Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ? Watch

Announcements
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    This is how noble and respectful people debate.
    Genuine debate requires honesty and a thick skin. If you think that worthwhile debate only involves statements that will not offend the other party, you are sadly mistaken.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Just because someone is really into something, that does not mean that we shouldn't be allowed to criticise it.

    Some people put their entire lives into hunting for sport. It is everything to them. Does that mean we can't criticise them for killing animals for fun?

    I wouldn't be happy, but if they then showed me evidence that my mum had been turning tricks and my dad had been having sex with children, I'd just have to accept it.
    Look, I understand that some Muslims aren't happy about being shown that their religion condones slavery, wife beating, killing people for their beliefs or sexuality, or that their perfect prophet had sex with a child and had people tortured to death (although some just accept it, because if it is part of Islam, it must be acceptable!)

    Respect is earned, not demanded.

    There is a way to critique everything but it should be done respectfully. For example, when I right a critical essay, I don't say start insulting whatever I'm writing about, I explain the criticism and the critical lens I'm looking through.

    I don't respect people who insult and bash islam for the sake of it. There is a way to type an issue you have without completely degrading someone and their religion. I would know, I've done it many times before.

    But these bashing islam conversations are getting old, I'm so bored and tired of clicking on thread that seems rather interesting and finding out 6 pages of it is a back and forth untasteful exchange on Islam and isis, and sex slaves etc.

    It's rarely even a proper debate, just rage.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Yes, but you still have no evidence to disprove the existence of god. I suggest you better start working on an "empirical" equipment to disprove the existence of God to justify your claim.

    Your strong opinions are clouding your judgement whether or not the existence of God has been disproved.
    Imagine you tried to sue your energy supplier because you claimed that the electric sockets were leaking a dangerous energy into your house. The court would order independent tests to attempt to detect this energy. If every test available failed to find any trace of anything that corresponded to your claim, the court would reject your claim. It wouldn't say that, although all tests were negative, we still have to assume the presence of said energy. It may actually be there, but as far as anyone rational is concerned, it may as well not be and it would be both futile and odd to behave as if it was there.

    You don't have to prove something doesn't exist in order to behave as if it doesn't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Genuine debate requires honesty and a thick skin. If you think that worthwhile debate only involves statements that will not offend the other party, you are sadly mistaken.
    No, you're mistaken. A debate can be completely respectful on both parts.

    What is a debate if you can't find some kind of middle ground (even agree to disagree is a middle ground) as a conclusion? or hold up your mannerisms when a debate gets heated?


    without that it is just a plain old argument.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Ok, I'll give you an example. In Hinduism, Shakti is the goddess of empowerment and is the primordial cosmic energy and represents the dynamic forces that are thought to move through the entire universe. I believe that she is the energy you see everywhere. The energy from the burning stars we see powering all lives that you see on earth(my personal belief).
    The bits in bold show why it is not evidence but merely an assertion based on your personal beliefs.

    So my evidence is all around you, the cosmic energy that we are surrounded by. The energy that gave me the blessing to allow me to rise from the ground and shape me into a human being.

    Isn't this for you evidence?
    The bit in bold shows why I am slowly walking away backwards, smiling and nodding...
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Energy was only discovered in the late 18th century. Shakti has been our deity for millennia's. My personal opinion is that science has helped my community further establish our beliefs. We did not derive our deities on scientific grounds.
    That's some mighty powerful woo you've got there!
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    There is a way to critique everything but it should be done respectfully.
    What is this obsession with "respect"? Do you even know what it means?

    Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements (OED)

    So, why should I respect something that I have no admiration for and find its qualities unacceptable?

    I don't respect people who insult and bash islam for the sake of it.
    Whoah there! You just made a big deal about respecting everyone's views. Now you are saying that you don't repect someone's views because of some characteristic. Just have a think about that...
    Hear that noise? Hopefully it's the sound of a penny dropping.

    But these bashing islam conversations are getting old, I'm so bored and tired of clicking on thread that seems rather interesting and finding out 6 pages of it is a back and forth untasteful exchange on Islam and isis, and sex slaves etc.
    So, you find criticism of ISIS, sex slaves, etc, worse than the things themselves?
    If you really are offended by people opposing slavery, wife beating, killing on grounds of sexuality, etc, then perhaps you'd be better off not reading those posts. Just stick to the ones where they show respect for such behaviour.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, you're mistaken. A debate can be completely respectful on both parts.
    What is a debate if you can't find some kind of middle ground (even agree to disagree is a middle ground) as a conclusion? or hold up your mannerisms when a debate gets heated?
    Of course it can, but is is likely to be pretty meaningless and resolve nothing. A debate is an adversarial engagement, where two sides attempt to determine which holds the legitimate position.

    What you are talking about is arbitration and conciliation. A very different animal. Absolutely necessary and justified in its proper contect, but it has no place in debate.









    without that it is just a plain old argument.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What is this obsession with "respect"? Do you even know what it means?

    Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements (OED)

    So, why should I respect something that I have no admiration for and find its qualities unacceptable?

    Whoah there! You just made a big deal about respecting everyone's views. Now you are saying that you don't repect someone's views because of some characteristic. Just have a think about that...
    Hear that noise? Hopefully it's the sound of a penny dropping.

    So, you find criticism of ISIS, sex slaves, etc, worse than the things themselves?
    If you really are offended by people opposing slavery, wife beating, killing on grounds of sexuality, etc, then perhaps you'd be better off not reading those posts. Just stick to the ones where they show respect for such behaviour.
    Did I say you should respect something you find unacceptable? I said you should address something with respect. Act in a respectful manner, how difficult is that to understand?

    "Whoah there! You just made a big deal about respecting everyone's views. Now you are saying that you don't repect someone's views because of some characteristic. Just have a think about that... Hear that noise? Hopefully it's the sound of a penny dropping."

    Lol you're hilarious, tore my lungs apart laughing to that!



    "So, you find criticism of ISIS, sex slaves, etc, worse than the things themselves?" This is the epitome of putting things in someones mouth, well done dear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You sound exactly like the kind of extremeist religious folk that most have a mild distaste for, except you only preach hate towards others' religions. I'm also an athiest, but being human includes allowing people their own opinions, with opportunity for discussion perhaps, but never this kind of hostility. You give us athiests a bad name.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Imagine you tried to sue your energy supplier because you claimed that the electric sockets were leaking a dangerous energy into your house. The court would order independent tests to attempt to detect this energy. If every test available failed to find any trace of anything that corresponded to your claim, the court would reject your claim. It wouldn't say that, although all tests were negative, we still have to assume the presence of said energy. It may actually be there, but as far as anyone rational is concerned, it may as well not be and it would be both futile and odd to behave as if it was there.

    You don't have to prove something doesn't exist in order to behave as if it doesn't.
    You say that the tests have all indicated that there is no evidence of a dangerous leak but did the independent body have the technology to detect this type of energy? If this scenario took place a few centuries ago(please use your imagination as there were no electrical sockets then), say in the medieval times what would the independent body have done to validate my claim. They would have come in one afternoon and just would have had a quick look around not knowing what to look for. This is why most atheist are sceptical because you cannot feel the existence of god as you do not feel the spiritual awareness and hence you are resistant to believing in miracles. Yes, scientifically speaking my views on God to you may be irrational as it is based on assumptions. But I believe in these assumptions as they are perfectly rational to me.

    We humans can only see the universe in the visible spectrum of light with the naked eye. We now can see more of the spectrum of light thanks to advanced machines. But even then, what percentage of the universe can we really see? Scientists say that they we only know 5% of the contents of the universe. You cannot just extrapolate such a small amount of the known and say there is no God for sure. Humanity can practice science but we will never be able to master it. First , have all the science of the Universe mapped out and then tell me whether or not God exists. Do not come to premature decisions with very little science.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Exactly. You are talking about people believing stuff without evidence.

    But no scientist ever claims a particular theory or conclusion to be absolute, immutable fact. As you say, science works because we are always attempting to disprove ideas, and develop new ones, which we keep testing until they fail. If they do not fail, we accept it as the best explanation until a better one is developed.
    The point is...science works! Planes fly, computers accurately process mindboggling amounts of information, medicines cure disease, etc, etc. We don't believe these things work - they actually do!

    And when new developments are made, scientists do not claim that it is offensive, or racist, or whatever, to criticise and point out their failings. They say, "Fair enough, let's move on and do it better".
    Okay fine whatever have that one if it will stop you bringing it up. The point is that science isn't always right.

    Religion evolves too. Christanity has evolved a lot over time and has multiple branches. There are also cases in which prayer has "worked". This could be seen as evidence for the existance of a God. But you can't disprove most religions, that's something different from science. I'll use the example of christianity since I know more about it... God created the world- from nothing- which means that he exists outside of our reality. There is no way for us to test if he exists properly since we would have to think in a way or use methods that simply don't exist. Sims can't locate us, because we crated them, and it's the same with us and God. We will never be able to disprove it.

    Your last complaint just seems a bit bitter frankly. Not all religious people will be so aggressive in defending their religion and some will even move religions when they find one that sounds better. And yes ther are some scientists who will not accept that they are wrong and try to discredit others. You are looking at the industry of science vs individual religious people and it's an unfair comparisson.

    To me, religion is a system more like morality than science. We have things that we believe should or shouldn't be done and religion is a simmilar concept just with a reason behind it. Does not stealing work? Does not killing work? Does wearing clothes work? You can't really say*. Religion, on the most part, isn't meant to be right or wrong, it's meant to give meaning to life and it does that. There are many people who were completely lost until they found religion- people who would have killed themselves or who were criminals turned around because of religion. Religion works.

    *and don't go into anything like "it stops a dysfunctional society" or "If we all stole and killed there would be endless conflict" cos that all depends on how you look at things. In Sparta it was okay to steal as long as you didn't get caught and their society was pretty damn advanced in some respects and worked well. Also it's all assuming that society needs to function and you shouldn't just be looking out for yourself and nobody else. It all depends on what you see as working.*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All I'm going to say is that in some ways, though I respect others rights to their own beliefs on the matter, I actually find comfort in the fact that I don't believe in an afterlife; at the end of the day, I have one life with which I can do what I want. I can waste it, or, live it to the full, knowing that none of my decisions will affect me once I'm gone. This way, I can simply enjoy living, without worrying about going to Hell or Heaven, and instead move to see and understand the world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    There is NO life after death.
    We are our bodies , more precisely our brains.
    There is no such thing as a "soul".
    There is no such thing as "heaven" " hell" .
    These are all inventions of the religious people.
    No one is going to reborn , we only live once.
    Just dying sounds too good to be true. Coming back to life to be be judged then rewarded or punished in heaven or hell sounds scary but about right.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rations)
    True.

    In reality, outside the biased human mind, a human isn't anymore significant than an ant in the universe.


    In b4 the delusional idiots come along 'NOOO WE'RE MORE IMPORTANT WE'RE GOING TO HEAVEN NOOOOOOOOOO'
    Everyone who believes in heaven is a delusional idiot? Really?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The bits in bold show why it is not evidence but merely an assertion based on your personal beliefs.

    The bit in bold shows why I am slowly walking away backwards, smiling and nodding...
    For me and most Hindu's the evidence is plentiful. Science cannot disprove nor champion Hinduism because we simply embrace it. Hinduism and science are both at harmony with each other. Everything you find logical is incorporated into our fundamental principles. It depends on each person how much evidence is sufficient for one to believe in the existence of god. I emphasised that they were my personal beliefs because they contradict the views of the fellow Christians and Muslims and members of other faiths whom I dearly respect.

    You may have want to have a look at some of the evidences that we Hindus believe in:
    http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Advanced_Concepts.htm
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    There is NO life after death.
    We are our bodies , more precisely our brains.
    There is no such thing as a "soul".
    There is no such thing as "heaven" " hell" .
    These are all inventions of the religious people.
    No one is going to reborn , we only live once.
    Why do you care? You were better when you were just droning on about tour obsession with death and being alone all the time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The only time you need to complain about religion is when they bring it into science classes and discussions, if you don't know something don't presume it's the work of god because then you'll look like a fool when they find an explanation for it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What is this obsession with "respect"? Do you even know what it means?

    Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements (OED)

    So, why should I respect something that I have no admiration for and find its qualities unacceptable?

    Whoah there! You just made a big deal about respecting everyone's views. Now you are saying that you don't repect someone's views because of some characteristic. Just have a think about that...
    Hear that noise? Hopefully it's the sound of a penny dropping.

    So, you find criticism of ISIS, sex slaves, etc, worse than the things themselves?
    If you really are offended by people opposing slavery, wife beating, killing on grounds of sexuality, etc, then perhaps you'd be better off not reading those posts. Just stick to the ones where they show respect for such behaviour.
    First of all, the OED gives two further definitions of 'respect'. The second, which is more relevant, is due regard for the wishes, feelings or rights of others. Essentially, good debating is about not being a dork.

    I encourage you to read some more academic work on the philosophy of religion. Given the controversial nature of the subject, it is surprising that academic discussions are conducted dispassionately, logically and yes, respectfully. Rhetoric just gets in the way of what the argument actually is.

    With regards to your ISIS statement, it's a red herring. We're not talking about ISIS, we're talking about life after death.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    There is a way to type an issue you have without completely degrading someone and their religion.
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, you're mistaken. A debate can be completely respectful on both parts.
    The problem is the word "respect". In debate we should be personally respectful, i.e. not throw around aggressive ad hominem attacks (though the mild witty jibe can be humorous and break the ice) nor rage personally at our opponent. This clearly makes for poor debate.

    However, we have no obligation at all to be respectful of one's beliefs. On highly contentious topics that are fundamental to one of the interlocutors, it is quite impossible to be "completely respectful" - we can show respect to them personally but not of their beliefs. We have seen that with the large public debates on New Atheism, the many live debates on feminism/racism, and even the UK/US political campaigns and TV debates. It is impossible, for example, to critique the Quran and the beliefs it demands without disrespecting its followers in some way - this is precisely where regressive liberals try and put critics between a rock and a hard place, i.e. you cannot criticise unless it does not disrespect someone despite this criticism inevitably disrespecting someone. That is, they do not want criticism at all. They conflate the two different meanings of "respect" and claim they are insulted by both.

    I have no respect at all for religious beliefs in 2016 but that doesn't mean I'll call a theist a stupid little toad during a debate. Respect for a belief has no place in debate - it's precisely our disrespect for each other's views that cause us to debate. Debate must be well-reasoned, objective and clinical, and avoid personal attacks unless they are in jest and mild.

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    What is a debate if you can't find some kind of middle ground (even agree to disagree is a middle ground) as a conclusion?
    Agreeing to disagree is not a middle ground. It's to finish where you started. We debate precisely because we agree that we disagree and want to inspect this disagreement. You must not have much experience in religious debate if you think conclusions are ever reached. Their purpose is to change the opinion of the audience not your opponent.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.