aliceBB Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I sometimes I really like reading your post, you have no idea how much. It keeps it real ! Thank you again for sharing. On the other hand, it could just have been a dream//delirium/delusion and not real at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 On the other hand, it could just have been a dream//delirium/delusion and not real at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 Not in the slightest. I love a mental or philosophical challenge. It's just that this isn't one. It's meaningless. The problem (and it is not mine specifically, more yours) is probably semantic. You cannot meaningfully ask us to compare existence or experience when dead with existence or experience when alive ('Is it better to be dead than alive?'), as if it's some sort of rational choice which we can make, based on knowledge of both states. Clearly it isn't, and we cannot. Even the most deluded of religious fanatics would claim that they knew what the hereafter is going to be like and even if they thought it was an improvement on life before death, they would be unlikely to be able to compare the two in any serious fashion. Furthermore, you are assuming that everyone's experience of life is the same, when it isn't. So if you want us to debate your question rationally, you are going to have to use language (to frame your question) more helpfully. I suggested you get out more because you seem to have too much time on your hands. maybe you ought to follow your own advice Alice. Enjoying one of your rare nights in are you?hum You know as well as I do that the belief in an afterlife isn't based on what is know or not known about it, it's based on a set of strongly held beliefs, so why argue about there being no point in debating what we cannot possibly know? As if knowledge is a requirement when debating belief. ---------- Post added 02-03-2014 at 23:04 ---------- You asked 'Is it better to be dead or alive'...how can you debate something that you've no idea about...if you're dead...you're dead, even if you're lounging on a sun-bed enjoying the best of what you expected, how do you communicate your happiness back to Sheffield Forum to debate it? Knowledge isn't a requirement when debating belief, that's the premise of belief isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boothybabe Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 "Better" as in transcending to a more desirable/preferable place /state of consciousness. Like Walkley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Knowledge isn't a requirement when debating belief, that's the premise of belief isn't it? So, the debate is about a lack of or the total lack of knowledge about a premise without any evidence? If knowledge isn't a requirement what mental tool do you suggest to move the debate further on? ---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 02:45 ---------- On Christmas Day 1990,I was rushed to hospital with a burst gall bladder. During the operation I had a cardiac arrest which lasted five minutes, till they beat me on the chest and got me going again. I don't remember a lot about it, but one thing stays in my mind. I was walking along a passage way, and there in front of me was my wife who had died in 1979 from a car crash, she was crying while my mother, who was with her, made a gesture to me to go back. Nobody spoke and it was totally silent. Call it what you will, but it happened. Perhaps it was a kind of hidden wish, I don't know, I had remarried since the accident and was happy with my new wife, and still am after 33 years How do you know you had this "experience" in the 5 mins you had a cardiac arrest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Henry Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Why what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 So, the debate is about a lack of or the total lack of knowledge about a premise without any evidence? If knowledge isn't a requirement what mental tool do you suggest to move the debate further on?if a atheist told a theist that there was no afterlife, Or, if a scientist said " God did not create the universe"? What mental tool would they have used to reach their conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scousemouse Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 .............I would rather be 'over the hill. than under it!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 So, the debate is about a lack of or the total lack of knowledge about a premise without any evidence? If knowledge isn't a requirement what mental tool do you suggest to move the debate further on? Precisely. There is no point. Now we can all go to the pub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 You know as well as I do that the belief in an afterlife isn't based on what is know or not known about it, it's based on a set of strongly held beliefs, so why argue about there being no point in debating what we cannot possibly know? As if knowledge is a requirement when debating belief. Okay, what's the reason you have a belief in an 'afterlife'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.