How do atheists cope with the thought of nothingness when you die?

Better yet, here is a thread with over three hundred articles that dispute the myth of macro-evolution and show evidence for creation.blackregiment

Global warming is very real.urdead18

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Better yet, here is a thread with over three hundred articles that dispute the myth of macro-evolution and show evidence for creation.scorch-62

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Better yet, here is a thread with over three hundred articles that dispute the myth of macro-evolution and show evidence for creation.scorch-62

Global warming is very real.urdead18

If your ground rules establish that a person having faith disqualifies a person from expressing a scientific position because it is "biased", then the same thing must be applied to secular scientists as well. We must disregard their opinions as well since by your rules, they are "biased".

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." Robert Griffiths

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or rather Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?" George Greenstein

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow

[QUOTE="urdead18"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]The real question is, how do they cope with the fact that they're going to burn for an eternity in hell when they die? The answer is: they make up a fairytale called evolution and pretend that God doesn't exist. blackregiment

Micro-evolution, not macro-evolution or one kind changing into another kind.

"Collin Patterson, a senior paleontologist, evolutionist, from the British Natural History Museum, on November 5, 1981, in a lecture given at the American Museum of Natural History, before an audience made up of American scientists, all evolutionists, asked:

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of the Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there wassilence for a long time and eventually one person said 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school."

The audience remained silent...18 years have gone by and Patterson's disturbing question remains unanswered. Not even a Nobel Prize in Biology has answeredhis question up to now... By the way, do you know or have heard of any Nobel Prize winner who has advanced the scientific status of evolutionism? Collin Patterson, pressed by the Scientific Nomenklatura has softened a little on his criticisms against neo-Darwinism, and later on tried to explain the inexplicability of his famous question. Why? Was it from fear of losing his academic reputation and office at the British Natural History Museum in London? If so, isn't it a very different attitude from Galileo who dared to go against the Academia of his time?"

http://www.rae.org/sci-ideo.html

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]Better yet, here is a thread with over three hundred articles that dispute the myth of macro-evolution and show evidence for creation.Silenthps

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]Better yet, here is a thread with over three hundred articles that dispute the myth of macro-evolution and show evidence for creation.Silenthps

Good to see you here posting Silenthps. A lot of Christians in this thread standing up for God's truth. It does my heart good. God bless.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] A 300-post thread with incredibly biased creationist sources. blackregiment

Good to see you here posting Silenthps. A lot of Christians in this thread standing up for God's truth. It does my heart good. God bless.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="urdead18"] I can't tell if you're serious or not... We can actually see evolution happen, in case you really are serious.urdead18

Micro-evolution, not macro-evolution or one kind changing into another kind.

"Collin Patterson, a senior paleontologist, evolutionist, from the British Natural History Museum, on November 5, 1981, in a lecture given at the American Museum of Natural History, before an audience made up of American scientists, all evolutionists, asked:

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of the Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there wassilence for a long time and eventually one person said 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school."

The audience remained silent...18 years have gone by and Patterson's disturbing question remains unanswered. Not even a Nobel Prize in Biology has answeredhis question up to now... By the way, do you know or have heard of any Nobel Prize winner who has advanced the scientific status of evolutionism? Collin Patterson, pressed by the Scientific Nomenklatura has softened a little on his criticisms against neo-Darwinism, and later on tried to explain the inexplicability of his famous question. Why? Was it from fear of losing his academic reputation and office at the British Natural History Museum in London? If so, isn't it a very different attitude from Galileo who dared to go against the Academia of his time?"

http://www.rae.org/sci-ideo.html

Sorry that just isn't so. Current cellular research is showing that there are distinct limits to how far micro-evolution can go. Kinds do not change into other kinds. Look at the thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies that have had every kind of mutaton possible induced on them. Was a fruit fly, still is a fruit fly.

Well it helps you live your life to the fullest and enjoy it and also when you die it isn't like you really see it coming so it isn't like you will remember once you die. That is life, you live you die. What is so hard to comprehend about that.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="T_P_O"] Why on earth do you refer to them as "evolutionists"?T_P_O

Scientific naturalism is a faith. A faith based on circular reasoning. There are many denominations in that faith, Darwinism being one.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="urdead18"] Evolution doesn't say we evolved from apes.urdead18

One word, Cambrian explosion.

Another word, origin of the first life. No first life, no life to evolve.

I don't worry about it.

Scientific naturalism is a faith. A faith based on circular reasoning. There are many denominations in that faith, Darwinism being one.

blackregiment

What? Scientific naturalism is not a faith, it focuses on the question of "what are the most reliable methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world?" Explain to me how that can be considered a faith.

Also, your diagram magnificently conflates methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, bravo.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Silenthps"] be..cause.... thats... what they are..?Silenthps

It isn't a faith or a belief. It is just the most logical explaination for the diversity of life on Earth.

[QUOTE="urdead18"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]Then what is evolution and from what did humans evolve?

blackregiment

One word, Cambrian explosion.

Another word, origin of the first life. No first life, no life to evolve.

If you were to show a religious man from the 15th century say, a television he would likely claim it to be the work of God merely because it is outside of his understanding.

I also like how you pick and choose which fossil evidence you want to believe and which ones you prefer to dismiss as an hypothesis.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Scientific naturalism is a faith. A faith based on circular reasoning. There are many denominations in that faith, Darwinism being one.

T_P_O

What? Scientific naturalism is not a faith, it focuses on the question of "what are the most reliable methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world?" Explain to me how that can be considered a faith.

Also, your diagram magnificently conflates methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, bravo.

It is faith that all that exists is the natural world, that all that exists can be explained by natural processes, that the supernatural does not exist.

In regards to my diagram, I am glad you like it.:) By the way, what you accused my diagram of doing is what the pseudo science of origins does when it tries to appear legitimate by tagging on to practical, operational science. Dawkins is a good example of shaman that does that.

And incredibly biased evolutionist sources is more credible how?Silenthps

If your ground rules establish that a person having faith disqualifies a person from expressing a scientific position because it is "biased", then the same thing must be applied to secular scientists as well. We must disregard their opinions as well since by your rules, they are "biased".blackregiment

Because we don't understand how life originated does not mean we should explain it with magic.

If you were to show a religious man from the 15th century say, a television he would likely claim it to be the work of God merely because it is outside of his understanding.

I also like how you pick and choose which fossil evidence you want to believe and which ones you prefer to dismiss as an hypothesis.

urdead18

Sorry but I don't accept that god's creative power is "magic". Magic would be the faith of scientific naturalism that nothing created everything and that life self-created from non-living chemicals.

There is no alleged "transitional fossil" that is beyond question, it is all mere speculation, just like this.

It is faith that all that exists is the natural world, that all that exists can be explained by natural processes, that the supernatural does not exist.

In regards to my diagram, I am glad you like it.:) By the way, what you accused my diagram of doing is what the pseudo science of origins does when it tries to appear legitimate by tagging on to practical, operational science. Dawkins is a good example of shaman that does that.blackregiment

Did you even read what I posted at all? I'm somewhat skeptical. I gave you what scientific naturalism (methodological naturalism) basically is, it doesn't say that, metaphysical naturalism states that.

What do you mean by the "pseudo-science of origins" by the way? Because it's an incredibly vague statement. Please tell me you used the word "shaman" ironically too..

And incredibly biased evolutionist sources is more credible how?Silenthps

Because they actually have legitimate scientific research to back them up. scorch-62

Oh then, people of faith are not allowed to do scientific research? Science has no voice. Man makes observations and puts forth opinion based on those observations and worldview.

If your ground rules establish that a person having faith disqualifies a person from expressing a scientific position because it is "biased", then the same thing must be applied to secular scientists as well. We must disregard their opinions as well since by your rules, they are "biased".blackregiment

You're putting words in my mouth and ignoring the fact that evolution is the most widely accepted theory in modern science, not counting gravity. Being unable to be disproved in a scientific setting time and time again has to count for something. Creationism doesn't have that luxury.scorch-62

The theory of macro-evolution is a house of cards built upon speculation upon speculation. With recent discoveries in micro-biology and genetics, it is collapsing as it well should.

Here's just one example.

The recent discoveries of dinosaur soft tissues and DNA, beetle wings retaining their sheen, salamandar tissue, insect tissue, frozen penguin DNA, squid tissue and ink, in rocks dated to be "millions of years old" are a tough one to explain for the evolutionary storytellers.

http://www.icr.org/article/5148/

http://www.icr.org/article/fresh-salamander-tissue-found-solid/

http://www.icr.org/article/5135/

http://creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100209a

http://www.icr.org/article/5110/

http://www.icr.org/article/fresh-jurassic-squid-ink/

http://www.icr.org/article/5112/

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/5146/

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]It is faith that all that exists is the natural world, that all that exists can be explained by natural processes, that the supernatural does not exist.

In regards to my diagram, I am glad you like it.:) By the way, what you accused my diagram of doing is what the pseudo science of origins does when it tries to appear legitimate by tagging on to practical, operational science. Dawkins is a good example of shaman that does that.T_P_O

Did you even read what I posted at all? I'm somewhat skeptical. I gave you what scientific naturalism (methodological naturalism) basically is, it doesn't say that, metaphysical naturalism states that.

What do you mean by the "pseudo-science of origins" by the way? Because it's an incredibly vague statement. Please tell me you used the word "shaman" ironically too..

The "science academy" has, by choice defined "science" as the study of the natural world. By choice, they have excluded any possibly of a supernatural world.

Pseudo science is making metaphysical claims based on speculations about events that cannot and were not witnessed such as the origin of the universe, and the first life. As I said Dawkins is a good example of this. He is a metaphysical shaman.

I have to go now. I'll talk to you later.

So your hypothesis is that the Universe just popped into existence by accident with all the proper ingredients and laws of physics to one day evolve into self aware matter that could look back on the very Universe it was birthed from and ponder it's existence?

MystikFollower

blackregiment

Now I'm not going through a big list of text, but I can say that scientist determine the age of the earth through a progress called "half-life". Which apparently the cartoonist didn't know of.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Picture

alexside1

Now I'm not going through a big list of text, but I can say that scientist determine the age of the earth through a progress called "half-life". Which apparently the cartoonist didn't know of.

Since we knwo what its half life is, we can examine the remaining about of c14 left, and calculate an age.

Nothingness>>Afterlife

Oh then, people of faith are not allowed to do scientific research? Science has no voice. Man makes observations and puts forth opinion based on those observations and worldview.blackregiment

The theory of macro-evolution is a house of cards built upon speculation upon speculation. With recent discoveries in micro-biology and genetics, it is collapsing as it well should.blackregiment

Nothingness>>Afterlife

Zerocrossings

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

Nothingness>>Afterlife

alexside1

Whats to elaborate? Its opinion. The thought of having to live again(Forever) after lifedepresses me.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

alexside1

Now I'm not going through a big list of text, but I can say that scientist determine the age of the earth through a progress called "half-life". Which apparently the cartoonist didn't know of.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

urdead18

Now I'm not going through a big list of text, but I can say that scientist determine the age of the earth through a progress called "half-life". Which apparently the cartoonist didn't know of.

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

Now I'm not going through a big list of text, but I can say that scientist determine the age of the earth through a progress called "half-life". Which apparently the cartoonist didn't know of.

alexside1

At least he forgives us from sinning every time :D

gabymimi1

[QUOTE="hillelslovak"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]No, you can't just do whatever you want, repentance means to turn from the sin you asked repentance for. If you just repent with the mind set of not actually turning from the sin, then you really didn't repent at all. though if you do sin the same sin, God understands your going to make mistakes. He also knows the heart.

racer8dan

I'm Catholic, I like the thought of going to Heaven when I die then dissapearing into nothingness.

That is when I do think of death, but I rarley ever do.

Again you seem pretty positive, but what if your wrong? Eternity's a long time, and I don't think you realise how bad of a place hell really is, if it is real. I can tell you its not just sitting in a dark corner talking to your old friend planning an escape.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="darkhadou"] My friend, why take that huge gamble? Anyone die without Jesus, and it's hell to pay!darkhadou

If God exists then surely at some point in my life I will see a sign that makes me become religious. Not even a deity can expect total devotion from somebody who didn't know better.

I'm not sure I'd want to pretend I was a Christian "just in case", anyway. If God exists and he is who he is then he would see right through that and a person should be ABSOLUTELY sure about their religion if they wish to follow it. I haven't the faintest idea what is what... the funny thing is I like it that way.

You are either 100% sure God is real, or you aren't; it isn't a gamble. Also... from the word go there are several unavoidable issues in my thought train:

1. The Bible is a book which is printed by a machine, and was written by a man who had interpreted it from another book... All these variables just make any words in that book unreliable - not to discredit any existence of a deity but I can't get around the fact that it's just a book which could easily be interpreted in different ways... God did not write it one way or another, that I am fairly sure of.

2. The only things I could ever look at or turn to in Christianity or religion in general are institutions which consist of buildings, books and people. I can't really explain why but these institutions just aren't enough for me.

Death is freedom. Not any individual heaven. People seriously dont understand

that the notion of nothing but pleasure annihilates its significance.

You already have your hell and heaven roller coaster.

There is no end that a mind will ever be satisfied with. The only real

solution is the cessation of self/the individual.

The real question is, how do they cope with the fact that they're going to burn for an eternity in hell when they die? The answer is: they make up a fairytale called evolution and pretend that God doesn't exist. Silenthps

Death is freedom. Not any individual heaven. People seriously dont understand

that the notion of nothing but pleasure annihilates its significance.

You already have your hell and heaven roller coaster.

There is no end that a mind will ever be satisfied with. The only real

solution is the cessation of self/the individual.

depend3ncy

You actually touched on something there that I've come to believe about the afterlife. Almost everything in the entire Universe goes through cycles, so it's safe to bet that something like life does as well. You are absolutely correct in saying that eternal bliss, would not be bliss at all, because with nothing to differentiate between, you would completely be lost in the feeling and would not even know it was happening anymore. I think we as spirits move through cycles of experiencing physical life then re-integration with God, then back to physical life. In some of the spiritual texts I've read, it talks about how before the Universe was created, God was All There Was. Since there was nothing that God wasn't, the pure consciousness couldn't know itself in it's own experience. Just like how you could never know hot if you didn't know cold, or up unless there's down. God couldn't know or experience itself as God, unless there was the illusion that there was something it wasn't.

That's why I believe the Universe was created. For Pure Consciousness to individuate in endlessly different forms throughout the vast space and be able to become self aware and look back on the Whole. That's why we're a crowning achievement of consciousness evolution. We still have a long ways to go, but we finally come to a point in the evolution of the Universe, where matter has coalesced into conscious self aware being and can look back upon the Universe that gave birth to it and ponder it's meaning.

[QUOTE="depend3ncy"]

Death is freedom. Not any individual heaven. People seriously dont understand

that the notion of nothing but pleasure annihilates its significance.

You already have your hell and heaven roller coaster.

There is no end that a mind will ever be satisfied with. The only real

solution is the cessation of self/the individual.

MystikFollower

You actually touched on something there that I've come to believe about the afterlife. Almost everything in the entire Universe goes through cycles, so it's safe to bet that something like life does as well. You are absolutely correct in saying that eternal bliss, would not be bliss at all, because with nothing to differentiate between, you would completely be lost in the feeling and would not even know it was happening anymore. I think we as spirits move through cycles of experiencing physical life then re-integration with God, then back to physical life. In some of the spiritual texts I've read, it talks about how before the Universe was created, God was All There Was. Since there was nothing that God wasn't, the pure consciousness couldn't know itself in it's own experience. Just like how you could never know hot if you didn't know cold, or up unless there's down. God couldn't know or experience itself as God, unless there was the illusion that there was something it wasn't.

That's why I believe the Universe was created. For Pure Consciousness to individuate in endlessly different forms throughout the vast space and be able to become self aware and look back on the Whole. That's why we're a crowning achievement of consciousness evolution. We still have a long ways to go, but we finally come to a point in the evolution of the Universe, where matter has coalesced into conscious self aware being and can look back upon the Universe that gave birth to it and ponder it's meaning.

Same conclusion here.

Congrats on reaching it, man.

[QUOTE="Failed2Live"]

[QUOTE="Videodogg"]

Charles Manson can repent his sins up to the day he dies and go to heaven, and some poor smoe has extra-marital sex and dies, goes to hell because he did not repent. Yeah, thats a heaven i want to go to. Nope. I dont buy it. If there is a after life i hope justice is better served than that.

urdead18

Would you let someone else teach you what music to like?

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

[QUOTE="Failed2Live"]

Perhaps you should look into other Christian religions. Because that's not what I have been taught to believe.

Failed2Live

Would you let someone else teach you what music to like?

What you've been taught to believe is what you now know to be true :P. I'm not saying that's a bad thing since Truth is in our perception, and our personal truth and perception creates our personal reality, so it's great that you've found Truth that you can believe in and follow. Just never get caught up in the act of making your Truth the right one, and all others "false" because your Truth is somehow better. No Truth is absolute and certain, since it is all man made concepts trying to understand the unknowable absolute nature of the incomprehensible, but all beliefs point towards one Truth, and are merely signposts to lead you to that.

[QUOTE="Failed2Live"]

Absouletly not. But what I've been taught and what I know to be true has made my life better and I'm grateful for it. I think it's weak not to believe in a higher power and anyone that has to tear something down to build their "theory" back up is the weakest of them all.

MystikFollower

What you've been taught to believe is what you now know to be true :P. I'm not saying that's a bad thing since Truth is in our perception, and our personal truth and perception creates our personal reality, so it's great that you've found Truth that you can believe in and follow. Just never get caught up in the act of making your Truth the right one, and all others "false" because your Truth is somehow better. No Truth is absolute and certain, since it is all man made concepts trying to understand the unknowable absolute nature of the incomprehensible, but all beliefs point towards one Truth, and are merely signposts to lead you to that.

And what of these statements that Jesus made? Was He not speaking in absolutes?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

Nothingness>>Afterlife

Zerocrossings

Whats to elaborate? Its opinion. The thought of having to live again(Forever) after lifedepresses me.

But the thought of being nothing forever cheers you up?

:|