Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Thermal]

If there were actually a heaven, then it would be full of rampaging angels frothing at the mouth and smashing harps and haloes left and right and center, and strangling one another with the chords off of them.

For many of us, a true Heaven indeed.

A few years, at most a few decades, maybe if you're a bona fide saint a century or two, and you're bound to go off of your rocker, sitting around doing nothing but but listening to ******* harps, and staring up at the three-headed schizo freakshow that is the Godhead!

Since the thread seems derail-proof:

The first few centuries would certainly be just playing catch-up to all the things we didn't have the time or resources to do on Earth, so that's a gimme.

I would think it would also depend on your awareness of time and how memory would work. People with eidetic memories don't lose their minds even here, and with a couple turns of a celestial wrench, I'm pretty sure the experience of never-ending time could be mitigated. Hell, I don't remember what I had for dinner last night. That doesn't make me want a fajita any less right now.

So after you run through everything you wanted to do, you tap into and explore the things you didn't even know you wanted. Maybe even running through the alternative universes while you were at it. Then, after who knows how many millennia, you set your sights on non-human life out beyond our planet. Again, who knows how long that could be entertaining?

I mean, start a thread in heaven about "So what do you ******** think about the afterlife now?" and do you really think a Heaven full of ISF posters couldn't quibble about that **** for eons?

 

[Thermal]

What you described was exactly what drug addicts do...

It is not.

So drug addicts and who are also drug pushers are FUN???

You mentioned neither addicts nor pushers. You mentioned being a teenager and someone offered you a tab on one occasion (a common friendly and inexpensive gesture), and offering you a drink (a ridiculously trivial social offering, performed daily by millions of all ages).

Hell, as a teen I offered alcohol and some recreational pharmaceuticals quite freely to anyone who seemed fun. It's a human thing, bro, not exclusively an addict or pusher thing.

And being incapacitated to the point of helplessness and utter unawareness of reality.... is FUN?

Surprise! No one mentioned incapacitation or helplessness. I mentioned my memory being a bit fuzzy. That could be due to the length of time that had passed. Why are your interpretations always in the gutter, man? It's a bit unbecoming.

Clueless obliviousness.... is fun???

At times, hell yes.

Yes... that is what happens as a result of mental disorders induced euphoria.

No it's not.

If one is constantly in a stupor then there would not be any crashing... you are right.

No they wouldn't. They'd be dead.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, as I've said, ID is a failed hypothesis. The review shows all the problems in Meyer's peer reviewed article.

Seriously: after all I've said, after the numerous times that I've said that ID is wrong, do you think that I support ID? I thought I was arguing that ID ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals (which is true), that they have been shown to be wrong, and this is science at work. What do you think I'm arguing?

(ETA) If you want to argue against my description of ID as being a "failed hypothesis", what do you think of Dawkins' description of the "God Hypothesis" involving a designer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#"God_hypothesis"
He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and suggests that there are two competing explanations:

1. A hypothesis involving a designer, that is, a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
2. A hypothesis, with supporting theories, that explains how, from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

Why is it that you are so selective in your use of Dawkins quotes? Dawkins is appealing to the god believers suggesting he knows why they posit the designer idea. But Dawkins explains there is nothing that actually supports the first hypothesis whereas there are mountains of confirming evidence that supports the latter.

 

[Chanakya]

For many of us, a true Heaven indeed.



Since the thread seems derail-proof:

The first few centuries would certainly be just playing catch-up to all the things we didn't have the time or resources to do on Earth, so that's a gimme.

I would think it would also depend on your awareness of time and how memory would work. People with eidetic memories don't lose their minds even here, and with a couple turns of a celestial wrench, I'm pretty sure the experience of never-ending time could be mitigated. Hell, I don't remember what I had for dinner last night. That doesn't make me want a fajita any less right now.

So after you run through everything you wanted to do, you tap into and explore the things you didn't even know you wanted. Maybe even running through the alternative universes while you were at it. Then, after who knows how many millennia, you set your sights on non-human life out beyond our planet. Again, who knows how long that could be entertaining?

I mean, start a thread in heaven about "So what do you ******** think about the afterlife now?" and do you really think a Heaven full of ISF posters couldn't quibble about that **** for eons?

But much like the p-god of this thread, wouldn't that be, like, a t-heaven?

(Kidding!)

 

[Thermal]

But much like the p-god of this thread, wouldn't that be, like, a t-heaven?

(Kidding!)

Come on man! You proposed an eternal MMA cage fight with insane angels! Now I'm all excited and want to get baptized or something to get in on that action!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Come on man! You proposed an eternal MMA cage fight with insane angels! Now I'm all excited and want to get baptized or something to get in on that action!

AH! The ultimate MMORPG? Count me in. Will there be cheat codes?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Its origins are traced directly to the infamous "wedge" document. It was theology with the word "god" being replaced with ID.

Well, obviously the intelligent designer would equal god. I think I saw it as a cop-out for such creationists that were, after all, smart enough to realize that young earth creationism is ridiculous.

But, I realize it could also be intended as the thin end of the wedge.

Hans

 

[bruto]

Not directly, although once any supernatural element is taken as a given, the bar is reset, I would think.

It's one of those logical processes that is not quite as reversible as an equation. If you believe in a god, you must believe in something supernatural, and if you deny that there is anything supernatural you cannot believe in gods or souls, but it is theoretically possible to believe in something supernatural without believing in any gods. I doubt you'll find it happening often, but it's not definitionally impossible.

 

[Thermal]

It's one of those logical processes that is not quite as reversible as an equation. If you believe in a god, you must believe in something supernatural, and if you deny that there is anything supernatural you cannot believe in gods or souls, but it is theoretically possible to believe in something supernatural without believing in any gods. I doubt you'll find it happening often, but it's not definitionally impossible.

Oh, agreed. It's just an important clarification to make up front, that the inclusion of the undefinable supernatural element of a soul is going to take the wind out of a bunch of argumentative sails.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It wouldn't make much sense for creationists to publish an article in a peer reviewed article. It would be shot down in flames in double quick time.

Creationism itself doesn't make much sense, so...

But there is a kind of logic to it. Skeptics say 'science' that hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't count as science. So the obvious solution is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal!

As to what happens after that - they don't much care. The important thing is that they knocked down another objection to creationism. This could be enough to convince a non-zero number of marks people that there might be something in what they are saying after all. And once they get that far...

 

[GDon]

1. A hypothesis involving a designer, that is, a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
2. A hypothesis, with supporting theories, that explains how, from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

Why is it that you are so selective in your use of Dawkins quotes? Dawkins is appealing to the god believers suggesting he knows why they posit the designer idea. But Dawkins explains there is nothing that actually supports the first hypothesis whereas there are mountains of confirming evidence that supports the latter.

Careful! You are calling the first one -- the one involving a designer -- a "hypothesis". You are supporting ID there. You may want to rephrase that.

 

[acbytesla]

Creationism itself doesn't make much sense, so...

But there is a kind of logic to it. Skeptics say 'science' that hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't count as science. So the obvious solution is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal!

As to what happens after that - they don't much care. The important thing is that they knocked down another objection to creationism. This could be enough to convince a non-zero number of marks people that there might be something in what they are saying after all. And once they get that far...

I have such an anger towards, creationists, ID proponents evolution deniers. There is probably nothing in science that has been confirmed by the evidence more than evolution.

It's not that scientists like Meyer and Behe aren't capable, it's that they are charlatans selling out. They aren’t practicing science. That would mean they would have to work for a living.

 

[GDon]

Creationism itself doesn't make much sense, so...

But there is a kind of logic to it. Skeptics say 'science' that hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't count as science. So the obvious solution is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal!

Creationists want to use ID as a Trojan Horse to get credibility for creationism. They like to claim that the scientific community ignores creationism. That's why its important to acknowledge that ID has had peer reviewed articles published AND that they have been rejected. In other words, the scientific process has been found followed and ID has been found wanting. It doesn't leave Creationists anywhere to stand.

Of course, Creationists will still continue to claim that academia hasn't "really" addressed creationism. But for skeptics to pretend that ID hasn't had peer reviewed articles published -- that to admit it somehow lends support to ID or Creationism -- does a disservice to science. The scientific process has been followed, and it works!

 

[GDon]

I surrender! You are right, there is no article supporting ID in a peer reviewed journal, so obviously I can't have did not mentioned any. You have convinced me. Well done!

Edited for accuracy.

So, to be clear, you are convinced that I did not mention a single peer reviewed article supporting ID in this thread? Not one?

 

[Leumas]

It's one of those logical processes that is not quite as reversible as an equation. If you believe in a god, you must believe in something supernatural, and if you deny that there is anything supernatural you cannot believe in gods or souls, but it is theoretically possible to believe in something supernatural without believing in any gods. I doubt you'll find it happening often, but it's not definitionally impossible.

The most basic definition of a creator god is that s/he/it created.

What if there is no creator but there are souls???

Also... souls do not have to be supernatural...

I can define souls as an information package. Let's say that a body, while alive, is the CENTONIZATION receiver of this information package.

When the body spalls the information package ceases to be centonized but it still exists much like a radio signal and a radio-receiver.

So maybe further along space-time "something" can occur and become attuned to that particular information package and become its new centonizer.

All without any creator or information packager or any purpose at all... much like solar flares erupt and produce ion-storms and electrical signals maybe in the eons of space-time some such "flare" resulted in this information package and others like it and they spread out throughout the vast expanse of space-time until they happened upon some chimps that have evolved in such a way so as to be able to centonize such packages???

And perhaps the information package is not itself sentient either but the amalgam of the package and the body and the centonization process along with time to tweak the process results in sentience???

So this way... there can be life after death ala reincarnation but there is no continuity of sentience since each new centonization has to develop along with the new receiver and thus a new process.

And voila... eternal life but also of eternal obliviousness... just like any other process in the universe.

Note: Just pondering and navel gazing... maybe I can start my own religion ala Scientology and start peddling centonization-inducing gadgets to flocks of imbeciles.

 

[bruto]

A designer? With that fashion sense? Come on.

He looks like a lot more fun than that sourpuss Jehovah with his floods and plagues and bans on flannel. At least, as the old Bandstand critics would say this one has a beat and you can dance to it.

 

[bruto]

The most basic definition of a creator god is that s/he/it created.

What if there is no creator but there are souls???

Also... souls do not have to be supernatural...

I can define souls as an information package. Let's say that a body, while alive, is the CENTONIZATION receiver of this information package.

When the body spalls the information package ceases to be centonized but it still exists much like a radio signal and a radio-receiver.

So maybe further along space-time "something" can occur and become attuned to that particular information package and become its new centonizer.

All without any creator or information packager or any purpose at all... much like solar flares erupt and produce ion-storms and electrical signals maybe in the eons of space-time some such "flare" resulted in this information package and others like it and they spread out throughout the vast expanse of space-time until they happened upon some chimps that have evolved in such a way so as to be able to centonize such packages???

And perhaps the information package is not itself sentient either but the amalgam of the package and the body and the centonization process along with time to tweak the process results in sentience???

So this way... there can be life after death ala reincarnation but there is no continuity of sentience since each new centonization has to develop along with the new receiver and thus a new process.

And voila... eternal life but also of eternal obliviousness... just like any other process in the universe.

Note: Just pondering and navel gazing... maybe I can start my own religion ala Scientology and start peddling centonization-inducing gadgets to flocks of imbeciles.

Solid state Orgone boxes, now with quantum technology!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Creationists want to use ID as a Trojan Horse to get credibility for creationism. They like to claim that the scientific community ignores creationism. That's why its important to acknowledge that ID has had peer reviewed articles published AND that they have been rejected. In other words, the scientific process has been found followed and ID has been found wanting. It doesn't leave Creationists anywhere to stand.

Of course, Creationists will still continue to claim that academia hasn't "really" addressed creationism. But for skeptics to pretend that ID hasn't had peer reviewed articles published -- that to admit it somehow lends support to ID or Creationism -- does a disservice to science. The scientific process has been followed, and it works!

So, to be clear, you are convinced that I did not mention a single peer reviewed article supporting ID in this thread? Not one?

Did I miss the post where you even once addressed your conflating of ID and IC?

 

[Leumas]

Solid state Orgone boxes, now with quantum technology!

From here:

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health lists orgone as a type of "putative energy". After Reich's death, research into the concept of orgone passed to some of his students, such as Kelley, and later to a new generation of scientists in Germany keen to discover an empirical basis for the orgone hypothesis (the first positive results of which were provided in 1989 by Stefan Muschenich). There is no empirical support for the concept of orgone in medicine or the physical sciences, and research into the concept concluded with the end of the institute. Founded in 1982, the Institute for Orgonomic Science in New York is dedicated to the continuation of Reich's work; it both publishes a digital journal on it and collects corresponding works.

WOW...

Maybe the Hawkers for the Imbecilic Design DiscoveryHoodwinking Institute ought to submit papers to the "scientists" at the "journal" of the Institute Of Orgonomic Science because they are most evidently the appropriate PEERS for them.

Hey GDon... why are you not aware of all that "doing science" the scientists at the Institute Of Orgnomic Science are researching there? Will you be cheering for it WHEN one day they overturn the "scientific consensus"???

 

[Leumas]

Solid state Orgone boxes, now with quantum technology!

Thanks for that!!! How the heck did you know about it? I never heard of it.

It is so flattering that every single time... every single time... I develop a novel idea, I later find out that someone has already preemptively plagiarized me.