Atheism's Offer

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Imagine you had no physical senses.

What would remain? Your thoughts? Your emotions? ...”

yes to both.

“...You wouldn't even know you had a body. Then if your body died, what would remain?

Nothing? ...”

correct.

So your point is?....that atheism has “nothing to offer”?
Is there a logical reason why the truth should have som ...[text shortened]... gical reason?
Why logically could it not be the case that the truth has nothing to “offer” us?

Typical dishonest talk from someone who has the madness disease of atheism.


Talk, talk, talk, talk,.......nonsense.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
And there was every logical conclusion to suppose the Earth was flat.

I suppose that for some people that has been the case and may even still be the case if you are ignorant enough. But what is your point? That people sometimes get things wrong? I will not deny that. That lack of information may lead to wrong conclusions? I will not deny that.
But it remains the case that the poster I was responding too who claimed that "There is no logical reason to conclude that one ceases to exist simply because the body dies" is incorrect. There are logical reasons to assume that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suppose that for some people that has been the case and may even still be the case if you are ignorant enough. But what is your point? That people sometimes get things wrong? I will not deny that. That lack of information may lead to wrong conclusions? I will not deny that.
But it remains the case that the poster I was responding too who claimed that ...[text shortened]... to exist simply because the body dies" is incorrect. There are logical reasons to assume that.

My point is that science has been sucject to major revision over the years.
And that scientific thinking makes up part of our thinking, and that thinking is important because it has the potential to understand itself.

So i guess its the old: Just cause you cant prove it doesn't means its not true, agnostic type arguement.
You have lost no crdeibility here ,friend,dont worry

Originally posted by karoly aczel
My point is that science has been sucject to major revision over the years.

Well then you chose a bad example. I don't think a flat earth was ever historically what one might term 'scientific thinking'.

So i guess its the old: Just cause you cant prove it doesn't means its not true, agnostic type arguement.
Nothing wrong with that. But I still maintain that there are logical reasons for concluding that I will not outlive my body. In fact, I think I have a watertight case. I would welcome any counter argument, but I believe that no valid counter argument is possible without redefining what I mean by "I". Essentially I am claiming that a live body is included in the definition of what I call "I" and thus existence of "I" without a live body is impossible by definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Essentially I am claiming that a live body is included in the definition of what I call "I" and thus existence of "I" without a live body is impossible by definition.

Hear, hear!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you chose a bad example. I don't think a flat earth was ever historically what one might term 'scientific thinking'.

[b]So i guess its the old: Just cause you cant prove it doesn't means its not true, agnostic type arguement.
Nothing wrong with that. But I still maintain that there are logical reasons for concluding that I will not outli ...[text shortened]... I call "I" and thus existence of "I" without a live body is impossible by definition.[/b]

I'm glad you said that,summed it up better than I would've.

Basically thats why I have no counter arguement, because the "I" is a more of a shifting idea,(with me), than the firmly established third-dimensional "I" that will die.
I think we agree more or less.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Hear, hear!

The "I" is the illusion. The brain intellligent enough to question its own existence has the capacity to realize its higher function.

The fact that you understand your own ego and her mechanisms means you have the suitable required scientific understanding to understand how the coincidences occur to show where the intelligent scientific mind is too retarded to understand the actual "Instant" , which is beyond classification and division.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Basically thats why I have no counter arguement, because the "I" is a more of a shifting idea,(with me), than the firmly established third-dimensional "I" that will die.
I think we agree more or less.

Theists, when talking about outliving their bodies are referring to their soul (a very different definition of "I" from what I generally use). My main objection is that they are generally reluctant to define what they mean by 'soul'. What makes it worse is that each theist seems to have their own unique concept of what the soul consists of and whats worse their descriptions may vary considerably over time or in different contexts.

As for you, do you think it is possible that your consciousness may continue after you physical body dies? If not, do you really care about any other parts of "you" that do continue to exist?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Typical dishonest talk from someone who has the madness disease of atheism.


Talk, talk, talk, talk,.......nonsense.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to josephw. And I only asked questions.
Instead of trolling, perhaps you could tell us the answer to my questions I put to him:

Is there a logical reason why the truth should have something to “offer” us ? And, if so, what is this logical reason?
Why logically could it not be the case that the truth has nothing to “offer” us?



Now, have you got insufficient intellect to actually be able to answer these questions? Or are you just wanting to troll?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to josephw. And I only asked questions.
Instead of trolling, perhaps you could tell us the answer to my questions I put to him:

Is there a logical reason why the truth should have something to “offer” us ? And, if so, what is this logical reason?
Why logically could it not be the case that the truth has ...[text shortened]... ient intellect to actually be able to answer these questions? Or are you just wanting to troll?

O course your false truth that there is no God has nothing to offer, but the reality is........ that God is the Supreme designer and creator, and this has much to offer, especially when you can come to understand the continuance of existence, in either the spiritual world or material world.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
O course your false truth that there is no God has nothing to offer, but the reality is that God is the Supreme designer and creator, and this has much to offer, especially when you can come to understand the continuance of existence, in either the spiritual world or material world.

Talk, talk, talk.........nonsense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Theists, when talking about outliving their bodies are referring to their soul (a very different definition of "I" from what I generally use). My main objection is that they are generally reluctant to define what they mean by 'soul'. What makes it worse is that each theist seems to have their own unique concept of what the soul consists of and whats worse ...[text shortened]... dies? If not, do you really care about any other parts of "you" that do continue to exist?

I think we have the potential to reallign our thinking with the matrix of our creation, which from a linear perspective(current perspective usually) , would seem like we have "outlived" our physical bodies, but in another sense we would just be going back home to the eternal beings that we are.
And again , from another perspective, there is no going back or forward, but just now.

What cheeses me off with some other christian theists is they seem to think that they will GAIN eternal life. If we are eternal, then we were already existing prior to our bodies being born. Anyway thats the only way it would make sense to me.

The other thing is that they think you have to die first, thereby ensuring that the ones in power continue to stay there, because "waking up" while alive would be the sort of philosophy that would disrupt their dominance over us. "Just wait til you die and be good, and then you'll get to heaven, blah,blah...".
We can goto heaven now if we wish.
But first we should have some reasonable idea of what to expect, not a plainly wrong idea. Clouds and a big bearded man and stuff like that is just pure nonsense and I hope that people will realize that before they die.

edit:as for the idea of a "soul", i think it is a personal one. It exists to you and you alone, thats one reason it cannot be proved.
It is a troublesome concept, one that has not helped me very much. I think I could've bypassed that one altogether.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I think we have the potential to reallign our thinking with the matrix of our creation, which from a linear perspective(current perspective usually) , would seem like we have "outlived" our physical bodies, but in another sense we would just be going back home to the eternal beings that we are.

But what is the 'we' you are referring to? Do you expect to retain your consciousness after death?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]even if the Atheist view is correct there is no offer.

But some of us actually value our view's being correct. Not you, apparently, but some of us.[/b]

So you know your correct? I doubt that, your beliefs may be well rooted in your
thinking, that does not make you correct. You know I'm not correct or was that
just a cheap shot?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you know your correct? I doubt that, your beliefs may be well rooted in your
thinking, that does not make you correct. You know I'm not correct or was that
just a cheap shot?
Kelly

I think you misunderstood him. He was not claiming his view was correct, he was saying that he thinks it is important to find the correct view - and implied that that was more important to him than finding a view that has something to offer.

He is countering the theme of the Thread which is that atheism should not be followed/accepted/believed because it has nothing to offer with the important point that the validity of a view/belief is not equivalent to what it has to offer to the adherent.