When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

Announcements
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hariex)
    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.
    Yes, and the key word in that definition is "due". The problem is that many religionists automatically assume that they are "due" special regard for their wishes. They are not.

    The OED defines "due" (in this context) as "Of the proper quality or extent".
    The proper quality or extent of regard for some elements of Islamic (and to a lesser extent, Christian) ideology is zero. Therefore no respect is required. QED.

    Essentially, good debating is about knowing what you are talking about.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    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.


    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.
    Testify!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    No they haven't because hell is my real. Threatening someone with an imaginary place isn't going to work.

    tell me what its like, and may god forgive you!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    Agreed.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    I do agree with your points in both these paragraphs. I believe my post on Page 11 shows my agreement. It is impossible to prove God's existence. And you can dismiss God because the possibility of his existence is so small it's insignificant. I understand where people who say that come from. That is why I explained that "only by faith, and experience, do people believe in God. You may call that insane. Fair enough."

    I was raised Christian, fell out of the faith, and am now finding my way back. When I was a non-believer and someone was explaining faith to me, one thought I had was that the definition of faith was basically "insanity". This guy was telling me to believe in a God (that he believes in) that could not rationally exist. That is the textbook definition of insanity. I know how that feels. And that is why I understand where non-believers come from. I know how crazy it sounds when people say God exists, because I have been in the "unbeliever's shoes", so to speak.

    With regards to "it's just faith", I agree that it means nothing to a non-believer. But I hope that you'll look at it from a believer's perspective to understand where they are coming from. Faith is believing without seeing. It is saying that "while i agree with you that everything - absolutely everything - points to the non-existence of God, I still believe." This frustrates and confuses non-believers, because like I said, is basically insanity. I have felt that way before. But to believers, faith comes from the experience and a relationship with God. It is real even though it may be indescribable by rational means. Maybe there are believers that throw "it's just faith" as trump cards like you said, but understand that they may just be stating my point in a crude way. I simply cannot explain faith to a non-believer using reason, because faith comes in spite of reason, it comes from personal experience. I can only explain my experience with God to you. Only when God touches a person, will he/she be able to experience and understand what faith is. Which is why I concluded in my previous reply, that if you think it's insanity - Fair enough. I understand. I'm not going to force my faith down your throat. But as a Christian, someone of faith, it is my genuine hope that everyone will experience God because of his love and grace. I can only hope you understand where I'm coming from. It is nothing personal against anyone's views. I simply wish the best for someone based on my faith in God. This is where I think believers and non-believers clash sometimes, and it's sad, because most of the time it just comes from a lack of understanding. That's my humble opinion anyway, I may see a new perspective in the future. Who knows?
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.

    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
    On the same page you have linked, paragraph three, there is a link to theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, which as per our previous exchange, we both believe is possible. I agree "Creationism" used to solely refer to the creation without evolution in the past. But today, the term encompasses many other views including evolutionary creationism, which is where I'm coming from. The word "Creationism" today does not have the same limited meaning as it did years ago and is not necessarily an opposing theory today.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    tell me what its like, and may god forgive you!
    I don't need forgiving by a god as he doesn't exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    When they die LOL?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh for gods sake if our ancestors were monkeys what are we ? flamingos we are not animals and I don't need to know the basics of evolution btw I already know a lot about the evolution since it is just a theory and most of them are wrong one day a scientist thought oh how were did we become on earth and blamed it on monkeys because we have like some similarities that's like saying the sun is ball of fire because it generates heat but its actually just different gases

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hipsterrapunzel)
    I was raised Christian, fell out of the faith, and am now finding my way back. When I was a non-believer and someone was explaining faith to me, one thought I had was that the definition of faith was basically "insanity". This guy was telling me to believe in a God (that he believes in) that could not rationally exist. That is the textbook definition of insanity. I know how that feels. And that is why I understand where non-believers come from. I know how crazy it sounds when people say God exists, because I have been in the "unbeliever's shoes", so to speak.

    With regards to "it's just faith", I agree that it means nothing to a non-believer. But I hope that you'll look at it from a believer's perspective to understand where they are coming from. Faith is believing without seeing. It is saying that "while i agree with you that everything - absolutely everything - points to the non-existence of God, I still believe." This frustrates and confuses non-believers, because like I said, is basically insanity. I have felt that way before. But to believers, faith comes from the experience and a relationship with God. It is real even though it may be indescribable by rational means. Maybe there are believers that throw "it's just faith" as trump cards like you said, but understand that they may just be stating my point in a crude way. I simply cannot explain faith to a non-believer using reason, because faith comes in spite of reason, it comes from personal experience. I can only explain my experience with God to you. Only when God touches a person, will he/she be able to experience and understand what faith is. Which is why I concluded in my previous reply, that if you think it's insanity - Fair enough. I understand. I'm not going to force my faith down your throat. But as a Christian, someone of faith, it is my genuine hope that everyone will experience God because of his love and grace. I can only hope you understand where I'm coming from. It is nothing personal against anyone's views. I simply wish the best for someone based on my faith in God. This is where I think believers and non-believers clash sometimes, and it's sad, because most of the time it just comes from a lack of understanding. That's my humble opinion anyway, I may see a new perspective in the future. Who knows?
    Fair enough, at least you're consistent and intellectually honest in your reasoning and admitting that there's no evidence for God and thus your faith. I do actually know what it's like to have faith as I used to be a Christian myself and quite a fervent one at some stage believe it or not!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I don't need forgiving by a god as he doesn't exist.

    yes he does how is earth in the perfect spot in the solar system to not burn to death or freeze how did earth become made out of just rubble that doesn't make sense because god created it just how this computer I'm writing on was created and not just made out of a random ass false explosion
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hipsterrapunzel)
    My question to you is why does it matter to you whether the afterlife exists or not if you don't believe in religion? Why doesn't it matter to you if people are religious if you don't believe in religion? It doesn't affect you in anyway.
    I often ask the same question of medical researchers.
    "Why does it matter to you if genetic disorders exist, if you don't have it yourself?"
    I also ask myself that question when I donate to a Water Aid project in Tanzania. It doesn't affect me in any way.

    This question perfectly illustrates the essentially selfish nature of religious belief. I have lost count of the number of times religionists ask me why I am bothered about something that doesn't directly affect me.
    It's because religion has not bypassed my natural human empathy, that's why!

    Religion (or at least Christianity and Islam) teaches you that every deed has an influnce on what kind of reward or punishment you receive after death. If a good deed is done in the knowledge and intention that you will be rewarded for it, it is not really a "good deed". It is an act of self-interest.

    The only genuine, selfless acts of charity are done by atheists - because they know that they gain absolutely no personal benefit from the act. It is done simply because we feel it is the right thing to do because of our innate human empathy. Religion (and other dogmatic ideologies) abrogate this empathy in favour of a "higher power", be it religious or political. And we all know the horrors that can be committed by people who view an ideology as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

    That is why I am bothered that people are still religious. Because it can lead to the unnecessary suffering of others (even if I will never meet them, or even be aware of them).
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    Why do so many atheists on this forum care about what religious people believe? Its' their life not yours.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    God bless
    Why do so many religionists find it difficult to understand the concept of caring about things that do not directly affect us?

    It is because everything they do is to gain reward or avoid punishment. The life of a truly believing Christian or Muslim is essentially selfish and based on self interest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    We are just a bunch of evovled apes.
    We DON'T have a "soul".

    We only live ONCE and then we are dead for all eternity.
    No one is going to be reborn or incarnated.

    yay I'm a monkey always wanted to be one
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Yes, and the key word in that definition is "due". The problem is that many religionists automatically assume that they are "due" special regard for their wishes. They are not.

    The OED defines "due" (in this context) as "Of the proper quality or extent".
    The proper quality or extent of regard for some elements of Islamic (and to a lesser extent, Christian) ideology is zero. Therefore no respect is required. QED.

    Essentially, good debating is about knowing what you are talking about.
    This isn't about some sort of secularism-defying granting of every single person's religious request. It's about our character and our humility; the willingness to listen respectfully in spite of disagreement. Admittedly boundaries are blurred with extremist beliefs, but life after death does not fall under this category. It is instead a philosophical position with a strong precedent (e.g., Swinburne, Geach, Moreland, Davies).

    Polemic also doesn't reflect well on your arguments. It causes unnecessary hostility and ad hominems in place of constructive dialogue. As someone who has been hostile to 'religion' in the past, an aggressive tone does little to get a conversation going with a believer face to face.

    If we have a humility about our beliefs - a recognition that we don't have all the answers and a willingness to change our views - respect comes a lot more easily.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Why do so many religionists find it difficult to understand the concept of caring about things that do not directly affect us?

    It is because everything they do is to gain reward or avoid punishment. The life of a truly believing Christian or Muslim is essentially selfish and based on self interest.
    jog

    we are not selfish we care because its disrespectful to something we believe and our aim in this temporary life is to get to heaven were we will be reunited with our loved ones and live a happy peaceful life forevermore its based on our true intentions so u can jog on
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    Not all scientists are atheist.
    Over 95% of the members of the Royal Society and the American academy of Science are atheists - so it would seem that almost all top scientists are!

    Research scientists, where inquiry, evidence, reason, etc are an everyday part of life, will tend to be atheists. Professional scientists (doctors, engineers, etc) can learn their science by rote and practice it without needing to question their faith.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by latisha88)
    Apes do not know how to speak human language.

    proves how dumb this theory is
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Why do so many religionists find it difficult to understand the concept of caring about things that do not directly affect us?

    It is because everything they do is to gain reward or avoid punishment. The life of a truly believing Christian or Muslim is essentially selfish and based on self interest.
    Replying to a question with a question. Well done.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    oh for gods sake if our ancestors were monkeys what are we ?
    I just explained to you that our ancestors were not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them (and apes), but we didn't evolve from them. Although it's not a perfect analogy think of it this way: you and your siblings share a common ancestor, say, your paternal grandfather. You are different to your siblings, but you both descend from the same person.

    As for what we are, we are Homo sapiens, a member of the great ape family.

    we are not animals
    Of course we are animals. We share the same basic functions and biology with virtually all organisms so how could you possibly justify us not being animals? Our impressive intelligence has allowed us to achieve things no other animal has, but it doesn't stop us from being animals. Your arguments smack of indoctrination and self-delusion, like a 5-year-old sticking its fingers in its ears and saying "la la la la can't hear you".

    and I don't need to know the basics of evolution btw I already know a lot about the evolution
    Well you clearly don't know a lot about evolution, you're showing you don't even understand the basics.

    since it is just a theory and most of them are wrong
    No, it's not "just a theory". A scientific theory does not mean a speculative guess, it means an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is extremely well substantiated, like the Theory of Gravity and Germ Theory. Are you going to say that gravity is "just a theory" too? Please, educate yourself on scientific terminology before making yourself look ignorant.

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

    Evolution has been confirmed by all the evidence: fossil, genetic, biological, biomolecular and physiological. It is not up for debate in any serious and respected scientific discipline.

    one day a scientist thought oh how were did we become on earth and blamed it on monkeys because we have like some similarities that's like saying the sun is ball of fire because it generates heat but its actually just different gases
    You are spouting rubbish without the most minimal idea of what these theories actually say. Unfortunately for you, they are true whether you believe in them or not.

    yes he does how is earth in the perfect spot in the solar system to not burn to death or freeze how did earth become made out of just rubble that doesn't make sense
    Earth is not perfect. There are plenty of places on the planet that don't support our existence, we have mostly been able to conquer them through our intelligence and ingenuity at building things. You're just describing the Anthropic principle which is a known fallacy. Earth didn't create conditions perfect for human existence (as a planet cannot think or predict the future), rather, we evolved to fit the conditions that already existed.

    The Earth formed when gravity compressed rocks and gases, very similar to star formation. This makes perfect sense and planet and star formation are well understood, you can read about it online and elsewhere.

    because god created it just how this computer I'm writing on was created and not just made out of a random ass false explosion
    Ahh, the fallacious Watchmaker fallacy. This has been debunked a million times over. A computer is very clearly designed, they don't occur in nature and you can watch them being manufactured in factories and by people if you so desire.

    On the other hand, no one has been observed designing a universe. You can't see a universe being built and manufactured and thus there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was built and created.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Over 95% of the members of the Royal Society and the American academy of Science are atheists - so it would seem that almost all top scientists are!

    Research scientists, where inquiry, evidence, reason, etc are an everyday part of life, will tend to be atheists. Professional scientists (doctors, engineers, etc) can learn their science by rote and practice it without needing to question their faith.
    "Not all scientists are atheist"

    I did not say that most scientists are religious.

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein

    There have been also many great scientific minds who did believe in god such as:

    Nicholas Copernicus
    Albert Einstein
    Gregor Mendel
    Michael Faraday
    Isaac Newton
    Blaise Pascal
    Charles Darwin
    Max Planck
    APJ Abdul Kalam
    Rene Descartes
    Robert Boyle
    Johannes Kepler
    Galileo Galilei
    Sir Francis Bacon

    want more examples?

    I also would like to add that in India most scientists are in fact Hindus. Unlike the West, scientists have not really left their religion behind. Speaking behalf of all Hindus, we do not get conflicted with science. See the link in my previous comment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I often ask the same question of medical researchers.
    "Why does it matter to you if genetic disorders exist, if you don't have it yourself?"
    I also ask myself that question when I donate to a Water Aid project in Tanzania. It doesn't affect me in any way.
    This has absolutely no relation with what I said. You're comparing apples to oranges here. If you decide that faith isn't for you, there isn't an impact on others. If you decide not to donate to a Water Aid project/or help in solving diseases, there is. If you're going to quote only two sentences out of my argument, please don't take them out of context. Literally the next three sentences explain what I mean. And that particular paragraph isn't even about religion. It's addressing OP's original point on being bothered about people believing in the afterlife. Does it matter to you whether the afterlife exists if you don't believe in it? You'll just die and that's all folks - the end. Did you even read my post fully?

    (Original post by QE2)
    This question perfectly illustrates the essentially selfish nature of religious belief. I have lost count of the number of times religionists ask me why I am bothered about something that doesn't directly affect me.It's because religion has not bypassed my natural human empathy, that's why!

    Religion (or at least Christianity and Islam) teaches you that every deed has an influnce on what kind of reward or punishment you receive after death. If a good deed is done in the knowledge and intention that you will be rewarded for it, it is not really a "good deed". It is an act of self-interest.
    As i mentioned, the question you have so quoted wrongly, does not in fact illustrate your point at all. My question relates solely to OP's post about the afterlife, which in case you did not notice, is the title of this thread. Let me ask you, will OP's afterlife affect the spread of disease or poverty or any other human problem? My question in that context had nothing to do with regards to the impact on human society by religion. Please do not misquote me.

    As for your second paragraph, yes, religion mentions that every deed has an influence on your reward/punishment. But I don't see how you can make the jump from there to claim that everyone who does good deeds do it for the sake of rewards. Religion doesn't teach people to do good things with the intention of being rewarded for it. People do it simply because that is what the faith is about - showing kindness and love. Do not link knowledge of rewards and intentions behind good deeds together. That is an assumption you're making that is not taught in religion.

    (Original post by QE2)
    The only genuine, selfless acts of charity are done by atheists - because they know that they gain absolutely no personal benefit from the act. It is done simply because we feel it is the right thing to do because of our innate human empathy. Religion (and other dogmatic ideologies) abrogate this empathy in favour of a "higher power", be it religious or political. And we all know the horrors that can be committed by people who view an ideology as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

    That is why I am bothered that people are still religious. Because it can lead to the unnecessary suffering of others (even if I will never meet them, or even be aware of them).
    I'm sorry, but if you're going to make this argument, you clearly need to read up on the idea of "true altruism". You may think you gain no personal benefit, but it may come in the form of personal gratification or other factors. This topic falls in psychology, not faith, so I'm sure you'll be able to understand if you read up.

    You're also implying that atheists do the right thing because of "innate human empathy" while believers don't. Everyone, believer or not, has innate human empathy. It is not a matter of throwing away empathy and blindly following an ideology as you claim. It is understanding that this empathy or love (the one you're boasting about) comes from God, who is love, and using this empathy to help others in the very same way.

    The reason why you are bothered is because you don't understand that faith doesn't lead to the suffering of others. It is love. And kindness.

    Please do provide examples of instances you believe faith led to the unnecessary suffering of others. I'll be happy to clarify your doubts.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
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.