Will this happen, YES, NO or MAYBE?

[Danimal]

Woah guys, a universe where Warped was it's God would comprise of non-stop partying and busty babes.

I will subscribe to his religion.

 

[Gargantou]

The deliberate and systematic destruction of 90% of the human race
When eco-fanatics in cahoots with the Devil and George Bush XVI develop and deploy biological viruses to kill off a vast majority of the global population in order to ease the transition into a more sustainable society. It will be glorious.

A truly effective treatment/cure of Alzheimer's disease
This is something I am truly excited about, seen several of the big scientists working on this state that they are quite hopeful about having an effective treatment and perhaps even the ability to reverse damage already done to people with Alzheimer's sometime within the coming twenty to thirty years.

 

[Shift]

I'm a scientist. And as a scientist, I believe if God exists, our knowledge of him is imperfect. Why? Because the stories and myths we have are the products of men, the passage of time. The religion you practice is based on a theory, impossible to prove. Yet you bestow it with absolutes like, "There is no such thing as coincidence."

Yet science likes to talk about tales of there being a multiverse, and an infinite number of universes, and parallel dimensions. But these aren't just theories of course, they are absolutes purely because they come under the scientific banner. To the average man taking the logical approach to the argument, the idea of their being a multiverse should be just as much a stab in the dark as the contemplation of an afterlife or a God.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yet science likes to depict tales of there being a multiverse, and an infinite number of universes, and parallel dimensions. But these aren't theories of course, they are absolutes purely because they come under the scientific banner.

Haha, what are you talking about? Nobody except Madonna, film writers and teenage stoners treat these theories as "absolute" explanations for the nature of the universe, let alone uses them to derive moral instructions and edicts for living. There are a great many theories out there about how the universe might be structured; some are more or less plausible and most that are recognised as legitimate have some basis in evidence or logic, but none of them are accepted by a monolithic "Science". Often enough they are treated explicitly as fun fantasies, what-ifs, or useful thought experiments for exercising the brain in preparation for its encounters with the almost ungraspable. God forbid that scientists all have different opinions and some propose theories that others find absurd. It's hardly their faults that ideas like multiple universes have been so richly attractive to journalists and spinners of popular tales - both of which have had far more influence in popularising and characterising these ideas than any peer-reviewed Academy beard. In other words, there's a world of difference, you lovably ludicrous man.

 

[morgs]

I'd say science likes to explore the possibilities, not 'depict tales'.

 

[CptStern]

And the easiest way to make it meaning full is to live by the word of God.

also the easiest way to make it full of boring

 

[Gargantou]

I don't get why so many people have trouble finding the meaning of life. I mean, isn't often times the most obvious answer the correct one? The most obvious to me is that the meaning of life is life itself.

Now, I'm not saying that is the absolute answer, I'm just saying to me that seems to be the most logical answer currently. Perhaps the answer might change as we expand our understanding of the universe.

Also, it's written as meaningful not meaning full, get your shit together Krynn!

 

[Stigmata]

also the easiest way to make it full of boring

Depends on the Word.

 

[CptStern]

ya these guys arent boring. crazy but not boring. free love is never boring. also UFOs

 

[Gargantou]

What about these guys, Stern?

 

[CptStern]

too much like christianity also child abuse


the raelians believe god is an alien

 

[Shift]

Haha, what are you talking about? Nobody except Madonna, film writers and teenage stoners treat these theories as "absolute" explanations for the nature of the universe, let alone uses them to derive moral instructions and edicts for living. There are a great many theories out there about how the universe might be structured; some are more or less plausible and most that are recognised as legitimate have some basis in evidence or logic, but none of them are accepted by a monolithic "Science". Often enough they are treated explicitly as fun fantasies, what-ifs, or useful thought experiments for exercising the brain in preparation for its encounters with the almost ungraspable. God forbid that scientists all have different opinions and some propose theories that others find absurd. It's hardly their faults that ideas like multiple universes have been so richly attractive to journalists and spinners of popular tales - both of which have had far more influence in popularising and characterising these ideas than any peer-reviewed Academy beard. In other words, there's a world of difference, you lovably ludicrous man.

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at it like that.

 

[Krynn72]

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at it like that.

More than you give credit to, I suspect.

 

[No Limit]

Appeals from either end of the theist/atheist spectrum about our fate after death and how that should affect our waking life are both trite and pointless to me. Both of them rely on some kind of gnostic understanding of existence that (and I'm going to make an empirical statement here, yes I noticed the irony) nobody ****ing has. You don't. I've read and watched countless arguments from theists on the existence of God, and the best proof of their knowledge of God - as opposed to their belief in him/her/it - is always some nicely-worded combination of "he spoke to me" and "just look around you!" These are logically inadequate to present your knowledge to others, the best you can do is merely convince them you might be right. Likewise, the most reasonable atheists I've encountered choose not to speak in absolutes and instead say that they don't believe, or find it incredibly improbable, that a God exists. An agnostic approach to either side is the only reasonable position, because "proving" either belief or non-belief in an empirical sense is practically impossible.

THEREFORE, what happens after death is a crapshoot. Maybe you go to the pearly gates, maybe you rot in the ground, maybe it's something completely different. But for the love of <non-descript deity of ambiguous existence>, please stop saying that the finality of death makes your life pointless somehow. How ****ing shallow is that, really? Think of all your loved ones who've ever died. As far as you know, they no longer exist in any tangible sense. Did that make their lives any less meaningful to you? Would you wish that they were never born, simply because they weren't able to experience something after death? The same applies to your life. You affect those around you, you make your mark on the world, and thus you are immortal, in a sense. It's just not a selfish sense which you're able to live out yourself. Or maybe it is. Either way, deal w/ it.

Anyway I'm not trying to turn this into another religious debate, I just wanted to get that off my chest. :v

I think you are absolutely right. But I think it is important to point out that although yes it might be a crapshoot the odds on afterlife vs no afterlife probably aren't even. And if you bring in specific religions those odds obviously diminish even further. The concept of an afterlife seems nice, but it doesn't make any practical sense and as a result the odds probably aren't very likely.

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at it like that.

And not every christian looks at christianity the same as you. What's your point?

 

[CptStern]

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at it like that.

only because they're deluding themselves

 

[Mogi67]

Keep acting like you guys know what you're talking about. Nobody knows a goddamned thing about what happens when you die. Any idea is as good as the next and it's sans any evidence

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Guys, stop debating about all this. It's already been established that this is what you see when you die.

whatyouseewhenyoudie.ytmnd.com

 

[Stigmata]

You know... I think I'd be okay with that. It's got everything I like in life.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at it like that.

Get back to me when people are claiming that the multiverse demands we forbid gay marriage.

 

[Remus]

Regarding multiverse theory, as far as I know this idea has started being taken seriously relatively recently. Ten years ago, it was considered pure fantasy, but later observations seem to give this idea credibility. That's why some physicists are talking about this seriously. Bottom line is, it's not absolutely proven fact yet, howerver it does have observations to back it up, whereas the idea of an afterlife does not.

Keep acting like you guys know what you're talking about. Nobody knows a goddamned thing about what happens when you die. Any idea is as good as the next and it's sans any evidence

Evidence shows that everything that makes you, you, is contained in your brain, which is destroyed together with your body when you die. There is no evidence for the existance of any thing that exists independently of the body, that may survive when you die. The good ol' burden of proof is on you.

 

[Shift]

More than you give credit to, I suspect.

And not every christian looks at christianity the same as you. What's your point?

only because they're deluding themselves

Get back to me when people are claiming that the multiverse demands we forbid gay marriage.

Did a strike a nerve?

Bottom line is, it's not absolutely proven fact yet.

The good ol' burden of proof is on you.

Congratulations!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Did a strike a nerve?

No, you made a stupid point that people quite naturally desired to respond to. You can do them the same courtesy or you can prove your snivelling inadequacy with mincing evasions - behaviour which in the politics forum (where engaging in debate is expected) would earn you an infraction.

 

[Shift]

And what was stupid about saying that not all atheists follow the idea that science doesn't deal in absolutes?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Nah, see, that's not what you said. You said "science = science fiction, lol" and then when I called you out of it you said "well, that's not what everyone thinks." You didn't bother to mention that you'd now switched your argument to "atheists think this" rather than "science thinks this"; in any case people recognised your mealy-mouthed posturing for what it was and quite naturally returned it to you with compliments. Stop press: a great many atheists are incredibly stupid. Many of them are also follow a hard and inflexible scientism. This says nothing about "science", let alone supports the parallel you originally drew between hypothetical multiverses and Biblical myths. You simply evade any attempt at challenge or conversation; if you aren't capable of the basic level of respect necessary to argue honestly, you should leave this thread and not return.

So let's restate your premises: you are now arguing that some atheists believe in some things which are mythic/unjustifiable and justify them as absolutes because they are "scientific". Fair contention. It is true. But would you know proceed to respond in that light to the people who argued against you?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Depends on the Word.

Haven't you heard?

Spoiler

I think you are absolutely right. But I think it is important to point out that although yes it might be a crapshoot the odds on afterlife vs no afterlife probably aren't even. And if you bring in specific religions those odds obviously diminish even further. The concept of an afterlife seems nice, but it doesn't make any practical sense and as a result the odds probably aren't very likely.

I agree, and I think largely the same way. I just have the good grace to separate belief (or non-belief) from knowledge, insofar as we can utterly divide them with our imperfect monkey brains.

And what was stupid about saying that not all atheists follow the idea that science doesn't deal in absolutes?

Yikes, again painting atheism into a corner with science like the two are inseparable concepts. Aren't you all about religion being compatible with science? In what way does holding a religion preclude a scientist from making the same mistake?

 

[Mogi67]

You reap what you sow. You guys are going to reap a bunch of shit

 

[Bad^Hat]

Oh, you make so much more sense now.

 

[Stylo]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You reap what you sow. You guys are going to reap a bunch of shit

I'm going to reap a good hard loving, I'll have you know.

And foul-mouthed prose in minor contexts?

 

[Gargantou]

You reap what you sow. You guys are going to reap a bunch of shit

Do you have a problem with people defecating?