Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    It doesn't matter if we are rare or not. If you have strong evidence then you must be able to justify against any theist even if it is just one person out of the 7 billion people. Accepting the rational is not against our holy scriptures. Please give me a specific example? Hindu cosmology is a very broad topic to scrutinize like that.
    It does matter - it's rare because they are incompatible. Hinduism is filled with unscientific and unproven claims that you would have to ignore as a scientist. Religious scientists are the most self-deluded types of theists, though they are preferable.

    (Original post by saran23)
    Did you mean an insult to the science community or an insult to science as a concept? Then why is there a statue of Natarajah at the CERN institute?
    Because it's a symbol; it has nothing to do with science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    While I choose to believe this is probably true, we have no way of actually proving it. So saying it 100% exists is like saying it 100% doesn't, impossible to say.
    That goes without saying.

    Atheists and scientists don't believe or disbelieve anything with 100% certainty but that doesn't mean every single statement of belief must acknowledge this. I'm not 100% certain there isn't an invisible hippopotamus in the room with me right now but my reasonable doubt is high enough (99.999...%) that I can make statements such as "there is no invisible hippopotamus in the room" without feeling the need to clarify that, yes, there is a chance, however small, of an invisible hippopotamus reading TSR over my shoulder.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    I mentioned specifically the Abrahamic religions as they make up the vast majority of theists. I commend theists such as Hindus for embracing science but they are rare because accepting rationality and evidence-based thinking contradicts their holy texts and scriptures. It requires an even greater deal of intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and self-delusion to be a religious scientist than simply religious.

    Hindu cosmology and creationism, for example, is an insult to science.
    But according to science, both science and religion (and music) are evolutionary by-products. Why do you respect science and music, but not religion?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    That goes without saying.

    Atheists and scientists don't believe or disbelieve anything with 100% certainty but that doesn't mean every single statement of belief must acknowledge this. I'm not 100% certain there isn't an invisible hippopotamus in the room with me right now but my reasonable doubt is high enough (99.999...%) that I can make statements such as "there is no invisible hippopotamus in the room" without feeling the need to clarify that, yes, there is a chance, however small, of an invisible hippopotamus reading TSR over my shoulder.
    This also goes without saying.

    The likelihood that there are things beyond one stream of consciousness is far more likely than something random like an invisible hippo.

    What I am saying is that the likelihood of some of religion being true when so many millions of people choose to believe it is true, is much higher than the hippo scenario, which no one believes, so you can't make statements like the OP without inserting words like 'probably'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    That goes without saying.

    Atheists and scientists don't believe or disbelieve anything with 100% certainty but that doesn't mean every single statement of belief must acknowledge this. I'm not 100% certain there isn't an invisible hippopotamus in the room with me right now but my reasonable doubt is high enough (99.999...%) that I can make statements such as "there is no invisible hippopotamus in the room" without feeling the need to clarify that, yes, there is a chance, however small, of an invisible hippopotamus reading TSR over my shoulder.
    Actually, just going by the chance that the Big Bang would randomly explode "right", such that the Universe now would be possible, is about the chance of there being an invisible hippopotamus in the room with you right now. I wouldn't stake all my chances on that hippo of yours, if I were you!
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When they die. On no wait. Those who believe in an after life (and are not haunted about going to some hell) are in a win win situation. They are either true and get to see thier long lost relatives and stuff. Or they are wrong but when they are dead they don't know that since they no longer exist. They get to live life with comfort of believing they are going to see their parents again in heaven or something. Where as someone like me goes through life in existential dread. I can;t for the life of me believe in a theistic god or an after life. On the other hand I don't have to worry about any vengeful fascistic Gods punishing me.


    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    This also goes without saying.

    The likelihood that there are things beyond one stream of consciousness is far more likely than something random like an invisible hippo.

    What I am saying is that the likelihood of some of religion being true when so many millions of people choose to believe it is true, is much higher than the hippo scenario, which no one believes, so you can't make statements like the OP without inserting words like 'probably'.
    Why does the chances of something being true hinge on the number of people believing in said thing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    But according to science, both science and religion (and music) are evolutionary by-products. Why do you respect science and music, but not religion?
    What does its (possibly) being an evolutionary by-product have to do with its veracity? A by-product of evolution can be unwanted or undue of respect. Music is neither true nor false and makes no claims nor demands of the world. It is incomparable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    It does matter - it's rare because they are incompatible. Hinduism is filled with unscientific and unproven claims that you would have to ignore as a scientist. Religious scientists are the most self-deluded types of theists, though they are preferable.



    Because it's a symbol; it has nothing to do with science.

    Well there are over 1 billion Hindus on this planet which is quite significant to be honest. You say unscientific and unproven claims but majority of them have been proven by science. Such as the age of Earth which we predicted to be 4 billion years and also the age of the universe. Long before Demetrius and Professor John Dalton we have theorised the existence of atomic and subatomic particles. Hinduism is not a science but it welcomes it. Generating hypotheses is part of science however. So far our claims through our spiritual beliefs harmonises with science.Advancement in science helps us to view God with more clarity in synergy with our spiritual beliefs.

    The symbol has a meaning. The cosmic dance of Nataraja is of relevance to science at it represents the "cosmic dance" of the subatomic particles.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    This also goes without saying.

    The likelihood that there are things beyond one stream of consciousness is far more likely than something random like an invisible hippo.
    Why could an invisible hippopotamus not be beyond one stream of consciousness? The evidence for both an invisible hippopotamus and a God are the same: zero. How have you concluded one is more likely than the other?

    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    What I am saying is that the likelihood of some of religion being true when so many millions of people choose to believe it is true, is much higher than the hippo scenario, which no one believes, so you can't make statements like the OP without inserting words like 'probably'.
    You're confusing belief with evidence. The number of people believing something does not change its probability of holding true - the amount of evidence for something does.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    Actually, just going by the chance that the Big Bang would randomly explode "right", such that the Universe now would be possible, is about the chance of there being an invisible hippopotamus in the room with you right now. I wouldn't stake all my chances on that hippo of yours, if I were you!
    The Big Bang has lower uncertainty than any other theory, hence we accept it and develop it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samzy21)
    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
    Nothing more than your opinion, most probably because you've been raised to believe that. To me and millions of others, the idea of heaven and hell does not sound right at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    No need for calling my mind simple... cheeky...

    It is perhaps even more silly to attach greater significance to something to which cannot be proven.

    The proteins that are keeping my many functional systems working are simply proteins. Some deity isn't inside me telling them what to do.

    It is a well known cognitive bias that humans attach meaning where there is none.
    Sorry for calling you simple.

    But I must say that you can't prove your statement about the protein analogy.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    What I am saying is that the likelihood of some of religion being true when so many millions of people choose to believe it is true, is much higher than the hippo scenario, which no one believes.
    With due respect, appeal to popularity has no value relative to this discussion.

    The same can be said that Christianity is more likely to be true than (for instance) Islam, or even the disbelief in a God is more likely to be true etc etc

    Whether people(s) believe or not, it is the content of the religion that gives it value.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The Quran contains no impressive science at all, all of its so-called miracles have been thoroughly debunked on TSR and elsewhere. It also contains loads of scientific errors. Your holy book is no more special or impressive than any other.

    no I doesn't and how can u be so sure u haven't read the quaran otherwise you wouldn't have said that
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    What I am saying is that the likelihood of some of religion being true when so many millions of people choose to believe it is true, is much higher than the hippo scenario, which no one believes, so you can't make statements like the OP without inserting words like 'probably'.
    This is nothing short of nonsense and what's known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The number of adherents to a particular belief in no way increases the chances of that belief being correct. So no, it is no more likely to be true than the invisible hippo.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    no I doesn't and how can u be so sure u haven't read the quaran otherwise you wouldn't have said that
    Of course it does and for your information I have read the Quran and so have plenty of others on this site who also see the inaccuracies it contains.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Well there are over 1 billion Hindus on this planet which is quite significant to be honest. You say unscientific and unproven claims but majority of them have been proven by science. Such as the age of Earth which we predicted to be 4 billion years and also the age of the universe. Long before Demetrius and Professor John Dalton we have theorised the existence of atomic and subatomic particles. Hinduism is not a science but it welcomes it. Generating hypotheses is part of science however. So far our claims through our spiritual beliefs harmonises with science.Advancement in science helps us to view God with more clarity in synergy with our spiritual beliefs.
    You're conveniently missing out a) all the unscientific claims, i.e. the huge amount of metaphysical, unproven nonsense that scripture takes to be fact; b) the lack of scientific method; and c) Hindu scripture does not claim the age of the universe is 14 billion years as scientists do.

    (Original post by saran23)
    The symbol has a meaning. The cosmic dance of Nataraja is of relevance to science at it represents the "cosmic dance" of the subatomic particles.
    I know, I meant it is not scientific, it's mythology and symbolism - this can still be enjoyed by atheists and scientists without believing it to be factually true or have faith in it, in the same way that I enjoy novels and films.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Of course it does and for your information I have read the Quran and so have plenty of others on this site who also see the inaccuracies it contains.
    I don't believe that you've read it this I just cant
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Sorry for calling you simple.

    But I must say that you can't prove your statement about the protein analogy.
    No offence taken, and thanks for the courtesy.

    My point is that:
    In the analogy I would be inferring something about the proteins that I would have no foundation to do... (that proteins have a mystical element)
    So I don't need to prove evidence for the protein analogy because it is implying the absence of something (of which no evidence is given to the contrary).
    When saying something exists you have to provide a rationale, not the other way around.
    But you seem to suggest that making such inferences without evidence are reasonable... and in that way it seems you are trying to rationalise religious beliefs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    I don't believe that you've read it this I just cant
    Believe what you like, but I certainly have. There's an ex-Muslim Society on this site, full of ex-Muslims who have read the Quran and think it's nonsense. These people exist, ask them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

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.