Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together?

[erowe1]

RCA is going to need a beer after all of this is said and done.

I was thinking that sobering up might do him well.

 

[robert68]

I agree.



Yes we do, and we prove it by our behavior all the time. Of course we can't reason our way into this knowledge from a blank slate, like the people I sometimes encounter who imagine they never accept anything by faith. But we know it because our creator designed us to know it. We accept certain things axiomatically, and are absolutely warranted in doing so, because at the end of the day, we're all theists.

If that were true, babies and the very young would automatically know, for example, not to run out into the street with a car coming, or to not touch hot things. But they don’t know not to. We all learn from experience, our knowledge is inseparable from what we are at any given moment.

And no sane person rejects their knowledge that, for example, if they jump out of a tall building and try to fly, they won’t be able to fly, and instead, has faith they will be able to fly and try to do it. I don’t see what theism has to do with this one way or another.

 

[erowe1]

If that were true, babies and the very young would automatically know, for example, not to run out into the street with a car coming, or to not touch hot things.

No they wouldn't.

They would merely know that when they learned those things by way of their senses, they were really learning something. And this they do know.

 

[Sola_Fide]

RCA is going to need a beer after all of this is said and done.

Sometimes the argument is misunderstood and it is paired down to "oh, so you don't trust your senses?" No, that's not the argument. The argument is that an argument based on the senses cannot ever logically be valid. Arguments from sensation can never bring down the conclusion that something is true. Why? Because no one has universal observation of all events, past present and future. So to make an argument from the senses, one must engage in the inductive fallacy. Therefore he is illogical.

To get beyond this, they then appeal to "science" or the scientific method, but this too fails because all scientific experiments assert the consequent. Confirmed hypotheses in no way can determine truth. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Theocrat]

Praise God for Our Senses

Sometimes the argument is misunderstood and it is paired down to "oh, so you don't trust your senses?" No, that's not the argument. The argument is that an argument based on the senses cannot ever logically be valid. Arguments from sensation can never bring down the conclusion that something is true. Why? Because no one has universal observation of all events, past present and future. So to make an argument from the senses, one must engage in the inductive fallacy. Therefore he is illogical.

To get beyond this, they then appeal to "science" or the scientific method, but this too fails because all scientific experiments assert the consequent. Confirmed hypotheses in no way can determine truth. Correlation does not imply causation.

As Christians, we can trust in the reliability of our senses, but we do so by faith in God. Yes, I agree that our senses are not the final standard for truth, but this universe is real, and God is not mocking us when we use our senses to make sense (no pun intended) of certain things in reality (like touching a flame, hugging a loved one, etc.). The point I was trying to get across to RCA is that sensory perceptions are always based on faith, even if one tries to use induction to justify why they can trust their senses. Faith is simply inescapable in God's universe, from scientific methods to poetic expressions of love.

 

[RCA]

Other atheists generally bash anyone with any belief in anything they consider "supernatural" and will say "You're not a real atheist." But, the strict definition of atheist just says you do not believe in a God or gods. It is literally, "Not Theistic." So this goes back to your original post, and your annoyance, over the fact that some people arbitrarily have decided that the concept of an afterlife is inseparable from the concept of God.

In my opinion, yes you absolutely can believe in ghosts and/or an afterlife without having to believe in a God, and you can therefore still be an atheist. (I think most atheists have sort of redefined the term and have turned it into an all-encompassing disbelief in anything they cannot hold in their hand or measure with scientific instruments, when that is not what the word actually means.)

And that's exactly the point of this thread. That the majority of either side says its all or nothing. Religions say if you believe in a God or an afterlife you must also join our organization. And atheists say if you believe in anything supernatural you are religious. I want to see this false dichotomy broken up as much as I want to see the false left-right paradigm broken up in the political world. They both are slowing progress in each respective area of discipline. If we can break the political false choices, we can get to a truly free world. If we can break the false choices about the supernatural maybe we could get to a true understanding of the universe.

 

[fr33]

A god that claims to be omnipresent and all powerful in this current dimension is a god that hates libertarianism. He's a god that has spent his existence killing and not teaching.

 

[WhistlinDave]

And that's exactly the point of this thread. That the majority of either side says its all or nothing. Religions say if you believe in a God or an afterlife you must also join our organization. And atheists say if you believe in anything supernatural you are religious. I want to see false dichotomy broken up as much as I want to see the false left-right paradigm broken up in the political world.

True. People often have a hard time with anything in-between. They like things black and white; there are too many shades of grey and it's easier to stick with all or nothing. Apparently.

 

[RCA]

True. People often have a hard time with anything in-between. They like things black and white; there are too many shades of grey and it's easier to stick with all or nothing. Apparently.

Yes, I think this is just human lazyness. It requires thought to think outside the everyday choices and most people don't want to exert the extra energy.

 

[Theocrat]

Shades of Gray?

True. People often have a hard time with anything in-between. They like things black and white; there are too many shades of grey and it's easier to stick with all or nothing. Apparently.

Are you absolutely certain of that, WhistlinDave?

 

[Theocrat]

A War of Worldviews

And that's exactly the point of this thread. That the majority of either side says its all or nothing. Religions say if you believe in a God or an afterlife you must also join our organization. And atheists say if you believe in anything supernatural you are religious. I want to see this false dichotomy broken up as much as I want to see the false left-right paradigm broken up in the political world. They both are slowing progress in each respective area of discipline. If we can break the political false choices, we can get to a truly free world. If we can break the false choices about the supernatural maybe we could get to a true understanding of the universe.

How can you break the "false choices of the supernatural" in the world when you haven't dealt with the questions and challenges to your naturalistic worldview in this very thread? Erowe1, Sola_Fide, and I have been asking you question and addressing issues about your belief system, your approaches to knowledge, and your assumptions about things in the universe that you have not answered satisfactorily. If you think that your opposition is just going to go away with the kind of evasive approaches and insulting remarks that you post in threads like this one, then you obviously have no idea about what you are up against.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Are you absolutely certain of that, WhistlinDave?

No, it's just my opinion, and it's a generalization because certainly there are some people who are able to think outside the box.

 

[RCA]

How can you break the "false choices of the supernatural" in the world when you haven't dealt with the questions and challenges to your naturalistic worldview in this very thread? Erowe1, Sola_Fide, and I have been asking you question and addressing issues about your belief system, your approaches to knowledge, and your assumptions about things in the universe that you have not answered satisfactorily. If you think that your opposition is just going to go away with the kind of evasive approaches and insulting remarks that you post in threads like this one, then you obviously have no idea about what you are up against.

You are clearly demonstrating your low reading comprehension. If you re-read the entire paragraph, I'm saying the false choice regarding the supernatural is that you must belong to a religion IN ORDER to believe in the supernatural not that the belief in the supernatural is itself false, but again you would know that if you knew what this post was about, but you've clearly demonstrated you did not know from the outset.

 

[Theocrat]

A Non-Belief in the Supernatural is Still Religious

You are clearly demonstrating your low reading comprehension. If you re-read the entire paragraph, I'm saying the false choice regarding the supernatural is that you must belong to a religion IN ORDER to believe in the supernatural not that the belief in the supernatural is itself false, but again you would know that if you knew what this post was about, but you've clearly demonstrated you did not know from the outset.

I think you've missed the point about belief in the supernatural. Beliefs about the supernatural are, themselves, religious. Even beliefs about the supernatural that reject the idea that supernatural beings or events exist are religious. There is no way one can prove that "supernatural things don't exist" without faith in other things. If a person believes that "science is the only way to prove things factually," then naturalism is that person's starting point, and therefore, that person's religion. The god of the naturalist is his mind, and he worships it above anything else. In effect, he believes that his mind can ascertain truth about the universe using the means of the scientific method, exclusively. That, of course, is self-refuting because how then does the naturalist prove the truth of his belief that "science is the only way of discovering truth"? If he uses science, then he begs the question, and thus, he has argued in a circle. If he uses something else other than science, then he refutes the claim that science is the only way of obtaining factual information about the universe. That is known as the empiricist's dilemma. But, nonetheless, it remains a religious commitment in the validity of science.

 

[pcosmar]

True. People often have a hard time with anything in-between. They like things black and white; there are too many shades of grey and it's easier to stick with all or nothing. Apparently.

 

[austin944]

I think you've missed the point about belief in the supernatural. Beliefs about the supernatural are, themselves, religious. Even beliefs about the supernatural that reject the idea that supernatural beings or events exist are religious. There is no way one can prove that "supernatural things don't exist" without faith in other things. If a person believes that "science is the only way to prove things factually," then naturalism is that person's starting point, and therefore, that person's religion.

I am not sure if you were making this argument, but a rejection of supernaturalism does not also imply that science is the only way to gain knowledge about the world. It's possible to reject the existence of gods and incorporeal beings, while also accepting the fact that science relies mainly on induction, and still retain a tenable world view.

Has religion, naturalism, or any other world view provided a coherent explanation of how non-material beings can interact with and/or affect material things? If no world view can explain this interaction, and if one also rejects idealism, then wouldn't it be plausible to reject supernaturalism?

If a world view does not try to explain this interaction, then why believe in it? Why not also accept the idea of invisible unicorns, if no explanation is forthcoming that justifies a belief in it? It does not require "worshipping" science to ask for or seek a justification for a belief in the supernatural.

 

[Natural Citizen]

In my opinion, the discussion about whether there is a supreme being or not should be a totally different subject than whether or not there is an afterlife.

We are citizens of the cosmos.Literally we are stardust. Every Atom () in your body came from a star that exploded. And, oh yes...to dust you shall return. So then the correct dialogue would be the infinity of the universe "eternal life/afterlife" instead of folklore and other iron age historical indoctrination mechanisms that really only serve for use in social control of the masses.

 

[WhistlinDave]

We are citizens of the cosmos.Literally we are stardust. Every Atom () in your body came from a star that exploded. And, oh yes...to dust you shall return. So then the correct dialogue would be the infinity of the universe "eternal life/afterlife" instead of folklore and other iron age historical indoctrination mechanisms that really only serve for use in social control of the masses.

Awesome video! Great song, and good visuals too... I wish I could make videos half this good!

I don't disagree with anything you're saying regarding our atoms and stardust, but I would add the caveat that we still really don't know exactly what consciousness is or how it came to exist. It's definitely real, because we are all experiencing, and the act of experiencing requires consciousness, so it is a real (albeit intangible) thing, and yet it's also something very ethereal and elusive when you try to pinpoint exactly what it is...

When I taste my turkey avocado sandwich, that sensation, that experience, is a very real thing, and yet it is completely intangible. I cannot measure that experience, or re-create it, or even prove to you it is taking place. But the experience is real. It is taking place in my brain, certainly, but the firing of those neurons and the complex electrochemical interactions of those brain cells is not the experience of the flavor of my turkey avocado sandwich, any more than notes on paper is equal to the sound of a symphony, or any more than a sequenced collection of images on celluloid film is equivalent to the experience of watching a movie.

The experience taking place in my consciousness has a reality all its own. You could even say that consciousness IS experience, and yet drawing that correlation doesn't really bring us any closer to understanding what this intangible "thing" called consciousness truly is.

A purely materialistic world view says consciousness is an amazing by-product of physical processes and apparatus; consciousness is a result of the anatomy and functioning of the brain. The physical aspect came first, consciousness arose later when brains evolved.

But some discoveries in quantum physics point to a strong possibility that the fabric of physicality at the quantum level is dependent upon consciousness, and these discoveries suggest it's possible that consciousness may beget physicality, not the other way around.

In other words, it's possible that our brains do not literally create consciousness, but are merely a vehicle necessary in order for our consciousness to exist and operate in this physical dimension. Kind of like the way a computer chip is needed if you want to run a software program. The computer isn't creating the program, it's just temporarily housing it, and allowing it to be and to act. That's how I tend to see the brain, as the hardware necessary for my consciousness to download and operate here in this space.

Whichever came first, the chicken or the egg, we may never know.... Science is only just barely beginning to scratch the surface of understanding what consciousness is, and how it exists and operates. Claiming for sure that we know which came first--physicality or consciousness--requires making an assumption, a leap of faith, because based on our current (very limited) understanding, we simply cannot say for sure.

So, while I agree, my body will definitely return to dust, the question still remains, am I nothing more than this body made of flesh? When this body dies, do "I" die with it? Is this "beingness" I'm experiencing nothing more than a convincing illusion of "me" created by this brain? Or is there something more to me that makes me "me"? Is my consciousness really a thing unto itself?

 

[bunklocoempire]

In my opinion, the discussion about whether there is a supreme being or not should be a totally different subject than whether or not there is an afterlife. I don't see any reason to believe in a supreme being, but an afterlife might be plausible considering it could have a scientific leaning as it relates to other dimensions, etc. I also think that organized religion is in itself a third topic that should be separate from both God and an afterlife since it has more to do with doctrines, ancient published works, rules, etc. than the actual topics of a higher power or an afterlife or third dimensions. Does anyone else get annoyed at this? I see it from both sides. The religious always take ownership of all the related topics, while the non-religious always reject the same topics when they are mutually exclusive from one another.

I'm a finite being (physically I will die). Yet the faith I am blessed with is infinite -always room for improvement even to the point of reaching perfection -but not to be realized by myself in this life. Have you seen this world? Yikes!

I really can't separate the different topics that you've mentioned.

To understand my point of view or my faith, try substituting "PERFECT Love" for "God/supreme being". If you're lacking perfection you might understand where I'm coming from. If you're perfect don't worry about it.

Great topic RCA. I don't agree with your reasoning in your OP but I sure do appreciate the different facets of what you've mentioned. Again, in my case they're inseparable and if they didn't all tie together for me I'd have doubts. They tie together for me.

I must add that Perfect Love (a supreme being) has been sacrificed for me and my imperfections. Debt paid. Free market principle satisfied.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How do you know what you know?

Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[2] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4]

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

^ Ironic.

Very.