Challenge to materialist atheist accepted

#46
My wife and children, a day at the beach, good friends, satsifying work, fun projects.

~~ Paul
Sounds similar to my motivation to wake up each morning. I just like to think that the information regarding the love of my wife, child, family and friends does not get obliterated once our lives are over. And this profound love I feel for my loved ones are not just goofy chemicals igniting between my ears. But perhaps I'm in la la land.
 
#47
I see what Paul is saying, I would to not like to live in human form forever, just seems creepy and it would probably get redundant and boring after awhile. Now living longer? That would be cool, another 100 years or 200 I have no problem with, hell even 500.

Maybe my mind just can't grasp the living forever concept. Then again every living being alive never would of thought of living life on this planet. Maybe we just have a small scope through the lens. The idea of "eternity" is also kind of terrifying, cause I am thinking of it in a human way because I can't grasp what the "afterlife" would be like. If there is a afterlife I'm hoping it is so profound we can't begin to understand it
I brought this up sometime last year I think. Folks here are so eager to prove life after death but don't stop for a moment it seems to ponder then what happens. How long will life after death continue?
What will I do for 10 to the power of 10000 years or more?
What will I do when the universe ends in heat death? ( That's one possible scenario). Some might get around the akward questions by saying time runs differently in the after life, that might be true, but it doesn't get around that there's only one universe which like a machine is moving to ever greater entropy. Some could say perhaps there are other universes, but that seems to be a unpopular idea among some members. There are a lot of questions members don't spend much time thinking about. And it seems nde researchers don't too.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#48
I brought this up sometime last year I think. Folks here are so eager to prove life after death but don't stop for a moment it seems to ponder then what happens. How long will life after death continue?
What will I do for 10 to the power of 10000 years or more?
What will I do when the universe ends in heat death? ( That's one possible scenario). Some might get around the akward questions by saying time runs differently in the after life, that might be true, but it doesn't get around that there's only one universe which like a machine is moving to ever greater entropy. Some could say perhaps there are other universes, but that seems to be a unpopular idea among some members. There are a lot of questions members don't spend much time thinking about. And it seems nde researchers don't too.
This continual stream of accusations on what proponents haven't thought about is incredibly amusing, as if "skeptics" have thought about what evangelizing that there is no free will and no objective morality would do to human civilization...

In any case it's not clear there is one universe, depending on how "universe" is defined. Certainly a lot of thought has been given to whether reality is a machine moving toward greater entropy - it seems to be one of the big questions running through multiple threads.

And can you show us where you got the idea that "other universes" seems to be an unpopular idea among some members? (The number of qualifiers in that statement....lol....)

And it seems nde researchers don't too.
Evidence? It seems to me people have a spent a lot of time wondering about the nature of reality as communicated through NDE reports among other sources suggestive of an afterlife. In fact there's a whole book on it - Beyond Physicalism.

In any case it's not clear why NDE researchers have to spend lots of time thinking about what they will do for billions of years, their concern is examining whether the NDE happens when the brain is dead.
 
#50
In any case it's not clear why NDE researchers have to spend lots of time thinking about what they will do for billions of years, their concern is examining whether the NDE happens when the brain is dead.
Only materialists need to spend time thinking about what they will do for billions of years, since they are the ones coming up with the idea of transferring the mind from a frail physical body to a machine. An idea which, if it were possible, would constrain the mind to remain imprisoned within this space-time, rather than being released from this reality as humankind has always done.
 
#51
I brought this up sometime last year I think. Folks here are so eager to prove life after death but don't stop for a moment it seems to ponder then what happens. How long will life after death continue?
What will I do for 10 to the power of 10000 years or more?
What will I do when the universe ends in heat death? ( That's one possible scenario). Some might get around the akward questions by saying time runs differently in the after life, that might be true, but it doesn't get around that there's only one universe which like a machine is moving to ever greater entropy. Some could say perhaps there are other universes, but that seems to be a unpopular idea among some members. There are a lot of questions members don't spend much time thinking about. And it seems nde researchers don't too.
This is so riddled with fallacies. Most people here seem to be concerned primarily with if there is a life after death in one form or another. That's the first step... the majority of discussion, it seems to me, is pertaining to whether or not such a thing exists and how it might exist, and less so the implications if it were to exist.

Additionally, to me this is just a quite bizarre way to approach things. I personally imagine that if there is an "afterlife" in some sense, that time is either nonexistent or functions very differently from here. You're still assuming that whatever afterlife you're imagining is entirely governed by the exact same universal laws as physical life here.

I guess this just doesn't concern me at this point, and I'm confident there are others who aren't particularly focused on it as an issue. You attempting to paint it as if proponents just haven't considered all the possible negative implications is interesting, given that most of the time is spent debating whether or not such a thing exists. I think that's a primary concern, and your concerns would follow later, if they followed at all. Again, the concerns you've voiced certainly wouldn't make sense to me in the way a possible "afterlife" might work, given the evidence we have to work with.
 
#52
Can anyone even define nothing? Serious question.
Im a bit late for that one, but it seems highly unlikely that we humans can even begin to define 'something' that is nothing. Our language confines us here aswell.
We already have a hard time trying to define something. Is it sufficient for something to exist in space and time? Is something made out of a some sort of building blocks?

I personally imagine that there really isnt much of a seperation that can be made there. Nothing and something seems like an old fashioned black-and-white approach to all of this. Things are rarely that easy.
 
#53
Im a bit late for that one, but it seems highly unlikely that we humans can even begin to define 'something' that is nothing. Our language confines us here aswell.
We already have a hard time trying to define something. Is it sufficient for something to exist in space and time? Is something made out of a some sort of building blocks?

I personally imagine that there really isnt much of a seperation that can be made there. Nothing and something seems like an old fashioned black-and-white approach to all of this. Things are rarely that easy.
How about 'the absence of anything"? Did I win a prize? :)
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#54
Im a bit late for that one, but it seems highly unlikely that we humans can even begin to define 'something' that is nothing. Our language confines us here as well.
This is pertinent to the tired old question of why there is something rather than nothing. Before you can answer, you have to determine whether there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. But even before that, you have to determine whether there is a difference between something and nothing.

~~ Paul
 
#55
Its interesting realizing we all don't know much about the universe. Even those with degrees who pursued their careers as physicists, biologists and astronomers don't have the answer. They may have a better grasp of the mathematics and how certain theories work, but none can complete the questions of the universe, unless its their own perception. We are all filling in the gaps of the unknown, some of our theories are different, some overlap,Some are bat shit insane....its kind of beautiful in a strange way, we all strive for something, some explanation to complete our understanding. Maybe an infinite universe is not meant to be understood right this moment, maybe not ever.
 
#56
I keep checking this thread -- is this materialist atheist going to debate here or not? Did he really back down because RationalWiki wrongly said that Alex is a Christian? Does this atheist have a problem debating Christians? If so, why? Or did he check the site and realized he wasn't going to be shooting New-Age fish in a barrel? That he would actually have to debate and, horrors, read studies and debate the conclusions of those studies?

So many questions....
 
#57
Paul whybis it that I don't fear living forever like you do ?
I don't fear living forever either. I don't even understand how it is possible to fear living forever.

Because either (a) I'm going to exist forever and there is no possible way this won't be absolutely awful, or (b) It's not really me living forever. Do not confuse existing a long time with existing forever.
I disagree with Paul. I don't believe in the alternative b, and I would change the alternative a as follows: I'm going to exist forever and there is no possible way this won't be absolutely delightful.
 
Last edited:
#58
I disagree with Paul. I don't believe in the alternative b, and I would change the alternative a as follows: I'm going to exist forever and there is no possible way this won't be absolutely delightful.
Evidence suggest that it is up to you whether existing forever will be delightful or awful. Or perhaps both. An eternal existence can certainly be very dynamic.
 
#59
Thankfully the evidence is mounting against this ridiculous and bleak worldview we call materialism.
Yeah.
I seriously doubt that the materialists are right. I used to think that materialism was a hard fact when I first started reading articles and websites such as rationalWiki.
Like you and many people said, there is so much evidence supporting the afterlife and such.
Some materialists will keep moving the goalpost, though.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#60
Paul whybis it that I don't fear living forever like you do ? Are you privy to info that I don't have ?

For I think of it like this . I believe that I will have all of eternity to explore the infinite god.
The beauty is I will always have something new to discover . Plus I'll see all my loved ones and other people . Maybe even aliens from other worlds ;)
I think you are imagining a "long time" as opposed to "forever." I don't believe you could sustain your interest forever unless perhaps you were a different sort of being.

~~ Paul
 
Top