary? Don't tell me it's not true. First Santa Claus and now this. Is there nothing left to believe in?

darkpagandeath

I would believe more in the fact of the Universe in all it's wonder energy is never truly destroyed. There is recycling Currently you are made up of dead stars. I had a theory that the light at the end of the tunnel was your Neural energy/soul taking another form In another dimension for example. The odd thing is does anyone remember not being alive it did not hurt.

aidan24326

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would believe more in the fact of the Universe in all it's wonder energy is never truly destroyed. There is recycling Currently you are made up of dead stars. I had a theory that the light at the end of the tunnel was your Neural energy/soul taking another form In another dimension for example. The odd thing is does anyone remember not being alive it did not hurt.

It certainly didn't and it won't hurt after you're gone either. But that doesn't change the fact that you'll be gone forever and will not experience anything ever again. Not ever, for all of eternity. That I won't feel pain or any discomfort during that endless eternity doesn't change the fact that it's a fairly sh1t prognosis.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I don't impose mine on anyone and I don't appreciate anyone trying to impose theirs on me so in my opinion they have no right to tell me I'm wrong unless they can prove their statements which they can't. No one can and so no one has the right to tell anyone else they're wrong.

Except we all have that right.

But worse, I think generation snowflake has a really warped idea of what it means to "impose" something. People VOLUNTARILY come into what is essentially a discussion and debate forum and spew out their opinions on something. Then when someone suggests they are wrong they act like this has been "imposed" on them? Come off it and lets as a species get over ourselves. This is as ridiculous as someone going into a pub and when offered a beer acting like the beer is being "imposed" on them. You do not go into a forum specifically for discourse, and then whine that the discourse is an imposition on you.

I guess at the very least I can celebrate the fact that the lives of such people are so cushy that they are entirely ignorant of what it really is like to have something genuinely "imposed" on you. That their life is just a happy la-la land of goodwill that they genuinely do not know what an imposition really looks like or feels like or what the effects of it can be.

But they certainly are wrong in their rush to fall over themselves running to the keyboard to moan. There is no "imposition" at play there. The right we all have to express our opinion comes with the caveat that you have no right to be protected from a COUNTER opinion. And someone expressing one is NOT an "imposition" by any but the most dilute and meaningless definitions of the word. They should go back to their "safe spaces" whatever, or wherever they may be. I do not think this is one, or was ever intended to be.

The simple fact is that if someone thinks that the explanation for our universe is a non-human intelligent and intentional agency..... then their opinion is one that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY devoid of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that supports it at this time. There simply is nothing at this time that lends that notion even a modicum of credence.

So I do indeed think they are very likely wrong, and I have EVERY right to say so regardless of how much moaning or claims I do not have that right people want to throw out. We all have that right, and it does not magically disappear just because someone pretends it is not there.