+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Log In to post a reply
141 messages
View: flat \ threaded

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:

"as long as you agree it is faith, you have no power of logic over theistic faith."

"disagree with that because the scientific method has worked time and time again to explain things to humans that were once inconceivable to us. Faith has never had a provable outcome."

Hang on, you said you had faith (unsubstantiated belief) in science.
Anyway, I am not arguing that science has proven all sorts of things about our mortal existence. My question is about the power of science to explain that which happens after death. I don't disagree that you and I may believe that the end of our mortal lives is the end of us as entities but I am not able to convince somebody else that their belief in an afterlife in incorrect. I certainly cannot use science to prove that they are wrong. I can suggest that their reason for believing in an afterlife is based on information from dubious organisations, I can say that I have no evidence that an afterlife exists but that is about it.

"If you suggest that a neural network is required to exist as an entity I would ask you how you know this?"

"We know that because we would die without a brain."

You need to make the distinction between a mortal requiring a neural network and an entity requiring a neural network. According to those who believe in an afterlife, the conditions are different. They would argue that you as an entity exist from mortality to the afterlife but your mortal body dies.

"The appearance of Lee Majors on my TV depends upon me turning it on but the existence of Lee Majors is not dependent on my TV. Thus, in this life you may require a neural network but there is no proof that this would be required in the afterlife."

"Kudos for using Lee Majors as a reference point."


"a theist may argue that god takes over the powering of your neural network. At the death of your body, the power is switched from DC to AD."

"anyone can argue anything. theists can argue that, you're right."

Therefore you need to counter that argument if you wish to prove theists are incorrect. You could of course leave it and agree to disagree but that empowers theism and disempowers your argument that science can explain the matter.

ugh...well i'm gonna leave it here because i don't have the patience to keep responding to you. i don't care if anything i wrote "empowers theism and disempowers your [my] argument" (i dont think i did, but...)..this is a stereolab forum afterall. i said, people can believe whatever they want.

Jun 28, 2012, 02:25


Topic Outline: