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

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

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Impressive)
    Personally I agree with you but you need to remember that you don't know whether afterlife is possible which means your statement/opinion is just lame
    i would like to publicly apologize for making that post, i have founded jesas and am now enlightened. peace with u brothers
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    Bruh, I'm Christian and a Biomedical Scientist. But disregarding the former, I have to break it to you that we do not evolve from Apes. We merely have a common ancestor which scientists haven't yet found (God's got a lot of explaining to do LOL)
    If we did evolve from Apes, by now they would have undergone some degree of evolutionary natural selection at a different rate to others depending on environment, but for the most part all apes would have evolved into Homo Sapiens by now.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...evolution-101/
    (evidence since you love it so much)

    And I think you need to calm your tone down. I understand how strongly you feel about Religion and I can't jump in the way of your passion, but as a Christian I would never read your comments and think "wow, that person's so right! Their condescending tone and everything just makes me feel so dumb! Who is God anyways? Rah, I need to rethink my life!"

    For people who try and encourage "acceptance" and "tolerance", you'd think you'd extend some back to religious people.
    This is one person's opinion, and hypothesis, you cannot claim a priori fact without more than this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This forum shows how bored people can get...
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Cruxell)
    i would like to publicly apologize for making that post
    Apologies accepted

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You said this:

    "Big Bang/Evolutionary theory (and other theories) remain theories because evidence is still lacking as of present.", clearly implying that more evidence is needed to make them legitimate when it isn't. They are the highest possible form of empirical proof and would still be called theories even if all possible empirical evidence in their favour were discovered. So no, they don't remain theories because evidence is still lacking, they're called theories because that's what a well substantiated explanation of the natural world is called.
    I see where you are coming from. You're referring to my use of the word "theory" with regards to the definition of scientific theory. I apologize for the phrasing, but the use of "theory" in "Big Bang/Evolutionary theory" here, refers to the scientific theory you're talking about, while the use of "theory" in "remain theories" simply refers to our everyday use of the word theory (not scientific). The point here, is that these scientific theories are merely "theories" (i use this word in the general sense) we use to explain phenomena.

    I don't see why you are making an argument over the semantics of the word "theory" in "scientific theory", neither do I see why you think I'm arguing the credibility of scientific theory. I am not. The semantics are irrelevant to my point. My point is that exactly that scientific theory is based on empirical proof (as you so mentioned), call it theory, call it law, call it the truth, whatever you want, but unless you can provide a empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, then God will forever remain a possibility. That is the area I'm referring to that "lacks evidence". I'm not concerned with arguing what the word "theory" means with you. My focus was on the relationship between science and God.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Well either you don't express yourself very well or you have completely forgotten what you wrote. You said this:

    "If evolution was the be all end all, this conversation wouldn't be needed, because you would have your proof that God is a lie."

    Here you are obviously implying that if evolution were proven beyond all reasonable doubt (and by the way, it has) that God would by extension also be debunked once and for all.
    To quote myself - "be all and end all". Not proof that evolution exists. That it exists as a "be all end all". Has scientific proof proved that God doesn't exist and that evolution is the be all end all? You're right when you say I'm implying God would be debunked, but only if evolution is proved to be the be all end all and creationism is impossible. (and by the way, it hasn't.)

    On another note, have I done anything to upset you? I don't see why you need to throw in phrases like "Well either you don't express yourself very well or you have completely forgotten what you wrote" which are ad hominem. It's not my fault you are unable to pick up what I'm putting down. (See? I can throw in sass and insults too. But I don't.) If you have a point, I'm happy to hear it. I don't need insults to explain my stance.

    Cheers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hipsterrapunzel)
    I see where you are coming from. You're referring to my use of the word "theory" with regards to the definition of scientific theory. I apologize for the phrasing, but the use of "theory" in "Big Bang/Evolutionary theory" here, refers to the scientific theory you're talking about, while the use of "theory" in "remain theories" simply refers to our everyday use of the word theory (not scientific). The point here, is that these scientific theories are merely "theories" (i use this word in the general sense) we use to explain phenomena.
    Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense, your reasoning is muddled and all over the place. The Big Bang and Evolution are scientific theories, yes, therefore it makes no sense to then refer to them (when saying "they remain theories" ) as the everyday use of the word. They are the former and not the latter.

    I don't see why you are making an argument over the semantics of the word "theory" in "scientific theory", neither do I see why you think I'm arguing the credibility of scientific theory. I am not. The semantics are irrelevant to my point. My point is that exactly that scientific theory is based on empirical proof (as you so mentioned), call it theory, call it law, call it the truth, whatever you want, but unless you can provide a empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, then God will forever remain a possibility. That is the area I'm referring to that "lacks evidence". I'm not concerned with arguing what the word "theory" means with you. My focus was on the relationship between science and God.
    Not a convincing argument in the slightest. There are literally an infinite number of things that technically are possible, precisely because they are unfalsifiable. Therefore the burden of proof lies on the person claiming or implying God exists. If they are unable to produce evidence to this effect then for all intents and purposes God (and any other unfalsifiable creature or being) can be considered to be non-existent.

    Also, I'm not being rude, I'm just pointing out that your supposed meaning does not match what you actually write. Let's look at the sentence you wrote again:

    "Big Bang/Evolutionary theory (and other theories) remain theories because evidence is still lacking as of present." Now, anyone reading this would quite reasonably assume that by "lacking evidence" you are explicitly referring to the Big Bang and Evolution by virtue of it being in the same sentence and your use of the word "because" showing a clear connection between both halves of the sentence and how one is a consequence of the other. There is nothing at all in that sentence to demonstrate that by "lacking evidence" you are referring to the lack of empirical evidence that God doesn't exist. The word "God" isn't even present in that sentence!

    Granted, this isn't an English language lesson, but you can hardly complain about people calling you out on and getting confused at your sentence structure when it very clearly appears that you write one thing when meaning quite another.

    To quote myself - "be all and end all". Not proof that evolution exists. That it exists as a "be all end all". Has scientific proof proved that God doesn't exist and that evolution is the be all end all? You're right when you say I'm implying God would be debunked, but only if evolution is proved to be the be all end all and creationism is impossible. (and by the way, it hasn't.)
    Again, I'm afraid you're making no sense. You've just repeated what I called you out on in the first place. Evolution is the be all and end all regarding how life adapts and creationism is impossible by virtue of evolution being true. And once again you are incorrect, did you not read my previous reply? God would not be debunked by Evolution being true. Evolution is true and many people accept it and still believe in God. They believe that God put the process of Evolution into action and that that's how he creates organisms rather than creating them, fully-formed, out of thin air.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense, your reasoning is muddled and all over the place. The Big Bang and Evolution are scientific theories, yes, therefore it makes no sense to then refer to them (when saying "they remain theories" ) as the everyday use of the word. They are the former and not the latter.
    Would "they remain theories to explain how life started without the need for a God" be clearer? Or "they remain ways/ideas/perspectives/explanations of explaining how life started without the need for God" (simple synonym substitution). You are badgering me on the use of the word "theory" in the second phrase, which I have already clarified in my previous two replies, does not refer to your definition of scientific theory. I'm merely saying that A is one theory/way/perspective/opinion to explain B. And this makes sense because if you have read the previous thread which I am replying to (and my replies), we are talking in the context of explaining the existence of God. If you're taking my words out of context, then obviously it would be confusing. It has nothing to do with the validity or evidence behind A. It's just a manner of expression. Sorry if I could have used a more appropriate word. My bad. And you now obviously understand my point, so if I wasn't clear, I have explained myself.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)

    Not a convincing argument in the slightest. There are literally an infinite number of things that technically are possible, precisely because they are unfalsifiable. Therefore the burden of proof lies on the person claiming or implying God exists. If they are unable to produce evidence to this effect then for all intents and purposes God (and any other unfalsifiable creature or being) can be considered to be non-existent.
    As I said, if you have read my previous replies, I completely agree with you here. I don't see what argument you're talking about, seeing how I'm making none, and agreeing with you completely. To quote myself.

    "You see, simply put, the notion about God is that God's ways are above human comprehension. That means that all of your science, all of your empiricism, your human reasoning, will not allow you to "prove" or disprove that God exists (unless God one day decides to show himself this way). You can't prove he doesn't exist. And I can't prove he exists. So this argument will always be at a standstill, and neither of our viewpoints can be deemed "valid" because of it. But for believers, that's where faith comes in. And faith is believing without seeing. Some would say it's based on feeling. But anti-religion people like to link feelings to neuro-chemicals and try to "scientify" things to prove faith is wrong. So I'll put it this way, it's a feeling of a connection with God, something which is incomprehensible by human means, simply because God is "incomprehensible" in that sense. And in my humble opinion, that's the nature of faith.

    So to a non-believer, basically what I'm telling you, is that I'm believing in something that is impossible by every form of human rationality. Only by faith, and experience, do people believe in God. You may call that insane. Fair enough. "

    This is on Page 11 of the thread. Have you read it before commenting? I agree with you completely. You can't prove God exists. All I'm pointing out is that it's a possibility (as you agreed). I can't possibly copy-paste all my replies so that you can know where the debate started. Don't take my words out of context.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Also, I'm not being rude, I'm just pointing out that your supposed meaning does not match what you actually write. Let's look at the sentence you wrote again:

    "Big Bang/Evolutionary theory (and other theories) remain theories because evidence is still lacking as of present." Now, anyone reading this would quite reasonably assume that by "lacking evidence" you are explicitly referring to the Big Bang and Evolution by virtue of it being in the same sentence and your use of the word "because" showing a clear connection between both halves of the sentence and how one is a consequence of the other. There is nothing at all in that sentence to demonstrate that by "lacking evidence" you are referring to the lack of empirical evidence that God doesn't exist. The word "God" isn't even present in that sentence!

    Granted, this isn't an English language lesson, but you can hardly complain about people calling you out on and getting confused at your sentence structure when it very clearly appears that you write one thing when meaning quite another.
    No offence taken.

    As mentioned above, I understand what you mean, and I admit that the phrase on its own may be confusing and could have been written better. I have already explained myself. But like I said in my previous paragraphs, if you have read my previous replies on this thread and take it in context, I do believe the meaning/implication is clear. I am discussing the theories behind existence of humanity and the ability of science to prove God's existence or in existence (see Page 11 and on) God is the main topic of my replies. And I've already said I agree with you that religious people can't prove God exists. Regardless, now you understand and we are on the same page so I don't see the issue.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Again, I'm afraid you're making no sense. You've just repeated what I called you out on in the first place. Evolution is the be all and end all regarding how life adapts and creationism is impossible by virtue of evolution being true. And once again you are incorrect, did you not read my previous reply? God would not be debunked by Evolution being true. Evolution is true and many people accept it and still believe in God. They believe that God put the process of Evolution into action and that that's how he creates organisms rather than creating them, fully-formed, out of thin air.
    Sorry, but saying "Evolution is the be all and end all regarding how life adapts and creationism is impossible by virtue of evolution being true." and saying that "God put the process of Evolution into action and that that's how he creates organisms rather than creating them." completely contradicts your own point. If God created organisms through evolution, it's still creation through evolution. Without God's intention to "create", "evolution" would not occur. You're basically arguing semantics again. "that's how he creates organisms rather than creating them" makes no sense because you're saying God creates them but doesn't create them.

    My original point/comparision is between creationism (including evolution/science/whatnot with the existence of a God) and scientific explanations for the existence of Man (big bang/evolution without God at all). I am fully aware that both can exist mutually, but that isn't what my argument/thread is about. I am discussing scenarios black and white here, because the thread is comparing the existence and non-existence of the afterlife/God in the first place and not intermediate ground. I don't believe I've ever mentioned that God and evolution cannot co-exist.

    Hope this clarifies my points.

    Cheers.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    I don't care what you 'believe'. Show me evidence. I've made arguments above, why don't you try to refute them. I imagine you won't be successful.
    Why would I need to prove anything to you? I thought this is between me and my God.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I Corinthians 3:19
    "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

    I Corinthians 1:25
    "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

    I Corinthians 1:18
    "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

    And because of that, I never waste my time justifying the presence or absence of God. God is not a location that can be visited. Salvation is an experience and unless you have been through that experience, you maintain your right to argue otherwise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    F*** you man.

    I'm going to Valhalla!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is afterlife, in fact, there are even multiple lives, and the voices of our past souls talk with us sometimes Guiding us. That is what we call conscience. :P
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Genius)
    F*** you man.

    I'm going to Valhalla!!
    Best comment ever! Fellow Valhallan I assume?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hipsterrapunzel)
    Would "they remain theories to explain how life started without the need for a God" be clearer? Or "they remain ways/ideas/perspectives/explanations of explaining how life started without the need for God" (simple synonym substitution). You are badgering me on the use of the word "theory" in the second phrase, which I have already clarified in my previous two replies, does not refer to your definition of scientific theory. I'm merely saying that A is one theory/way/perspective/opinion to explain B. And this makes sense because if you have read the previous thread which I am replying to (and my replies), we are talking in the context of explaining the existence of God. If you're taking my words out of context, then obviously it would be confusing. It has nothing to do with the validity or evidence behind A. It's just a manner of expression. Sorry if I could have used a more appropriate word. My bad. And you now obviously understand my point, so if I wasn't clear, I have explained myself.
    Well neither of those theories exclude or refute God so to speak, they just make him unnecessary. Technically it is possible for a god to have caused the Big Bang and put Evolution into action and plenty of people believe this, it's just that he isn't needed for these explanations at present.

    "You see, simply put, the notion about God is that God's ways are above human comprehension. That means that all of your science, all of your empiricism, your human reasoning, will not allow you to "prove" or disprove that God exists (unless God one day decides to show himself this way). You can't prove he doesn't exist. And I can't prove he exists. So this argument will always be at a standstill, and neither of our viewpoints can be deemed "valid" because of it. But for believers, that's where faith comes in. And faith is believing without seeing. Some would say it's based on feeling. But anti-religion people like to link feelings to neuro-chemicals and try to "scientify" things to prove faith is wrong. So I'll put it this way, it's a feeling of a connection with God, something which is incomprehensible by human means, simply because God is "incomprehensible" in that sense. And in my humble opinion, that's the nature of faith.


    So to a non-believer, basically what I'm telling you, is that I'm believing in something that is impossible by every form of human rationality. Only by faith, and experience, do people believe in God. You may call that insane. Fair enough. "

    This is on Page 11 of the thread. Have you read it before commenting? I agree with you completely. You can't prove God exists. All I'm pointing out is that it's a possibility (as you agreed). I can't possibly copy-paste all my replies so that you can know where the debate started. Don't take my words out of context.
    Indeed, it's technically a possibility, but as I already explained, one so remote that in the absence of any evidence it's fine for people to simply say "God doesn't exist". Just like there's the possibility that the sun won't rise tomorrow and that there's an invisible fairy sitting on my shoulder. In this context it means really quite little to resort to the "they could still exist" mantra because we can be 99.9999..% sure they don't.

    Moreover, even you haven't explicitly said this is such, there are other people who use "it's faith, you have to believe" as some kind of trump card in these debates and this baffles me. Saying "it's just faith" isn't a clever or resounding point as there's nothing noble, intelligent or rational about believing in something for which there is no evidence.

    Sorry, but saying "Evolution is the be all and end all regarding how life adapts and creationism is impossible by virtue of evolution being true." and saying that "God put the process of Evolution into action and that that's how he creates organisms rather than creating them." completely contradicts your own point. If God created organisms through evolution, it's still creation through evolution. Without God's intention to "create", "evolution" would not occur. You're basically arguing semantics again. "that's how he creates organisms rather than creating them" makes no sense because you're saying God creates them but doesn't create them.
    It is not contradictory because Creationism doesn't simply mean "to create", it specifically means that God created everything in its current form without evolution. That is why creationists reject evolution, I haven't heard of a single one who accepts evolution and if they exist they must be few and far between.

    My original point/comparision is between creationism (including evolution/science/whatnot with the existence of a God) and scientific explanations for the existence of Man (big bang/evolution without God at all). I am fully aware that both can exist mutually, but that isn't what my argument/thread is about. I am discussing scenarios black and white here, because the thread is comparing the existence and non-existence of the afterlife/God in the first place and not intermediate ground. I don't believe I've ever mentioned that God and evolution cannot co-exist.

    Hope this clarifies my points.

    Cheers.
    See, this is where you are confusing people, by conflating words like "Creationism" with "Evolution" when they are opposing theories that directly contradict each other, "creationism" isn't just a general word referring to anything that creates and people certainly won't think it means that in a God debate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.

    they have just created a direct route to hell by becoming ex Muslims and the quraran is not nonsense its beautiful. mashallah.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    This is the quote that I agreed with:

    "we would discuss and think critically about all different religions without being outright disrespectful."

    With due respect, there's a significant difference between critically analyzing an ideology or set of events, and being "outright disrespectful".

    Throwing insults towards followers of a belief system is not, and frankly will never be classified as a "genuine debate" as far as I am concerned.

    *If you think putting forward a straw man argument is classified as having a "genuine debate", you're sadly mistaken.
    I agree that simply insulting someone is not "genuine debate". However, pointing out unacceptable elements, and refusing to "respect" that which you find unacceptable, is not "throwing insults".

    The problem is that many religionists I talk to seem to view any criticism as "disrespect", and seem to assume that their particular belief is automatically entitled to "respect". They are wrong on both counts.

    My experience dictates otherwise.
    TBH, I agree that many religionists do seem to consider attacking straw men as constituting "genuine debate".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    when will atheists come back to reality and realize that were not ****ing monkeys
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You'll see when the day of judgement comes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    when you can definitively prove there is no afterlife.

    since you can't, there will always be people with that belief.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    they have just created a direct route to hell by becoming ex Muslims and the quraran is not nonsense its beautiful. mashallah.
    No they haven't because hell is my real. Threatening someone with an imaginary place isn't going to work.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    when will atheists come back to reality and realize that were not ****ing monkeys
    You're right, we weren't. We share a common ancestor with apes and monkeys.

    If you're going to criticise the Theory of Evolution then at least make sure you know the basics of what it entails.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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.