The Concept of No Afterlife

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well of course it is. would you rather have a big brother figure watching you and knows everything you do. not only is that an invasion of privacy, but a destruction of free will. its easier because you dont go to church. question whats better:waking up early and wasting 3 hours or 😄 sleeping in and having fun?

i hate the concept of them knowing every single thing you do. so forgive me if i dont believe in a half concept. freewill must be exactly what it says FREE. if someone is judging me and i get punished for what i do, its only half of a promise

Can you imagine how much pain you feel when you honestly believe a loved one is going to hell?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Can you imagine how much pain you feel when you honestly believe a loved one is going to hell?

um no because i dont fricken believe in hell. know why? its contradictory. there is no level of punishment. there is hell or heaven. so if you say cheat on your wife your tortured forever while a man who killed 20 people gets the same punishment? i see something wrong there and if you dont see a psychiatrist

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Can you imagine how much pain you feel when you honestly believe a loved one is going to hell?

Imagine I said...accepting that you don't believe in hell...

I'm not afraid of spiders but I can understand the feeling an arachnophobia suffer would get when confronted by one.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Emergence is an observed phenomenon that doesn't support the idea that consciousness is seperate from physical forces.

Qualia is just an a "unit of consciousness"....taking it into account, as you suggest, does nothing to change my point.

And a philisophical zombie would act and think exactly as a "non-zombie" would. So where is the distinction? It's a thought experiment, but there's no definitive answer to it that refutes me.

You clearly know a bit about consciousness study, but don't just throw terms around like they somehow prove me wrong, which they don't. On a related note, wiki articles don't = a coherent point either, and I'm pretty sure both Alliance and myself are aware of the majority of the terms you're attempting to use to debate us.

At one point life didn't have consciousness, then it did at some point in evolutionary history. Humans are the only conscious beings (at least this is very reasonable to assume). So. Did we receive a special soul-gift at some point? Of course that's a bit ridiculous. Or is it more likely that thought creates consciousness? Yes, of course it is.

Whether cnsciousness is seperate from materiality or not isn't my concern. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (the Hard Question). But the point is that thought is needed for consciousness to arise. Upon death, decomposition, etc. our consciousness won't somehow survive past the body, because even if it is seperate from physical forces, it is dependant on physcial forces to exist.

So even if dualists are correct in terms of conscious thought, it does nothing to refute my point that we don't retain identity and consciousness beyond death. Random energy transfer in atoms can't account for it at all.

i was merely replying to alliance who seems to be making a habit{well as far as his rather restricted appearances allow} to negate me. n he said my reasons for beleiving that current theories can not account for this stuff is psuedoscience and psuedomysticism, which it isnt. wiki is actually quite good in information on these things, albeit not perfetc at all. and i do generally agree with you, i do not define qualie etc as MYSTICAL, and i do beleive they ORIGINATE from physical thought processes. i just think that the physical thought processes which sustain and give rise to the objective conciousness are DIFFERENT from the conciousness in itself. to me the conciousness is more of a phenomenon which arises from virtual interactions arising from the real world interaction of the physical components of the brain. sumhow these virtual interaction{and im wildly hypothesising here} can CURL in on themselves both becoming content and context in themselves. which cud perhaps explain SELF awareness. still it creates an explanational gap because to even categorise or define a VIRTUAL process, one has to have CONTEXT against which to judge it or "perspective" and the virtual processes have no reality outside a perspective. but how can we account for this PERSPECTIVE in the brain? that to me is a reason why a PHYSICAL or behaviourist explanation of CONCIUSNESS{not thought processing} seems lacking and "currently"undefineable. doesnt mean i think this phenomenon persists after death{i have no reason to think as such} or that it can exist in itself without the physical component to give "rise" to it. not at all, im just saying that the thought IN ITSELF is different from physical neurological processes.

do you realize that god is a dick. if you went to heaven and your family went to hell could you live with that? or would god take away your memory. is that fair? ask yourself

Originally posted by chickenlover98
do you realize that god is a dick. if you went to heaven and your family went to hell could you live with that? or would god take away your memory. is that fair? ask yourself

There are rules in the world, don't follow them then it's your fault.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
There are rules in the world, don't follow them then it's your fault.

The Gnostic riddle: After the judgment, when all the sinners have been placed in the fires of hell, the saints will be with god and be filled with love. However, when they look into hell, they will see all the suffering and go to god, and ask god to forgive all those in hell. God will have no choice but to release all who are in hell, because if he does not, then the saints will suffer and heaven will become as hell.

You cannot be totally happy if even one person is suffering.

Well, the answer is easy to solve...people don't go to hell for eternity. Oh, and thats biblical.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, the answer is easy to solve...people don't go to hell for eternity. Oh, and thats biblical.

JIA will turn bright red when he reads that. 😆

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i was merely replying to alliance who seems to be making a habit{well as far as his rather restricted appearances allow} to negate me. n he said my reasons for beleiving that current theories can not account for this stuff is psuedoscience and psuedomysticism, which it isnt. wiki is actually quite good in information on these things, albeit not perfetc at all. and i do generally agree with you, i do not define qualie etc as MYSTICAL, and i do beleive they ORIGINATE from physical thought processes. i just think that the physical thought processes which sustain and give rise to the objective conciousness are DIFFERENT from the conciousness in itself. to me the conciousness is more of a phenomenon which arises from virtual interactions arising from the real world interaction of the physical components of the brain. sumhow these virtual interaction{and im wildly hypothesising here} can CURL in on themselves both becoming content and context in themselves. which cud perhaps explain SELF awareness. still it creates an explanational gap because to even categorise or define a VIRTUAL process, one has to have CONTEXT against which to judge it or "perspective" and the virtual processes have no reality outside a perspective. but how can we account for this PERSPECTIVE in the brain? that to me is a reason why a PHYSICAL or behaviourist explanation of CONCIUSNESS{not thought processing} seems lacking and "currently"undefineable. doesnt mean i think this phenomenon persists after death{i have no reason to think as such} or that it can exist in itself without the physical component to give "rise" to it. not at all, im just saying that the thought IN ITSELF is different from physical neurological processes.

learn what paragraphs are. and use them. please for the love of god seperate ur thoughts

EDIT: for the love of science*

SCIENCE DAMN IT

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, the answer is easy to solve...people don't go to hell for eternity. Oh, and thats biblical.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Some people do...

in your opinion. basically you just said there is no salvation for some people in your religion. thats just ****in sad bro. really it is

Originally posted by chickenlover98
in your opinion. basically you just said there is no salvation for some people in your religion. thats just ****in sad bro. really it is

Originally posted by Nellinator
Hitler imo.

yea i guess **** hitler but even so. question, why does god make retarded people? is it a joke? and how can they accept jesus as their "savior" if they're ****in retarded?

Do mean retarded as in mentally handicapped or as in Hitler retarded?

Assuming the former, I have no idea why he allows it to be so, and though they cannot accept Jesus as their saviour they are not damned as they cannot sin because they do not know any better.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Do mean retarded as in mentally handicapped or as in Hitler retarded?

Assuming the former, I have no idea why he allows it to be so, and though they cannot accept Jesus as their saviour they are not damned as they cannot sin because they do not know any better.

know why? CAUSE HE DOESNT EXIST. and how can they comprehend heaven, seeing as they have no mind and/or personality. what happens when they get to heaven? do they get brains? u need to start thinking about the obvious nell

No they don't get new brains. Heaven is a spiritual place, material things (ie. the flesh) mean nothing. What's there to think about? There isn't anything written about the handicapped in the Bible. However, if we equate them with children in terms of conscience then it is obvious that they go to heaven anyways. You make a false assumption by accusing me of not thinking about it because I have.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA will turn bright red when he reads that. 😆

JIA will say it isn't true logic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA will turn bright red when he reads that. 😆

Did I not tell you about that essay I had that he would hate? Cause thats the basis of it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Some people do...

Nope, noone.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Did I not tell you about that essay I had that he would hate? Cause thats the basis of it.

Nope, noone.

You did, and I'm still waiting. 😉