@Algebe

Speak for yourself sonny. (sniff)

We already have a plethora of anti intellectual, anti science and anti reason apologists. These good folks consistently demonstrate an ignorance of the history of their own religion.EG Insisting the New Testament is history.

Plus an ignorance of the basics of scientific method as well as complete ignorance of reasoned discussion.

I guess these people feel a duty to try to convert atheists ,a based on something Jesus is alleged to have said.

Sadly, there are two salient points our little friends/irritants/comic relief/chew toys are too arrogant or ignorant to consider:

(1). Many of the members here are former Christians who individually and collectively know far more about scriptures and the history of Christianity than they.

(2) That religious belief is based on faith ,(belief without seeing) not reason . So far, I've never seen anyone justify faith with reason. That waste of many a good mind, apologetics, has a good try.

I guess those two points especially are in part why I find these christian proselytisers arrogant , ignorant, patronising and intellectually dishonest. Not to mention as dull as dishwater due to the broken record arguments they present.

OF COURSE, our newest little friend may be the exception, and present a new and interesting approach. However,I'm not holding my breath .

PS Algebe l was not having a go at you, I was being facetious. That's the first sentence. The rest is serious .

Thought for the day "Be a misanthrope, hate everyone on sight. Saves SO much time" (Tarquin St John Shagnasty)

@ Italianish

I am not offended. The bottom line is that you are attempting to be honest with yourself, and you are in a genuine search to discover what is real, or not.

There will always be bumps in that road.

Personally I hold the opinion that religion, and especially christianity is the most effective con game inflicted on humanity. Regardless if my opinion carries any weight, you have been heavily indoctrinated for most of your life into a belief system with no counter arguement or second option.

Now that you are exploring other positions and options, I applaud you for being honest with yourself.

The point is that for almost anyone who has spent years in the clutch of religion, just walking away is almost impossible. For many it is a long and painful process, with intellectual and emotional turmoil constantly clouding your thoughts.

Italianish, we may differ in opinions, and I apologize if I offended you with any personal attacks. It is never my intent to attack the person, just the argument. But sometimes emotions get the better of me. I am not creating an excuse, just an explanation. I am responsible for my actions.

Lion IRC "Would the afterlife be proof?"

Would not being able to see an invisible unicorn prove it is invisible?

You haven't been able to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, if you had any credible objective evidence for an afterlife, why on earth would you have kept it quiet until now?

Would the afterlife be proof?

No. It's a testimony to the palsying effects of supernaturalism, that you cannot work out from first principles why this is the case.

Let's leave aside for the moment, that the existence of an "afterlife" is another of those unsupported supernaturalist assertions, that has, at bottom, never been accompanied by anything better than "my mythology says so, therefore it's true". Instead, let's consider the possibilities that arise, if ever genuine evidence for an "afterlife" is alighted upon.

One of those possibilities, is that any "afterlife" that actually exists, could be just as much a product of blind, impersonal forces as gravity or chemical reactions. Indeed, given that blind, impersonal forces have been demonstrated to underpin every observable entity and interaction thus far alighted upon, there's no reason for that precedent to be broken. Furthermore, that "afterlife", under the aegis of the requisite blind, impersonal forces, could operate in a manner akin to that asserted by various Eastern religions, in which reincarnation plays a role - it could be simply a giant recycling plant for sentiences.

Which of course brings us back yet again to that essential and fatal flaw in the whole supernaturalist enterprise, namely, that it has no data to offer, and instead only has unsupported assertions by the truckload to present. Before the inevitable tiresome apologetics are peddled here, to the effect that your favourite mythology purportedly constitutes the "data", no it doesn't. It's merely evidence that a bunch of pre-scientific nomads made shit up, in order to render the universe comprehensible to their narrow, parochial minds, and moreover, included within that made up shit assertions that are known in the present day not merely to be plain, flat, wrong, but absurd and risible.

Indeed, one serious central criticism of the mythology in question, is the very fact that assertions known to be wrong are present therein. The idea that a fantastically gifted magic entity, purportedly responsible for fabricating an entire universe, with the colossal gifts of thought and action this implies, would allow elementary and risible errors of this sort to be attributed thereto, is a non-starter. Any genuine sentient fabricator of a universe, one intent upon dispensing a message to us humans after said synthesis exercise, would subject the dispensation of that message to ruthless proofreading to weed out those errors, and ensure that the message dispensed was verifiably error free. Especially in the context of the assertion that the entity in question purportedly possesses "perfect foreknowledge" of the future, and would, upon that assertion being true, know in advance that any errors in any text attributed to that entity would be discovered by humans, and subject to critique. Problematic though that assertion is in its own right, from the standpoint of proper discourse, that assertion acquires a lethal utility value with respect to the critique presented here, and in providing that lethal utility value, demonstrates once again how intellectual rigor is, all too often, completely absent from the business of fabricating a mythology.

Indeed, I am on record here and elsewhere, as questioning why an entity of this sort, would choose mythology as a vehicle for its purported "message", given the rampant unreliability of mythology from an epistemological standpoint. Mythologies, of course, are not written in a complete vacuum, and have to include at least some content indicating at least some basic effort to connect with observational reality, if said content is not to be considered laughable, but the existence within mythologies of numerous unsupported assertions, several of a fantastic nature, is practically a defining trait of what a mythology is. An entity capable of fabricating an entire universe would possess the requisite knowledge of this, and would, if honestly intending to dispense an important message, choose a different medium for the purpose. Not least because mythologies also have a habit of being written, either by accident or design, in obscurantist prose whose underlying intent would appear to be to obfuscate rather than inform.

For that matter, if I was the god type entity in question, I wouldn't want humans to have faith in me at all - I would want them to be equipped with the tools to determine for themselves whether or not any message I was presenting was sound. In stark contrast to the rampantly anti-intellectual foundations of your mythology, within whose pages knowledge and learning are regarded as a pestilence to be stamped upon, I would make the acquisition of knowledge and learning a virtue to be pursued with unceasing vigour. I would also make it a requirement of any text attributed to me, to contain detailed descriptions of reliable and repeatable experiments that could be performed, once the humans in question acquired the relevant level of technological advancement, so that as humans progressed, they would be able to determine for themselves, that the message I was presenting was something other than made up shit. As a corollary, although the text in question would initially possess a strangely mythological character to the first generation exposed thereto, the step by step presentation of experiments to be performed would, over time, reduce the mythological character of that text, and the text would increasingly become a bona fide textbook instead of a mythology. A text of this sort would, by its very nature, force people to sit up and take notice, and be seen as increasingly worthy of consideration with the march of human progress, instead of being viewed over time as the product of increasingly obsolescent and primitive thinking.

The mere fact that I, as a limited human with limited capabilities, can devise a better means for a god type entity to dispense any "message" it has for us, should be telling you something important here. As should the fact that I was able, from first principles, to devise an alternative view of your merely asserted "afterlife".