I know. I was trying to go on a different tack using that quote.
That was just confusing, sorry.
What I was trying to convey was that the time that people just had to believe what their priests came up with is over.
When people discovered different priests came up with different answers the solution was, of course, to cut of the heads of the infidels. Can’t have conflicting views.
After an awful lot of heads were cut off and new kinds of infidels just kept appearing finally, we in the west, gave up and chose to just ignore the conflicting views. Tolerance was born. To each his own and everyone has a right to his form of Christian belief.
Later that came to include all religions.
Now it includes all kinds of woo.
There is so much out there that is obviously silly that you cannot escape the conclusion that, as Czsarcasm said, NOT ALL ideas are equal.
So, let’s step back and start over.
First question: Is there indeed such a thing as ‘life after death’?
This time don’t bring your priest but bring your evidence.
I agree there are some ideas that i find utterly nonsensical but like i said those people are entitled to their beliefs, just like im entitled to mine.
Equal in the sense that none of them can be conclusively proved or disproved whether you believe in becoming a cow in your next life, going to heaven or completely ceasing to exist all the beliefs stand on equal ground as there has not yet been an established truth
I cant tell whether or not there is an afterlife (as i have not died yet) but my personal view is that it could certainly be possible
and just to add i don’t have a priest as I am not religious at all, i personally find religion to be one of the greatest scams perpetrated on the human race
You’ve found me out: I have an opinion on this. But you’re wrong that there is no evidence one way or the other. There is a lot of evidence for the idea that our consciousness is created by our brains and exists within our brains. There’s no evidence for reincarnation and no evidence our consciousness continues after we die. This is why I’m saying that if you want to propose this is even possible, you need to tell me how it would work before we start arguing about evidence. That seems simpler to me anyway.
The evidence has been presented in this thread far too many times for you to pretend that you never saw it, and it’s obvious that you have no intention to listen to evidence-based opinions on the matter. I’m getting off your merry-go-round-you can sit and spin all by yourself.
When you’re proposing something that doesn’t make much sense and can’t offer any solid evidence, the criticism that people who disagree are closed minded doesn’t carry any weight.
Saying that it is possible that they may be life after death is hardly unreasonable
Its a far more reasonable assertion than stating that something people dont and cant know about for sure as a guaranteed fact.
To say that something is impossible there needs to be a great deal of certainty, If your view was a definite fact then the rest of the world would agree with but unfortunately it isnt
It’s widely believed. That’s not really the same thing as reasonable. Either way, it’s not closed minded to dismiss a proposition that doesn’t have any evidence.
Its very hard to dismiss possibilities is my point
It is possible that the sun will explode tomorrow
The sun will explode tomorrow
It is possible the world will end in 30 days time
The world will end in 30 days time
These two types of phrases are very different and mean different things. You cant rule out that the sun will explode tomorrow or that the earth will end in 30 days time, It is highly unlikely but yes it is possible.
Things may have a varying degree of likeliness but to rule it out as impossible is careless
Some things are so unlikely that it is not productive to discuss them. All specifics of all heretofore supernatural phenomenon are such things. The existence of a heretofore supernatural phenomenon is possible, and, IMO, not so unlikely as to be undiscussable. However, the number of incorrect ones are so overwhelmingly huge that any specific one is so overwhelmingly likely to be false that you can simply treat it as false, much like we declare entropy to be a “law” even though there is a chance that local entropy may be reversed temporarily through super-astronomically wild luck.
When there is no evidence for them, there’s no reason not to dismiss them. The saying is ‘claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.’ Look at it this way: you have thought of a thing that could happen. You have no evidence it will happen or even that it could happen. So why should anyone pay attention? All you’ve proved is that you can think of something.
No, it’s really not careless. It’s not even sloppy in anything but the most pedantic sense.
There’s a world of difference between flipping a coin a single time and guessing “Heads” correctly and winning the lottery 100 times a row. While the latter is not technically impossible, it’s so ludicrously improbable as to be worthless to seriously consider.
Really, this is a way of advancing the argument via a slippery slope.
“Well, you can’t say the likelihood is actually zero.”
“So, there is a small chance it could happen.”
“That small chance is actually big enough to legitimately ponder.”
It’s bad reasoning reinforced by even more bad reasoning.
No, you are further arguing that the likelihood that it exists is high enough as to warrant legitimate discussion.
Again, winning the lottery 100 times in a row is possible but so ludicrously unlikely as to be worthless to consider practically.
We humans know what we know and no further.
Your stated position is also contradictory. By claiming the possibility an afterlife exists, you claim the same type of knowledge you accuse others of not possessing but in reverse.
It’s the worst sort of false equivalence when your argument only applies to others’ arguments and not to your own. Basically, you can’t have it both ways.
Saying something is a possibility and claiming that something is a fact are two completely different things, if you cannot realize this i cannot help you.
The reason i state that it is possible is precisely because i don’t know for certain , it may be true it may not be true i don’t posses such knowlege
Because we are not Omniscient all knowing beings but often times people act as if they have possess complete knowledge which is not possible unless you are a before stated an Omniscient Deity of some kind
In your opinion, anyway. Do you think ‘people are arrogant sometimes’ can really be used as the basis for assertions about humanity’s knowledge? Particularly if we’re also throwing the door open to stuff like past lives and afterlives?