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

When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.



    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".



    Well you clearly don't know a lot about evolution, you're showing you don't even understand the basics.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.

    wow! you literally spent like five minutes trying to explain this bonkers theory
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    wow! you literally spent like five minutes trying to explain this bonkers theory
    You must find all scientific theories bonkers then seen as though they're all found using similar methods
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApplyYourself)
    You must find all scientific theories bonkers then seen as though they're all found using similar methods

    i never said all i meant the big bang
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    wow! you literally spent like five minutes trying to explain this bonkers theory
    So no replies to the points then, as expected.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    "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.
    Agreed. In fact, none of the scientists were atheists, most of them simply had their own opinions about God and afterlife, that's it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is no evidence for the afterlife however NO ONE knows whether an afterlife exists. If there was an afterlife i highly doubt it will be heaven/hell like its written in religious books.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeus007)
    There is no evidence for the afterlife however NO ONE knows whether an afterlife exists. If there was an afterlife i highly doubt it will be heaven/hell like its written in religious books.
    Religious books should be understood symbolically, not literally, so, if we read them in that way, they might just be true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamuna10)
    Religious books should be understood symbolically, not literally, so, if we read them in that way, they might just be true.
    Nothing about these religious books is true. Do you even know how many religions existed in this world? Do you believe in all of them "symbolically"? People fear the unknown so they need faith to make themselves feel better.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    when will atheists come back to reality and realize that were not ****ing monkeys
    You sir are unbelievable in your lack of knowledge.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeus007)
    Nothing about these religious books is true. Do you even know how many religions existed in this world? Do you believe in all of them "symbolically"? People fear the unknown so they need faith to make themselves feel better.
    That is what you believe because as I assume you have read none of those religious books and none of the symbolist researchers' notes. Ancient people perceived nature and universe a lot better than we do. Faith isn't something that is needed for someone to survive, it is essential for someone in order to live a normal, peaceful life and not worry about temporary end such as death. Symbolism isn't a stupidity, it is a great form of science that lets people see something from different sides. We need to learn to perceive universe from different sides in order to understand it. Life isn't simple, as well as the environment we live in, although, the laws are pretty simple - believe, and it will become true. That's it. But it is hard to believe, as there shouldn't be even a tiny percent of doubt in order to make your beliefs come true. It works, I can assure you from my own experience.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaliyah Saleh)
    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
    If we are not animals then how come we share so many charachteristics with them.How come we breathe oxygen like them?How come we eat, drink,defecate,feel pain have sex and feel other emotions just like them? How come we share so much Dna with them? Humans are more closely related genetically to chimpanzees than chimps are to gorillas.How can you ecplain that.You clearly dont know anything about evolution if you think our anscestors were monkeys.We have a common anscestor with the great apes which are not monkeys.So your great great.............grandfather was the same species as a chimpanzees great great.............grandfather.Fi nally the sun is made of plasma and is a star seeing as you probably dont even know that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    "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.
    Atheism was illegal and discriminated against until only recently in history. Scientists such as Mendel, Faraday, Newton, Bacon, Pascal, etc. either had no choice legally or had no choice culturally. When you were born, you were born religious. No one is saying that you cannot be a religious scientist, but rather that it requires intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion. Copernicus and Galileo were both persecuted by the Catholic Church and directly disproved their own Bible. What does that say of religion?

    Your Einstein quote is misunderstood. He was a pantheist, which today is an unnecessary label to say that your awe and wonder comes from the cosmos. I don't think it is too great a leap to simply call it a spiritual atheist, as Schopenhauer alludes to. Planck was a Deist who rejected religious miracles, as did Einstein who did not support organised religion nor take seriously the holy texts for any objective truth nor have a personal God. Here are two quotes of his:

    The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
    For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamuna10)
    That is what you believe because as I assume you have read none of those religious books and none of the symbolist researchers' notes. Ancient people perceived nature and universe a lot better than we do. Faith isn't something that is needed for someone to survive, it is essential for someone in order to live a normal, peaceful life and not worry about temporary end such as death. Symbolism isn't a stupidity, it is a great form of science that lets people see something from different sides. We need to learn to perceive universe from different sides in order to understand it. Life isn't simple, as well as the environment we live in, although, the laws are pretty simple - believe, and it will become true. That's it. But it is hard to believe, as there shouldn't be even a tiny percent of doubt in order to make your beliefs come true. It works, I can assure you from my own experience.
    Do tell me what is so symbolic about these religious books, all of them are the same crap. "If you don't believe in our God you will burn in hell". Let alone all the atrocities that were caused by these books in the past.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeus007)
    Do tell me what is so symbolic about these religious books, all of them are the same crap. "If you don't believe in our God you will burn in hell". Let alone all the atrocities that were caused by these books in the past.
    Well the symbols are so many that there are written whole books about them, but I'll respond on your quote about burning in hell, let that be an example.
    Hell, and hellfire, in fact isn't an actual fire. The soul burns when it feels rejected. If you don't believe in God, so said, if you have no faith, you lose the purpose to live - why should you live if in the end you still die? Or, you feel like you're abandoned in this world, as if you have no chance to choose your purpose, your life will still end - you will die. Then you feel depressed when thinking about death, and you feel as if you're burning from inside - feeling sad, depressed, sorrowful. That is hell.
    If you believe in God, you acquire purpose in life - live normally and rightly to acquire peace in afterlife, that said, join the core of the world - the God. Thus, you feel like you live in paradise - you feel happy.
    That's it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamuna10)
    Religious books should be understood symbolically, not literally, so, if we read them in that way, they might just be true.
    So are the afterlife and the existence of God symbolic or literal?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    So are the afterlife and the existence of God symbolic or literal?
    Symbolic of course.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by QE2)
    However, pointing out unacceptable elements, and refusing to "respect" that which you find unacceptable, is not "throwing insults".
    Of course simply pointing out what one may find unacceptable (with evidence) isn't (in any form) an insult. That's not my contention.

    (Original post by QE2)
    The problem is that many religionists I talk to seem to view any criticism as "disrespect"
    Not relevant.

    Constructive criticism is not disrespectful.

    The manner of which one may do it, certainly maybe.

    Also note the difference (that I am making) between personally respecting an ideology and publicly respecting one for the sake of other's feelings. For instance, I may not value and greatly dislike a teacher, but I still must respect them publicly (despite my disliking the teacher).

    (I would like to add and emphasize my contention again, publicly respecting someone's ideology and putting forward constructive, beneficial and appropriate criticism are not mutually exclusive)

    Furthermore, the rights of one's teacher as per Risatal Huquq:

    The right of the one who trains you through knowledge is magnifying him, respecting his sessions, listening well to him, and attending to him with devotion. You should not raise your voice toward him. You should never answer anyone who asks him about something, in order that he may be the one who answers. You should not speak to anyone in his session nor speak ill of anyone with him. If anyone ever speaks ill of him in your presence, you should defend him. You should conceal his faults and make manifest his virtues. You should not sit with him in enmity or show hostility toward him in friendship. If you do all of this, God's angels will give witness for you that you went straight to him and learned his knowledge for God's sake, not for the sake of the people.

    (Original post by QE2)
    TBH, I agree that many religionists do seem to consider attacking straw men as constituting "genuine debate".
    Well my point wasn't targeted at religionists, nor at the likes of yourself. It was to everyone.

    Personally, I am not concerned whether you or any other human being personally disrespects Islam, or shall I say a certain interpretation of it. However, all I am saying is, the manner in which one posts about Islam certainly speaks alot for their intentions. Objectively criticizing an ideology (in appropriate situations) is fine by me, but however continuously (publicly) being rude about the ideology (and being callous in the process) is what I am against.

    I have observed and even participated in many genuine debates before, and they have been meaningful and respectful in the process. Hence, it is possible to have an respectful yet meaningful debate, in my humble opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamuna10)
    Symbolic of course.
    Why of course? No Abrahamic theist believes their God's existence is symbolic. More to the point, how on earth do you decide whether it is symbolic? It's impossible to assert. What, for example, makes these two statements seem symbolic:

    There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

    I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    where's the proof ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    Atheism was illegal and discriminated against until only recently in history. Scientists such as Mendel, Faraday, Newton, Bacon, Pascal, etc. either had no choice legally or had no choice culturally. When you were born, you were born religious. No one is saying that you cannot be a religious scientist, but rather that it requires intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion. Copernicus and Galileo were both persecuted by the Catholic Church and directly disproved their own Bible. What does that say of religion?

    Your Einstein quote is misunderstood. He was a pantheist, which today is an unnecessary label to say that your awe and wonder comes from the cosmos. I don't think it is too great a leap to simply call it a spiritual atheist, as Schopenhauer alludes to. Planck was a Deist who rejected religious miracles, as did Einstein who did not support organised religion nor take seriously the holy texts for any objective truth nor have a personal God. Here are two quotes of his:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_technology

    Look through the list of all these atheist scientists. Many have lived under this Blasphemy legislation. What is your answer to that?

    “I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

    Einstein

    While I may have been wrong to say Einstein was religious that does not make him an atheist. My view on Einstein is that he was not a spiritualist but a great mind. Even he describes the human mind is limited in understanding the concept of God(in logic). So scientific reasoning will only get you this far. As you claim to be a spiritualist you need to disprove us in the realm of spirituality and not by science. If you call this challenge delusional then spiritual atheists are mad beyond delusional.
    In addition, I also would like to say that there are many forms of Pantheism, it is also an element of Hinduism. Your interpretation of Pantheism is very different to Einstein's.

    What is your precise definition of intellectual dishonesty? You still have not given me an example from my religion(see my previous comment). We Hindus do reason logically as well as spiritually and these two elements are not in conflict with each other. One can only begin to think about intellectual dishonesty only when these listed elements strongly contradict one another(which has not even been the case).
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
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.