An unexpected religious conversation...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/23/2009 07:32:19 PM · #151

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by JH:
Regarding Paul, let us assume that he did exist. After all, he allegedly wrote all these biblical texts - (Incidentally, if Jesus's teachings were so important, why did neither he nor anyone he was preaching to decide to write it down at the time?) Anyway, Paul wrote his texts about 60AD, and of these that aren't considered forgeries, he makes no mention of meeting or seeing Jesus, he barely even talks about what Jesus did when he was on earth.

Of the epistles which are undisputedly attributed to Paul, I Thessalonians is the earliest and the range for it's origin is around AD 49-52. This is 20 years after Jesus' supposed death. Paul does not claim to have met Jesus before his death, but he clearly claims to have persecuted his followers. Assuming he didn't overnight go from persecutor to expert of Christian theology, we can assume his persecuting days come some time before his first letter. In other words, if you accept the historicity of Paul, then you have to also claim that the people who Paul was persecuting made Jesus out of whole cloth within a few years and were willing to die for the lie. I find it highly preposterous that such a myth could have been created so quickly and so fervently that people were willing to die for their belief. It was based on something.
Secondarily, while Paul does not claim to have met Jesus before his death, he does claim to have met Jesus' disciples. Once again, to assume Paul is a real person while Jesus is purely a myth requires a logical dexterity I find to be highly unlikely.

I can assume that Bram Stoker was a real person, and that Mary Shelly was a real person. But I firmly believe that the people they wrote about were mythical.

Paul, who may or may not have written these letters himself, the letters themselves having been through multiple translations and editions over the course of 2000 years, and who doesn't directly reference any eyewitness accounts to any of Jesus's miracles. This is the weak foundation on which Christianity is based?

Your ignorance is further showing itself. The current bible we have is hardly some product of a 2000 year game of "telephone". We have so many manuscripts of the New Testament epistles that we can, in fact, trace when changes were made and by whom. For example, among the seven major editions of the New Testament 68% of the verses in I Thessalonians have no discrepancy. If you accept a level of 6 of 7 the number quickly rises to above 95%. The vast majority of those errors are simple spelling errors which are easily observed.

You keep taking larger and larger steps from reality. NOBODY who serious studies the New Testament in a scholarly (not religious) manner doubts the existence of Paul. Seven of the letters attributed to him have virtually zero supporters that they were not written by him. Yet you are willing to go out on a limb and say, "Paul, who may or may not have written these letters". Further now you are talking about "Jesus' miracles". Are you now saying he was a real man, but stories were made up about him? You originally said he never existed. Paul does claim to talk to Peter who was one of his disciples. He claims to have persecuted early Christians (hardly something he'd want to make up). Where are these people coming from if Jesus is completely fictitious and not based on a historical figure?

Message edited by author 2009-09-23 19:36:27.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/23/2009 07:33:28 PM · #152

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There are raional uses for a Supreme Being and even further rational uses for that supreme being having certain characteristics (ie. moral, powerful, etc).

Which explains why people have been inventing gods since the dawn of recorded history, right? What evidence is there for any one of those gods being more "real" than any other? What makes a belief in Zeus, Odin, Ra, or Buddha any less valid than a belief in the god of the New Testament, since they all serve the same "purpose" and have just as much "evidence" (miraculous events) to support their (supposed) existence? As Shannon has pointed out repeatedly, you yourself are an atheist many times over -- how do you justify your disbelief in Zeus, and why should not that same justification (if any) apply to the Christian god?

09/23/2009 07:34:03 PM · #153

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Which proves my point that there is no level of evidence at which you would be satisfied, so why do you ask? There is no use in answering a question which has a priori been answered.

I could equally say there is no evidence that would sway you from pure belief since there is no purpose in questioning that which you define as unanswerable.

I am quite comfortable with being on equal ground.

They are only equal in the sense that neither side can prove or disprove the imaginary. I'm surprised that you would be comfortable with such an untenable position, particularly given the paradoxical contradictions within your own rationalizations.

To believe in God is absurd. To not believe, even more so. At least I am not blind to my own absurdity.

09/23/2009 07:35:19 PM · #154

Originally posted by GeneralE:

-- how do you justify your disbelief in Zeus, and why should not that same justification (if any) apply to the Christian god?

Rational argument and personal revelation. The tools of the philosopher. The answer has not changed after all these years.

09/23/2009 07:41:56 PM · #155

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters are arguments designed to elicit an obvious answer from emotion. They are a clever creation of Dawkins. The adjectives only make sense in a material world and thus become absurd when applied to the non-material world. Pink is a color which is a product of the frequency of a light wave. A pink unicorn would not exist outside the universe. Immaterial things do not fly as that supposes an interaction between air and a wing. So, in fact, your examples are not as high on the mountain as an immaterial supreme being.

You mean as opposed to the parting of the Red Sea?

09/23/2009 07:47:47 PM · #156

Originally posted by GeneralE:

-- how do you justify your disbelief in Zeus, and why should not that same justification (if any) apply to the Christian god?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Rational argument and personal revelation. The tools of the philosopher. The answer has not changed after all these years.

Had you grown up in Iran, your position would be the same, only the names would be changed.

Wouldn't you be the same person had you grown up in the family environment you grew up in, only as a Muslim?

Your faith is conditional on your upbringing.

You grew up in your faith, correct?

One of the things that is nice about my boss is that he *is* so comfortable in his faith. He never had to question it because he lived it.

That's a lovely way to be brought up, and in such a manner that his principles have been to be good to everyone around him, no matter how he's treated. I can honestly say that I admire the job that his parents and his church did with him. I feel that he is a truly blessed person to have this faith that is so good to him.

He has also led a pretty cloistered existence and hasn't seen much of life. Not that he's so naive that he hasn't been exposed to normal day to day schlock, but he hasn't ever really been pushed, either.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/23/2009 07:50:12 PM · #157

Originally posted by GeneralE:

-- how do you justify your disbelief in Zeus, and why should not that same justification (if any) apply to the Christian god?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Rational argument and personal revelation. The tools of the philosopher. The answer has not changed after all these years.

That personal revelation does nothing to justify it outside of yourself, though, so it's a moot point in this case.

You really cannot offer up any reason why the God you know is any "righter" than Zeus, except subjectively.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

09/23/2009 07:53:43 PM · #158

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let me put it this way. What question is "a pink unicorn" answering? What rational need is there for one? There are raional uses for a Supreme Being and even further rational uses for that supreme being having certain characteristics (ie. moral, powerful, etc).

The only way a Pink Unicorn and a Supreme Being are on equal ground is the argument "I can't prove either does not exist". The equality ends there. If there was no obvious philosophical utility to God, the idea would have died out millenia ago. It has not. Nobody is making an argument for a Pink Unicorn.

Oh, no. As I read this I shook my head. He didn't just do that, did he? He didn't go there did he? He did. Ouch. Like a bad car accident. You are begging the question here...

Okay. Forget a pink unicorn. Replace it with Dracula. Now try your 'rationalizing.' Philosophical utility is irrelevant. How do I know? Ask Aristotle about the spheres. Or spontaneous generation. They were philosophical useful for years. And, I can argue that leprechauns exist, in proper argumentation format, until I'm purple. I think first, you need to start with explaining existence. Once you get that narrowed down to a place where God can exist and purple unicorns can't, I might find your argument compelling.

Oh, and Achoo, I really do love you. Just sometimes you push it a little too far...

09/23/2009 08:09:01 PM · #159

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Oh, no. As I read this I shook my head. He didn't just do that, did he? He didn't go there did he? He did. Ouch. Like a bad car accident. You are begging the question here...

Unfortunately, he finds himself trying to defend his position against too many people asking too many tough questions single-handedly.

You cannot defend faith, and the Bible rationally and factually.

And as soon as you try to make it any better than what he deems ludicrous, it merely shoots his own beliefs that much more full of holes.

I guess that's why I admire my boss.....his suspension of disbelief and his full faith acceptance of "The Word" allows him a tremendous amount of peace and happiness.

But he doesn't really ask questions, and to tell you the truth, I don't like to ask him too much. To a certain extent, I feel like I'm defiling a certain kind of innocence, and I'm not really sure there's anything to gain by instilling any doubt, not that I'm so arrogant as to assume that I could, but.....

So I don't really look for answers so much any more......'cause I haven't heard much out there that makes sense......and to me, the whole omnipotent being that is shallow enough that this tiny slice of the universe calls itself life *must* swear unconditional fealty to it in order to achieve salvation just seems so small.

Yet I do think there's a God, and for whatever reason, She likes me......8>)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/23/2009 08:09:24 PM · #160

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The current bible we have is hardly some product of a 2000 year game of "telephone". We have so many manuscripts of the New Testament epistles that we can, in fact, trace when changes were made and by whom...

"The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To believe in God is absurd. To not believe, even more so. At least I am not blind to my own absurdity.

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If there was no obvious philosophical utility to God, the idea would have died out millenia ago. It has not.

Here, you are 100% correct. Religion does have a very specific utility...

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."

"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."

"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."

"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

09/23/2009 08:23:27 PM · #161

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I try not to question Dr. Achoo's beliefs nor his faith. I fully respect both. I have my own faith and beliefs that could ultimately be questioned the same way. The difference here though is I do not state my beliefs or my faith are rational and logical.

I will state that, as I believe my God exists, I also believe pink unicorns exist. I also believe that Achoo's God exists. But Achoo and I have different criteria for existence, just as Scalvert and Achoo have different criteria for existence.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/23/2009 08:40:20 PM · #162

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Are you now saying he was a real man, but stories were made up about him? You originally said he never existed. Paul does claim to talk to Peter who was one of his disciples. He claims to have persecuted early Christians (hardly something he'd want to make up). Where are these people coming from if Jesus is completely fictitious and not based on a historical figure?

tbh, I know that debating this is pointless. You've stuck to your beliefs in every debate I've ever seen you engaged in, and shannon and the rest have stuck to theirs.

My position is that Jesus did not exist. To be more precise, the historical Jesus as presented by the bible did not exist. It's quite possible a person (or group of people) existed at that time who manifested the idea of a messiah but as a political figure in the struggle against Rome.

I'm not interested in debating the content or accuracy of the bible, it's an evil book that has caused mankind centuries of grief - just like every other 'holy' book out there. That's all I need to know.

I only hope that some day in the distant future critical thinkers will come to the fore, and whatever is left of religion can be consigned to the scrapheap of history.

09/23/2009 09:14:26 PM · #163

Originally posted by dahkota:

I also respect his faith and beliefs, and in much the same way I do those of my boss.....they are quite similar.

I most certainly do question them, but from the standpoint of, "Do they work for me?".

No.

But I also am happy for both of them that they can be strong and comfortable in their beliefs......but you cannot defend them logically or rationally, except to understand how they work as a product of upbringing.

I don't know what kind of experiences Jason has had that may call into question some of his beliefs.....maybe some, maybe none, but I know that with my background, I just cannot accept total blind faith in any straight-up, canned religion. I've seen too many ugly twists and turns of life that delve into areas that the standard answers just won't wash.

That just doesn't work for me.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/23/2009 11:23:06 PM · #164

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But I also am happy for both of them that they can be strong and comfortable in their beliefs......but you cannot defend them logically or rationally, except to understand how they work as a product of upbringing.

I think you are selling people a bit short here Jeb. It sounds like you feel you are the only one who has put thought into what you believe and everybody else who disagrees is merely doing so because "that's the way they were raised". I heartily disagree. Surely how I was raised is part of who I am, but not the complete picture. My brother was raised in the same house and he is agnostic. Adults are converted to and away from religion every day. I have put hours upon hours upon hours of thought into what I believe by having conversations like this one and many others. I have asked many questions and I have even been close to chucking it all, but now I am at the point where the die is cast and I have made my choice. However, the fact that I am now steadfast in my decision does not imply that it is either blind or has no rational foundation.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

09/23/2009 11:58:27 PM · #165

Jason, was there some turning point or event or precipice that caused you to 'err on the side of caution'? No offense, I'm genuinely interested. I seem to recall a time when you were actively questioning your faith / belief, and almost ready to let go of religion. Yet suddenly you came back with a renewed vigor.

When reading these discussions, I try to consider the writer's (apparent) motivations & look for background information... and yours points to defending your religious beliefs tenaciously, for whatever reasons. Yet at times, you seem to be reassuring yourself more than you're trying to convince all of us.

Do you find yourself straddling the fence, or wandering along a path of disbelief or doubt? Just curious as that path took me several years, and it involved a lot of internal struggle...

thx for sharing

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

09/24/2009 01:18:46 AM · #166

Originally posted by rossbilly:

No worries, Ross. These are the posts worth responding to on threads like this. There was no magical turning point in my decisions. It was back in undergrad when I was thinking about chucking the lot. I think ultimately I asked myself the question of what was I chucking it for? What was I gaining? The answer, to me, was nothing. The next most appealing alternatives, agnosticism and atheism, had nothing to give me. I am currently reading a biography of J.R.R Tolkien and one passage resonated with me where he is talking about the conversion of his friend C.S. Lewis. He speaks of "myths" which mean the stories of the past that reflect the themes of the "true myth" of Christianity. "Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic 'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil." That last bit will only make sense if you have read The Simarillion, but the point is clear. We need more than Science to be complete and see the world in its entirety.

As I delved into my faith I found that it alone seems to provide answers that make sense to me and resonate with my as to why the world is as it is and why I am as I am. For a while I had this quote as my signature. It's by Albert Camus the French Philosopher (and no Christian). To me, it sums up our plight. "Because I longed for eternal life, I went to bed with harlots and drank for nights on end. I slept in bliss, but awoke with the bitter taste of the mortal state." Christianity, better than any other worldview I know, reflects this nameless gnawing we find within ourselves. We know the world is not as it ought to be. Atheism has no room for a concept such as "ought". The world is as it is and no more. This does not reflect my deep, visceral feeling that the world should be otherwise.

I'm amused that you aren't the first person to think I'm trying to convince myself when I argue. I'm doing that no more than a person does who is having honest discussion. I try to see where the other person is coming from and what they have to offer. Over the years, however, I have become frustrated by a few because they do not come to the conversation with the same openness. I'm not expecting people to come over to my side, but I do expect the civility that comes with honestly seeking where the other person is coming from. Often on Rant that is lacking.

I see the progress of faith as unfolding this way. Early on you have faith because there are no doubts or questions. Inevitably, however, with growth, they come. Many people cannot handle this. They lose their faith and go to something else, but never ask questions again because they are afraid of having more doubts (now concerning their new worldview). Some, however, realize that doubt is universal. The wise of all worldviews understand the tenuous nature of their position. Once this is understood, doubt is no longer an obstacle. It will always exist no matter what view you hold and thus does not enter into consideration.

Hope that helps! :)

Message edited by author 2009-09-24 01:21:08.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/24/2009 01:59:14 AM · #167

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We know the world is not as it ought to be. Atheism has no room for a concept such as "ought". The world is as it is and no more. This does not reflect my deep, visceral feeling that the world should be otherwise.

Not believing in a higher power does no relieve one of the duty to live in a conscientious manner. Only the individual can do that on their own accord. Your statement is only true if you believe it is impossible to live a "good" life without God.
Pragmatically speaking, it is beneficial to the individual and society as well to live in such a manner, being that humans are a social species.
In this statement, you have also eliminated the possibility that atheists are ever optimistic, unless you are implying the world "ought" to be heavenly, which is downright selfish and somewhat silly.
You can say all you want that things aren't how they ought to be and that you seek moral improvement, but it still boils down to being a decision for the individual, regardless of which camp you inhabit. Further, the hand and word of God has done no more to guide humanity in a good direction than every other alternative.
Lastly, while I agree that doubt is universal, you seem to be saying that the most pervasive and gnawing thing one can feel isn't worth consideration because its... everpresent?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/24/2009 05:58:43 AM · #168

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I agree completely with this.......I cannot comprehend your idea that atheists cannot, or do not expect more good from life than what is at any given point.

Why not?

To me, you convey the idea that atheists are not good people. I've mentioned before the man who's in my church and small group who is the kindest and most decent person I know.....yet a confirmed atheist.

He's 84 years old and yet still very active in doing whatever he can to advance towards equal rights and compassion for his fellow man.

I find atheists to be among the most genuine and pragmatic of people......they're not inclined to blame any deity for shortcomings or fall back onto providence as an explanation for this or that.

They hold themselves accountable for their actions and, at least from the standpoint of most that I know, accept that the only way that things can change for the better is with hard work and honest intent.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/24/2009 06:28:36 AM · #169

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
I would be interested in DrAchoo's view on this - if God intervenes in the universe, then it is not simply a matter of philosophy. If God does not intervene, then what relevance does God have?

For an excellent treatise on this very question, read CS Lewis' Miracles. God does intervene in our universe, but not in a regular or orderly way which would preclude proof through regular and orderly observation. In other words, you can't use a scientific experiment to detect singular events.

Unpredictable and irregular events may be difficult to assess experimentally, but they would leave evidence, wouldn't they? The creation of a locust from nothing would result in an increase of matter in the universe. So a miracle might be difficult to detect, but not impossible.

If we are to believe that miracles through physical intervention are being performed by alignment to a specific set of principles, shouldn't it be possible to witness the effects of those miracles if not the miracles themselves? For example, we might see a statistical anomaly on life expectancy of strong believers, or economic depression amongst atheist farmers who would be suffering a higher than normal number of locust invasions.

You could always say "and then god made the miracle undetectable" to the end of every miracle story, but it somewhat detracts somewhat from the overall effect.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/24/2009 06:33:20 AM · #170

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Not at all......I'm not sure why you'd feel that way, especially having said that I admire the way that you feel about your faith.

My point was more that you had the strong background to be raised within, and developed it from there. I'm quite well aware that you're only as much a product of your environment as you allow yourself to be.

Had that been the case in my life, I'd be so much more like my father......who I really hope I'm nothing like at all.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I heartily disagree. Surely how I was raised is part of who I am, but not the complete picture. My brother was raised in the same house and he is agnostic. Adults are converted to and away from religion every day. I have put hours upon hours upon hours of thought into what I believe by having conversations like this one and many others. I have asked many questions and I have even been close to chucking it all, but now I am at the point where the die is cast and I have made my choice. However, the fact that I am now steadfast in my decision does not imply that it is either blind or has no rational foundation.

We all make our choices about who we decide to be, but you also cannot completely escape where you grew up. So much of the attitudes and influences that surrounded you while growing up become a part of who you are......it's unavoidable. Even if you ended up being diametrically opposed to the way that your parents thought and behaved, you still made that choice because of the way things were in that setting.

My sister and I are pretty much completely different people, yet we were held to the same standards......she just didn't find them completely repugnant, yet her views are pretty much different from our father's as well.

In the big picture, bad behaviors and uncharitable attitudes toward your fellow man don't hold much water once you get out of a cloistered existence.

You chose a path of good Christian decency, I'm assuming based on choosing to follow what you saw growing up, and reinforced by looking further.

My sister and I chose to accept people based on who they are as they relate to us on a personal, human level, rather than by choosing to only associate with people from a privileged bloodline and socio-economic status.

Neither of us are the people my father wanted us to be.

I only wish that I had been brought up in a household that the primary goal in interacting with the people in the world around me was thoughtfulness and compassion.

It's a horrible thing to be out in the world with bitterness and resentment for a parent who made you feel like a failure and a disappointment knowing as well that many of the valued relationships that I'd developed over the years are in his eyes, beneath the family's standards.

I don't even know one way or the other whether my father believes in God, but I know one thing for sure......he sure doesn't have anything remotely approaching Christian charity of soul towards his fellow man.....unless of course they were born into the same social stature as he was.

merchillio

Nikon D80

09/24/2009 08:47:07 AM · #171

Originally posted by JH:

You tread on an ant, it ceases to exist. You shoot a chimpanzee, it ceases to exist.

How can we be sure that there is no afterlife for them either?

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/24/2009 08:56:42 AM · #172

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by JH:

You tread on an ant, it ceases to exist. You shoot a chimpanzee, it ceases to exist.

How can we be sure that there is no afterlife for them either?

Because we're morally superior and God's favorite pet.
::chuckles:: ;)

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/24/2009 10:27:49 AM · #173

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by JH:

You tread on an ant, it ceases to exist. You shoot a chimpanzee, it ceases to exist.

How can we be sure that there is no afterlife for them either?

The first obstacle I see to this argument is where to draw the line. If ants have the capacity for an afterlife, what about bacteria? single cell organisms? plants?

Or does the 'cut-off' apply to organisms with a brain or consciousness? - Then jellyfish, sponges, and starfish are ruled out.

Secondly, we have the theological implications. According to most religions, you are allowed into the afterlife if you meet certain criteria. How does an ant believe in Jesus, for example? And if an ant is exempt from these entry requirements and all ants have a fast-pass to Heaven, why are humans also not exempt?

Assuming a creator wants his creations to exist in the afterlife to wallow in his presence and to love him, how does an ant achieve that level? - If the capabilities of an entity in the afterlife mirror these of when they were alive, then an ant would crawl around the clouds for eternity, looking for spiritual bread crumbs. In fact, an ant would not even be aware of the transition from life to afterlife, it would just continue to follow its instinct and do what it was programmed to do.

Artificial intelligence. It might be possible for humans to one day create a conscious sentient being. Why should this creation be denied entry to the afterlife? (ever see Bicentennial Man?)

With an AI being, as soon as we hit the off switch, the electrons stop flowing and it ceases to function. There is no in-built 'soul' to live on after we hit the power.

In a similar way, when blood stops flowing to our brains and the oxygen supply stops. Then we lose consciousness, our brain activity shuts down, electrical activity ceases, and we die.

For existence in an afterlife to have any meaning to us, would require the neural pathways and synaptic connections forming our lifetimes memories to be retained after the brain dies. This copy of our brains neural map would then have to leave the dying body and enter a state or dimension where it would be a self-sufficient ever-living record of the person's consciousness, identity and memories.

Either the body itself possess the capacity to perform this trick at the point of death, or there is an external force monitoring every living thing waiting for it to die so it has a chance to extract its 'soul' and transport it to the afterlife.

Ever been under a general anaesthetic? Or ever fainted or lost consciousness? - Why should dying be any different? - It's just one very small extra step.

merchillio

Nikon D80

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/24/2009 10:37:38 AM · #174

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by JH:

You tread on an ant, it ceases to exist. You shoot a chimpanzee, it ceases to exist.

How can we be sure that there is no afterlife for them either?

The first obstacle I see to this argument is where to draw the line. If ants have the capacity for an afterlife, what about bacteria? single cell organisms? plants?

Or does the 'cut-off' apply to organisms with a brain or consciousness? - Then jellyfish, sponges, and starfish are ruled out.

Secondly, we have the theological implications. According to most religions, you are allowed into the afterlife if you meet certain criteria. How does an ant believe in Jesus, for example? And if an ant is exempt from these entry requirements and all ants have a fast-pass to Heaven, why are humans also not exempt?

Assuming a creator wants his creations to exist in the afterlife to wallow in his presence and to love him, how does an ant achieve that level? - If the capabilities of an entity in the afterlife mirror these of when they were alive, then an ant would crawl around the clouds for eternity, looking for spiritual bread crumbs. In fact, an ant would not even be aware of the transition from life to afterlife, it would just continue to follow its instinct and do what it was programmed to do.

Artificial intelligence. It might be possible for humans to one day create a conscious sentient being. Why should this creation be denied entry to the afterlife? (ever see Bicentennial Man?)

With an AI being, as soon as we hit the off switch, the electrons stop flowing and it ceases to function. There is no in-built 'soul' to live on after we hit the power.

In a similar way, when blood stops flowing to our brains and the oxygen supply stops. Then we lose consciousness, our brain activity shuts down, electrical activity ceases, and we die.

For existence in an afterlife to have any meaning to us, would require the neural pathways and synaptic connections forming our lifetimes memories to be retained after the brain dies. This copy of our brains neural map would then have to leave the dying body and enter a state or dimension where it would be a self-sufficient ever-living record of the person's consciousness, identity and memories.

Either the body itself possess the capacity to perform this trick at the point of death, or there is an external force monitoring every living thing waiting for it to die so it has a chance to extract its 'soul' and transport it to the afterlife.

Ever been under a general anaesthetic? Or ever fainted or lost consciousness? - Why should dying be any different? - It's just one very small extra step.

Have you ever asked an ant if it believed in Jesus? or in God? I'm pretty sure that even if it answered, you wouln'd be able to understand (or even hear) the answer. How about a dog? or even a dolphin. Studies have shown that dolphins have a sens of self-awareness (among many example, a dolphin in front of a mirror will know that it is not another dolphin, will not interact with it the same way it would with a fellow dolphin). Is it possible that dolphins believe in after-life? In fact, in matter of intelligence, social interaction and concience, dolphins are much closer to us than any other big primates. Is it possible that they have their own system of beliefs? If they do, do they have their own heaven?

Message edited by author 2009-09-24 10:46:07.