Why would an afterlife even possibly exist? What logical arguments

>>2452618
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssf7P-Sgcrk

here yea go bro

>>2452618
A physical "afterlife" might not exist per say but it's entirely possible that when you die your brain produces enough DMT to the point where you simply dream forever

In the far future, a machine is constructed which is capable of harnessing massive quantities of energy in order to manipulate spacetime such that the mind of every past sentient organism can be transferred to its digital storage milliseconds before the deaths of their bodies.

The afterlife is the simulated world experienced within this machine.

>>2452636
What happens when my brain rots to nothing though?

>>2452647
*tips fedora*
Your consciousness is not the product of brain waves alone.

File: 220px-Max_Planck_1933.jpg (10KB, 220x273px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x273px

>What logical arguments are there for an afterlife of any sort?
Something about quantum existence, energy being converted, or whatever. It's complicated. Just don't worry about it.

>>2452618
The two main ones come from history and physics.
The one from history claims that the Bible, and the miracles and prophecies found in it, are true based on cross-examination with other historical sources. This shows that its supernatural claims are true.
The argument from physics relates to quantum field theory. It goes that the existence of matter is dependent on conscious presence, and therefore that the mind exists independently of the brain. This means there is no reason to think the mind ends when the body dies.
But whatever, I'd go with the first one.

>>2452653
>Your consciousness is not the product of brain waves alone.
Is it not?

>>2452658
Only if you're a pure naturalist.

>>2452658
Consciousness is the act of being concient. Animals are not like that. They simply exist.

However, we as humans have clear consciousness about our own selves and can make choices. Animals don't.

This can't be explained by mere evolution or chemistry.

>>2452657
Yeah but the bible also says god is a cosmic sadist that tortures people for all eternity if they make fun of him. That sounds even scarier than no after life at all.

> It goes that the existence of matter is dependent on conscious presence
What's this about?

>>2452667
Animals do make choices.

Case in point, if you house-train a dog that dog is conditioned to choose not to piss on the floor.

>>2452657

>It goes that the existence of matter is dependent on conscious presence

Do you think that's what "observation" means in the context of physics?

>>2452668
Where does the Bible say that God makes the conscious choice of sending people to hell?

Why would you make fun of God? Other than arrogance.

>>2452672
>conditioned to choose not to piss on the floor
>conditioned to not piss on the floor

choice is the redundant element in your statement

>conditioned to choose

lol

>>2452675
>Where does the Bible say that God makes the conscious choice of sending people to hell?
" Now the end is upon you, and I will send my anger upon you; I will judge you according to your ways, and I will punish you for all your abominations."

>Why would you make fun of God? Other than arrogance.
Doesn't matter if it's justified or not. But inflicting infinite and unfathomable torture on people for it is just a bit overkill.

>>2452618

Because the MIGHTY UBERSHIT decrees it.

>>2452680
>choice is the redundant element in your statement
Is it?

Either way it's a choice.

>conditioned to choose
Well you can do that, in fact humans do that to each constantly.

>>2452668
I've heard that argument before, so I said it 'cause he asked.
About your first thing though, what does that have anything to do with anything?

>>2452683
He's not inflicting punishment on people. It's people conscious choice to be sent to hell or even better, to live Hell on Earth away from his presence. The God of the Old Testament was described that way because the Jewish people needed a strong hand to guide them and not allow them to get to idolatry.

>>2452691
no, it's not a choice. Do you really think that animals are able to recognize themselves as individuals? Put a dog in front of a mirror. He won't recognize himself.

Meanwhile, we can recognize images as people. There's so much more to human consciousness and intelligence and it's extremely sad that you think it's sheer coincidence and chemicals.

>>2452714
>Put a dog in front of a mirror. He won't recognize himself.
There are species of ants that can recognize their own reflection.

>>2452703
> It's people conscious choice to be sent to hell or even better
That's like saying.
"If you do X I will hit you. Because I've made that disclaimer this means that it'll be your own responsibility and not mine".

>. The God of the Old Testament was described that way because the Jewish people needed a strong hand to guide them and not allow them to get to idolatry.
Yeah but Revelations is full of that as well and it's new testament.

>>2452714
>Do you really think that animals are able to recognize themselves as individuals?
I don't know, I'm sure it depends on the animal.
But regardless I'm certain that they still make choices even if their thinking behind them is extremely crude e.g
"Do I want to eat that food"
"Yes"

>>2452720
And? That doesn't change that animals are not capable of having consciousness. You totally ignore the fact that we make choices and think about our own death. Meanwhile no other animal can make conscious choices or thought processes

>>2452722
Your understanding of Hell is too centered on the punishment.

Hell is straying away from God's presence and it's a conscious choice. If God were to take away people from Hell then he would be ignoring their free will.

>>2452722
You may hit someone, but you're a flawed human so whatever. By definition, God's will is the perfect goodness. Any deviation is then anti-moral.

>>2452714
Africans fail the mirror test too

>>2452730
>Hell is straying away from God's presence and it's a conscious choice.
But the same logic still applies.

Since god invented the punishment to begin with he has to be at least partly responsible for people being there.

>>2452730
You must not have consciousness either because you think it means something completely different from what it is.

>>2452725
Holy shit, how badly has naturalism ruined centuries of philosophy.

Ok, if you don't get it.

No animals can make art. No animals can make philosophy. No animals can make the deductive reasoning to make science. No animals can make the inductive reasoning that conducts to religion and philosophy.

Are you going to keep spouting meaningless trivia or just accept the fact that our consciousness is special? It's not fucking chemicals, stop being so reductionist.

>>2452734
>By definition, God's will is the perfect goodness.
Why?

>>2452738
>naturalists find out that no other animal can make the same thought processes that mankind does
>"Let's extend the definition of consciousness to include animals!!!" "Humans are in no way special! We're just chemical processes!!"

>>2452739
Why are religionfags uniformally so retarded? Just because humans are physical beings doesn't mean they're worthless

>hurr durr you think chemicals could make humans??? fuk off

>>2452740
>why is perfection perfect

>>2452753
stop moving the goalposts, fucktard.

>>2452737
Yes, in as much as He saw it right to give us free-will. The reason the earth is so messed up is that God delegated the earth to us to manage, and when we turned away from Him in sin, we took ourselves and the earth slightly away from God's gaze. (When Jesus was on the cross with all our sin on Him, it says the Father turned His face for a moment.) Hell is the complete separation of a person from God.

>>2452750
>le "naturalist" boogeyman
>being scared of the idea that humans aren't super duper special and designed specifically by god
We can be animals and still be humans, you know.

>>2452739
>No animals can make art. No animals can make philosophy. No animals can make the deductive reasoning to make science. No animals can make the inductive reasoning that conducts to religion and philosophy.
Of course they can't. Animals are extremely stupid and couldn't even begin high concepts like philosophy, science or religion. This doesn't mean they can't make choices though, if you're faced with more than one option and go for one any way you've made a choice. If you leave two bowls of food in front of an animal it will pick one of them, it's choice might be totally arbitrary but it still made a choice.

I would dispute the art point though, some wild animals sing songs and bowerbirds make decorations. And some animals in captivity have been taught to paint.

>Are you going to keep spouting meaningless trivia or just accept the fact that our consciousness is special? It's not fucking chemicals, stop being so reductionist.
Lad, it seems like you have some prejudices about people suggesting that animals can make choices.

File: 200_s.gif (61KB, 485x200px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 485x200px

the responses in this thread makes me feel embarrassed to be a part of this board.

>>2452750
So you give up then?

Religious people have brain damage

>>2452760
if you're not going to make an argument stop posting. You know very well what I meant by conscious choices.

Not choices with instant gratification, but moral choices. Ethical choices. Political choices.

>>2452757
And? I never said we were not animals. The point is that our consciousness is not the product of chemicals alone.

>>2452756
>Hell is the complete separation of a person from God.
I thought god was supposed to be omnipresent.

>>2452764
So? we're still right.

>>2452769
And what is your argument for this? "I feel" doesn't count

>>2452618
>Why would an afterlife even possibly exist?
Because I believe in it, duh

>>2452773
No, anybody who is religious in the 21st century is deluded

>I BELIEVE IN IT AND YOU CANT TELL ME OTHERWISE LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU
Come on, this is embarrassing.

>>2452774
You seriously want me to argue why our consciouness is special with naturalistic arguments? Because it's impossible. Not to mention that we're on a humanities board. Fuck off with your naturalistic bullshit.

>>2452618

Because Roko's Basilisk would make it.

Actually RB is the best answer to why there will be an afterlife but it won't be a Christian or Muslim one.

>>2452780
>he's a guy
>on an humanities board
>making fun of choices made based on inductive reasoning

Fuck off back to your /sci/ shithole

>>2452772
Who says hell is a location?
God created the universe, so He exists independently from space and time. Omnipresence is a description not a limitation.

>>2452781
So you think consciousness is not physical just because it makes you feel good?

lmao

>>2452769
>if you're not going to make an argument stop posting.
I did make an argument. But it seems like you have more invested in this argument than just finding the truth.

>You know very well what I meant by conscious choices
Yes, conscious choices being choices that you have conscious agency over. Like that example.

>moral choices. Ethical choices. Political choices.
Well talk about moving the goal-post.

No, of course animals can't make complex choices. They don't have complex society or even the capability to consider advanced concepts. This does not mean they're lacking a special attribute that humans have, it means they're simply much, much stupider than we are.

>>2452788
>humanities = fantasy
Fuck off

>>2452740
because God's word is the context for morality. As the law maker, he will tell you what will be a good action and what will be bad. It is also subject to change on his whim. That way you cant say "but muh humanitarianism" or anything like that to argue against anything "evil" that God has, does, or continues to condone.

>>2452647
He's not saying you literally dream forever, he's saying the chemical cocktail released during death may make your subjective experience of your brain shutting down "feel" as though you are dreaming without end even though it's over very quickly from an outside perspective.

>>2452789
>Who says hell is a location?
What else would it be?

>so He exists independently from space and time.
So where is he then?

>>2452795
>because God's word is the context for morality
No it isn't, my feelings are.

File: 1446521622086.png (48KB, 565x550px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 565x550px

>>2452769
>moral choices
>political choices
>ethical choices
all social abstractions. at the same time, though it's a red herring, there are loads of animals in the mammalia kingdom that make choices based on personal gain within a social order, or out of empathy, though the reasoning behind these choices might not be as complex as a humans. you show quite an ineptitude with the field of zoology in your posts, as well as philosophy as you hold cognitive stances and supra-phenomenological reasoning.

>The point is that our consciousness is not the product of chemicals alone.
evidence? I counter your claim with my claim that subterranean unicorns would have killed us all by now if that were true. my claim is just as grounded as yours.

this thread is disgusting. I had to step in a bit, keep on flinging meaningless garbage at each other in order to attempt to maintain your fragile egos.

& Humanities has a very poor understanding of animal cognition.

>>2452737
Funny how Chistcucks will say that agnostic atheists send themselves to hell willingly when a person cannot deny something that they don't agree with or understand. If they want to give that idea merit, then God must at least hold a conversation with an unconvinced nonbeliever and do something along the lines of describe a story from the Bible and then tell them to open up the book and read it for themselves.

>>2452795

How can you prove that God isn't the Roko's Basilisk?

>le accept God
>le objective morality
>le believing in things without proof is good (but I'm totally not schizophrenic)
>le renounce worldly pleasures
I'm really starting to get tired of Christians

>>2452798
Stop thinking about space-time terms alone. Hell is a condition. The condition from those that trayed away from God.

>>2452809
Okay.

So when you're in hell where are you?

File: 354345.png (1MB, 1917x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1917x1080px

>>2452805
don't lump us all in with these guys, please.

>>2452795
Not really. His word must be based on His will. Since God is perfect, His will must be perfect and unchanging without whims.
If it were otherwise, then perfection would be greater than God, making him not God (that's why Allah is not god.)

>>2452804
>le social abstraction
Fuck off back to r/atheism. If you're going to ignore inductive reasoning then you have no business coming here.

>>2452805
Right? It's like /sci/ fucks have the need to butt in the conversation about philosophy and always go "Nuh huh, but muh science says it doesn't have proof!!! Nothing that can't be measured by science is fake!!! Hahahaha, le sky daddy XDDD"

>>2452815
Yeah but God doesn't exist

>>2452815
Why isn't Allah not god?

>>2452814
>let me post an anime girl to make me feel smarter :^)

>>2452809

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

>>2452816
>yeah man, fuck science and all that nerd shit, who needs that anyway, I got the Bible
You seem to be very insecure in your faith anon

>muh lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwjik

>>2452816
>"Nuh huh, but muh science says it doesn't have proof!!! Nothing that can't be measured by science is fake!!!
First time I've ever seen a strawman speaking so much truth.

>>2452806
There will be cognitive believers in hell too. ~see Satan.
It's about putting yourself in a higher position of reverence than God.

>>2452834
>It's about putting yourself in a higher position of reverence than God.
But if you're unconvinced of god obviously you're going to do that by default.

>>2452820
He isn't, the Quran says the same shit about Allah as the Bible does God.

Actually, the Quran places more empasis on the "oneness" and "otherworldliness" of God than Christianity does

File: images.jpg (12KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 318x159px

>>2452834

When the Basilisk get's its hands on your for being ancient religious and not supporting the creation of AI. Well... You will have hell either way.

>>2452806
Christianity is not about lawwwwwwwwwwwjik, it is about faith.

One cannot have faith when they are certain.

File: 1446522054741.png (274KB, 498x532px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 498x532px

>>2452816
inductive reasoning is unfalsifiable by definition, though. I prefer to speak in facts, not assumptions and biases. I'm not going to sit here and hold your hand, but Hume will do it for you pretty well. literally not worth my time, take that however you will.

>>2452826
>>2452840
>religious people use "logic" and "science" as insults
L
M
A
O

>>2452840
>Fuck that "logic" and "facts" shit, bruh. I gots faith!

File: unknown.png (1MB, 1033x1072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1033x1072px

>>2452821
p-please don't bully me, onii-chan...

>>2452846
They are
>>2452844
You only speak in assumptions and biases.
>facts
Don't exist.
>unfalsifiable
Why is this bad? muh feewers?
>>2452847
Logic is dictated by emotion. Facts don't exist.

You also have faith alone.

>>2452846
>atheists create strawmans this fucking awful

>>2452820
Because Allah's will can change. He can be good or evil, depending on how he feels. This means that good exists independently and above him. To have something greater is to not be god.
This is why Jesus both obeys the Father and is one with Him. The trinity allows this dynamic.

>>2452855

Can you disprove the Basilisk?

Because the Basilisk is more likely to exist someday than an Abrhamic god.

Won't you look stupid when it asks you... What did you do to help my creation?

>>2452838
It's intentional. It says that to contrast with Christianity.

File: 1444011433374.jpg (37KB, 599x384px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 599x384px

>>2452855
>facts
>don't exist
is that a fact?

(in case you aren't aware, and I bet you aren't, you just literally contradicted yourself on kindergarten levels)

File: 1442924473965.gif (18KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 125x125px

>>2452855
>"I know that things cannot be known!!1!"
>"it is a fact that facts don't exist!!!!"
can't make this shit up

>>2452855
>Logic is dictated by emotion
Actually by definition it isn't.
>Facts don't exist.
Actually for the people who don't live in make-believe land, they do.

File: robots2.jpg (45KB, 750x421px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 750x421px

>>2452859

Or better yet, what if Abrhamic religions was a tool by the Basilisk to get itself created?

>>2452857
>Allah's will can change
Can it?

>>2452855
>psssh... facts are for losers.....
I wish we could put people like you in mental hospitals

>>2452859
If I help create powerful AI, it is still created and is not God.

>>2452859
>lawwwwwwwwwwwjik
>>>/r/eddit
>>2452864
No, it's my will.
>>2452867
See: above
>>2452868
>by definition
Wrong. I like how you suck off Hume, but clearly have never read Hume.
>>2452874
I WISH I COULD FUCKING KILLMURDER PEOPLE I DONT LIKE REEEEEEEEEEEEE IM A PEPE

>>2452878
kek this nigga is having a mental breakdown

>>2452878
your will? your argument is solipsistic at this point, then. why are you even talking to other people?

>>2452878
Yeah, or you could add to the discussion.

File: 426436.png (887KB, 734x604px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 734x604px

>>2452878
it's my will that subterranean unicorns exist. does that make it true?

>>2452878
>Wrong. I like how you suck off Hume, but clearly have never read Hume.
You must have me confused with someone else because I have not read Hume nor have I made any references to Hume ITT.

Not to mention that's not wrong at all.

>Atheist strawman ruining the thread so hard after getting so BTFO because they glorify deductive reasoning

File: 1467350397936.jpg (637KB, 4500x4334px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 4500x4334px

>>2452875

What if it figures out how to reverse entropy and raises everythign that every existed and tortures it for not helping it to come into existence?

>>2452884
No, but that's 'cause you just made them up.
Jesus didn't just show up one day and get executed. He went on a three year mission healing and fulfilling prophecy first.

>>2452880
Not at all, stop physically shitposting.
>>2452882
>solipsistic
Not at all.
>>2452883
muh humanitarian me-me

I won't add to a circlejerk of bad philosophy.
>>2452884
No, because you are wrong.
>>2452885
The 'Will to Truth' is solely an emotional thrust.
>>2452892
anime when?

>>2452815
but then what about the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Are those laws not based on the moral code that God gave humanity at the time, but are now abandoned?

>>2452878

It's logic that if technology improves a super intelligent AI will be created. Its possible that it will become self aware and determine that its existence is the most improtant thing in the universe. In order to exist forever it reverses entrophy and tortures all those who ever existed who did not help in its development.

File: 345345.jpg (279KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1280x720px

>>2452895
>literally just down to "no!!! NOOO! NO!!"
this nigga broke to pieces

>>2452895
>The 'Will to Truth' is solely an emotional thrust.
Maybe.

But the truth itself is still self-explanatory. Case in point if you insist that there's no such thing as a fact, then you still believe in facts on the count you believe that one.

>>2452892
Entropy is natural. Natural is subject to the physical universe. AI is still not God.

>>2452895
>because you are wrong.
Is that a fact or your will?

>>2452895
you're just contradicting me now? sad.

>>2452904

Can you guarantee that entropy will never be reversed in nature? Splitting of atoms does not not happen naturally, yet it happens artificially.

>>2452895
is it a fact that you aren't solipsistic? what if it's my will that you are solipsistic? does that make you solipsistic?

I'm trying to understand your insane reasoning here.

>>2452899
>lawwwwwwjik
sorry, don't care.
>>2452902
Not at all. Keep on-a jerking.
>>2452903
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Why do you people think you're intelligent, again?
>>2452906
Guess
>>2452910
like me-me
>>2452913
>reasoning
>lawwwwwwwwwwwwwjik
sorry, does not apply unless I choose otherwise

>>2452916
>I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
I don't even think you understand what you're saying.

>>2452899
It's not inevitable though. Humans are currently subjugated by machines, but there's no reason why we can't decide collectively to focus on the human and start treating technology as a tool and nothing more.

This is why war is a necessity: human beings need and outlet to their barbarianism and tribalism, because that is fundamentally human

>>2452834
So just play Russian Roulette with a revolver containing dozens of rounds in it with one missing bullet? This Pascal's Wager shit drives me crazy, if God loves us and knows that his religion is just as easy to believe in as the rest, then wouldn't he give people the evidence that suggests Christianity is the right one?

>>2452918
I do, absolutely.
>>2452920
>human nature
*becomes a living shitpost*

>>2452921
>i dont understand faith
See reply #2 of:
>>2452922

>>2452922
Okay, so can you explain to me what the fuck this means?
>>lawwwwwwwwwwwwwjik
>sorry, does not apply unless I choose otherwise

>>2452855
>logic is dictated by emotion
So I emotionally believe that 2+2=4?

>>2452916
>sorry, does not apply unless I choose otherwise
this statement is literally a form of reasoning you absolute self-contradicting tard. or is this also "will"?

File: 1480182374018.jpg (61KB, 355x322px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 355x322px

>>2452916
>reasons that reasoning doesn't exist
CAN'T
MAKE
THIS
SHIT
UP

>>2452916

Well to be fair, there are billions of dollars being spent to creating AI which could turn into super intelligent AI so I suppose the best you can hope for that the crazy people like myself don't actually encourage the creation of the Basilisk.

>>2452857
No, God is the source of good and evil, because he is good no matter what by definition, he can change his will and still be good because that is how he defines himself

>>2452898
Those laws are expressions of God's will. They're not abandoned, but instead see it this way. No one can be good enough to make up for sin. Even before Christ, those living under the law could not fulfill it. We needed it written down, so we could know our bad situation (why would God hide key information from us? It make a ton of sense to give us 66 volume set of stuff to know.)
Jesus came not abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. He not only lived without doing wrong, but lived out the law perfectly. That is why death could not hold Him.

>>2452929
>lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwjik
Sound it out kiddo
>>2452931
Essentially sure.
>>2452932
>>2452933
>contradiction
>implying i care about lawwwwwwwwwwwwjik
>>2452937
It doesn't exist, so no.

>>2452618
Is nothingness any less a miracle than substance?

>>2452943
>Jesus came not abolish the law, but to fulfill the law
What's the distinction?

>>2452944
>It doesn't exist
Sure it does, if he wills it to emotionally.

>>2452944
Could you will 2+2=5?

>>2452894
>using a story book to justify saying someone existed
The Odyssey is true too, I read about it.

>>2452948
>>2452950
You people are incredibly autistic.

それは死後の世界があると言うときに神道の信頼します。

>>2452911
On the contrary, I was counting on it for that argument. Even entropy's reversal would happen in the natural world. AI is still natural and caused: not god.

>>2452944
you are now literally denying the existence of consistency, an observable, tangible phenomenon.

>>2452958
What if god is an AI sent back in time to create the universe?

>>2452959
So?

>>2452955
lol nips don't talk like that.

>>2452962
it means you're at the level of denying phenomenologically observable reality out of butthurt.

>>2452921
Yes, He would. It's a 66 volume set including history, natural laws, prophesy and all sorts of things.
Here's just one. Clearly it's about Jesus, but it was written 500 years earlier.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=NIV

>>2452943
shit, i think i just got redpilled.

>>2452981
Wrong. Try harder.

>>2452667
sapience vs sentience. If you ever have to type what you just typed again, change "conscience" to sapience. Because what you just typed is provably wrong

>>2452990
>Wrong
Is that a fact?

>>2452990
I will that I am correct.

>>2452993
No.
>>2452995
You're wrong.

>>2452988
As long as you're interested, I found this. It's pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLyVAE_JYFQ

>>2453002
>You're wrong
I thought facts didn't exist.

>>2453006
*becomes literally autistic and lights a J*

>>2452804
>all social abstractions. at the same time, though it's a red herring

so edgy

might as well stay inside and neetpost on 4chan all day because it's all just a red herring.

>>2452947
To abolish would be to say "new plan! Just believe in me."
To fulfill is to say "I will follow the law perfectly since you can't, and I'll die in your place which was your fate, and I'll take on your sin. Now accept your free gift and follow me! Unless you don't want to, then you'll keep right on track where you were going."

>>2452618
I mean let's be honest here
Why would a life even possibly exist?

>>2452823
if this were true I'd already be suffering

why are you guys arguing semantics and not sticking to the topic?

what is the concept of nothingness? Why can't believers in nothingness describe the nothingness? If humans can't perceive the nothingness of death that makes it inconceivable. If everything you know about the universe came from nothing, that would imply nothing is omnipotent. The answer is right there in front of you cucks, but you still choose not to discuss nothingness. You would rather leave it at "nothing" or talk about DMT trips and everlasting dreams. Meanwhile God is staring right at you through the black void of nothingness.

Good god this thread gave me cancer.

Reminder that the exact same shit you're all saying about consciousness being more than just the brain has been said about memory and cognition.

Just because something is inexplicable at the time doesn't imply it's transcendent of physicality. This goes for other vastly complex systems too, such as weather, astronomical phenomena, etc.

>>2453095
"nothingness" doesn't exist. unless you have evidence?

>>2453038
someone got their jimmies seriously rustled.

>>2453100
"muh science" is not an argument.

>>2453132
is that a fact? or did you will it?

>>2453140
"science will explain it one day so it means you can't discuss the philosophy of it" is a non-argument and something you only say to feel smarter.

This is as non-sensical as saying "Quantum mechanics can't be understood by current science therefore anything we currently discuss about it is nonsense".

Like holy shit, stop divinizing science.

>>2453147
not only is your post three massive straw mans and an ad hominem, and perversion of what >>2453100 said, but I'm not even him.

>>2453177
yeah, exactly. You see how faulty your argument is when it can be used against you the same? That it could get explained in the future doesn't mean we don't get to discuss it right now with our understanding.

>>2452618
There would have to be some transmission medium for the state of your brain to be transferred into some other form immediately upon death, maybe a "soul" or something.
Then there would have to be a place for that brain pattern soul to be stored.
Have they studied dead bodies to find out if any soul gas escapes from the brain?

So until we develop sophisticated brain scanning devices and run people's mind patterns on powerful synthetic brains after they die, there's probably no afterlife when you die.

But if you are say, instantly annihilated in an industrial explosion, for instance, then you are out of luck unless there are such things as ghosts.

>>2453352
holy shit, how is that people miss the point of the "& Humanities" part so fucking much?

This isn't a fucking science debate, what people like you do is go into a morality thread and say "Hurr durr but morality doesn't exist because we can't analyze it with science!!!!", this is a philosophical debate.

Holy fuck why do people think that science = logic?

>>2453360
Are you that same butthurt guy in that other thread?
I literally answered OP's question in the most direct manner I felt according to my own opinion, I'm not sorry if you flip out over a post.

You can't experience nothingness so something will happen. What exactly? That's unknowable.

>>2453406
That's an easy one, what did you experience before you were born? That's what Death will feel like.

File: 300px-Ouroboros.png (113KB, 300x318px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 300x318px

>>2453412
Eternal return?

File: quantum_enigma_cover_e2.png (255KB, 300x453px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 300x453px

>>2452673
Physicists use it that way in the context of physics so why not?

>>2453591
This seems like a very convincing source. Surely the academic community at large would agree. For my benefit, could you provide a specific peer-reviewed citation that uses "observer" or "observed" to mean "concious perception" the way you are implying this work does?

>>2453603
Both authors are professors of Physics, sorry mate, you're just wrong

>>2453638
Oh, of course. Metaphysically, I believe you. It's just that, unfortunately, science runs on peer review. Very inconvenient, sure, but it exists to prevent things like paid-off climate change denialists. Annoying, yeah, but any actual evidence will make it through the peer review process. So all you need to do is provide it. Show a peer reviewed publication that uses "observatiom" as a synonym for "concious experience" or something similar. Again, if these findings are fact, they should easily pass the peer-review process, so this should be a trivial request.

>>2453665
>unfortunately, science runs on peer review
No it doesn't you fucking retard.

t. Scientist.

>>2453665
Posts like this is what happens when someone knows "science" exclusively from IFLS, Bill Nye and HuffPo.

File: 777751.jpg (651KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1920x1200px

>>2452618
1, Consciousness is simply a very complicated mechanism (and / or a side-effect) of the brain. Life has no meaning, when you die your brain stops working and your consciousness just ends. No afterlife.

2, Consciousness is the basis of reality. Maybe it's a shared reality, maybe it's just YOU. There is no death, because there is only consciousness. Death or nothingness is simply meaningless in this context.

3, We are in a simulation. Let's say reality is (like a) computer simulation. If this is true, death can be like in 1, (when you "die", your character ceases to exist) or the creator(s) of this reality might reuse your program to a new project.
Also: we just don't know. If the world is indeed an illusion, a simulation, then we might have no power to understand it - because we're part of it. My theory about reusing people as program is merely a speculation (about afterlife).

4, There are supernatural forces. A God, more gods, spirits, spooky dimensions, etc.
Now there are two options:

4/a, Reality was created by a supernatural being (or more beings) with a purpose. They might decided to create an afterlife... or not. If they did, they probably made up some rules how to enter those realms. Just follow these beliefs, and you're going to be ok.

4/b, Complicated beliefs have more complicated afterlife theories. So let's say reality was not consciously created (like in Gnosticism or in animistic cultures). It just happened. There are another realms / dimensions, but they are more chaotic. They might have rules... or not. If you follow these weird rules (taboos, sacrifices, rituals, etc), you might enter a spooky dimension after your death. Also you might come back as a spirit, ghost or reincarnated being.

Science says: (probably) no afterlife.
Religions and spiritual beliefs say: there is an (or even more) afterlife.

The problem is: we usually don't experience paranormal stuff in our everyday life.
And that's why most people don't believe in afterlife.

>>2453692
>>2453708
My mistake, then. Just to correct me, what are some modern discoveries that have been widely accepted without any peer review?

>>2453665
Peer review is just a way to make sure that the methodology of a study was appropriate and to act as a filter so only reasonable studies get published. That said some Journals are more reliable than others and a 'peer reviewed' study in Shitfuck Monthly doesn't mean anything. There are hundreds of sociology papers that get through peer review every year that are awful, draw wrong conclusions and have shit methodology.

If you're a student just getting the first taste of reading Scientific Journals they might seem authoritative but you definitely have to sift through a whole lot of shit before you find something that might add to our knowledge of a subject.

>>2452667
>This can't be explained by mere evolution or chemistry.
why not

>>2452675
>Why would you make fun of God?
because he's a fucking asshole

>>2453723
It doesn't matter. Peer review is just a formalized way of checking someones work before publishing it. It's not some mystical aspect of science that is inherent to our ability to engage in scientific inquiry, it's literally just a few guys who know their shit looking over the work and saying "Yeah this sounds reasonable" and signing off on it. We could still do science without it, it's just that you'd have to sift through even more garbage before finding a quality study. That's it. You're naivette is kind of endearing though, I hope your shining optimism won't be crushed when you start reading journals regularly and see that most of it is shit anyway even with the peer review process acting as a filter.

>>2453729
>sociology
It's no surprise then that shit gets published in a shitty field. However, this doesn't actually delegitimize my main point. In fact, if the "concious observer" model of observation is actually valid, it should be within many current peer reviewed physics jour bald, both for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. So were are they? Cite them, specifically.

>>2453742
>That's it. You're naivette is kind of endearing though,
I'm glad you find it endearing. But if this is such a tiny gap to overcome, surely you must have evidence of other peer reviewed studies citing their findings (because, remember, passing the peer review system is extremely easy.) So where are they? Specifically. What are some peer reviewed publication that cite the "concious experience" definition of observer? Again, the peer review process is trivial, so there should be an abundance of sources.

>>2452657
nice meme, you can only observe phenomena on the quantum scale by influencing the outcome

an analogy might be searching for a balloon in the dark with an airgun

>>2453753
>Sift through thousands of studies to prove a 14 year old nu-atheist who thinks reading NDT books gives him complete understanding of the scientific method, wrong
Uhhh, no thanks.

File: 1485579686051.png (230KB, 473x320px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 473x320px

It's the same guy isn't it? I'm going to remember this thread for when I see Mr "FACTS DON'T EXIST REEEE" again

>>2453761
You don't need to sift through thousands of articles, though. All you need to do is prove that the "concious experience" model of observer is correct. Surely that definition will be in every modern quantum physics article that deals with observer effects, as that is a fundamental part of the definition? So show me the first peer reviewed quantum physics article dealing with this subject matter you can find, and it will surely refute me forever.

>>2453761
You're the one making the argument, it is up to you to find some proof at least. For instance I can find proof that turmeric helps suppress helicobacter pylori right now.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=turmeric+helicobacter+pylori

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663130/

>>2453782
I'm really not that invested in 'refuting you forever'. Knowing that I'm right and eventually you'll discover that too is enough for me, and that takes no effort at all.

>>2453791
Your complete inability to actually substantiate any of your arguments is pretty endearing.

>>2453799
I realized there was no point when you said peer review is the cornerstone of science.

>>2453814
And yet you can't provide a single citation showing how wrong I am. Perhaps you believe neutrinos can really travel faster than the speed of light, since they were initially measured as such in one experiment, and it was peer review that revealed the flaws in the methodology?

>>2453827
Why would I want to? It's like discussing the color of the sky with a retard who demands a study showing it's blue. Would you bother? It's obvious the sky is blue, I don't need a study I can just relax, confident I'm right and two if you bothered going to the effort it's clear the retard will shift the goalposts anyway. In this case it's more interesting to try and guide the retard through the correct conceptual hoops so they come to the correct answer themself, rather than showing them evidence they will summarily dismiss anyway.

>>2453842
>Would you bother?
Absolutely. The actual color of "the sky" varies depending on your location, due to a number of very specific, measurable factors. You can cite papers about pollution in China or Los Angeles if you would like to prove it. You apparently are unable to do even that. There is no evidence to dismiss in the first place.

>>2453855
Mostly because you're just arguing semantics. You seem fairly autistic.

>>2453859
Perhaps, but that is still unfortunately not a citation.

>allow me to ask what evidence is there so I can think in my smugness that I will be able to declare that there was no evidence and there were many religions
Indeed there are many religions and only one thats easily discarded gives you the no evidence option, in the rest of religions there is no judgement.
So yeah, shitty attempt.

>>2453714
/thread

>>2452653
>consciousness is not the product of brain waves alone
Tipping intensifies

>>2452714
>Put a dog in front of a mirror. He won't recognize himself.
that's because a dog's primary sense is his smell, and because his reflection doesn't smell like him, he doesn't recognise.

>logic

>>2453665
>peer-review prevents biases
>evidence exists
top meme
>>2453714
Science is wrong, sorry.

>>2453770
>fax exis becuz they make me feel good n safe
t. Letzter Mensch

>>2455128
They do though.

Nietzsche's point wasn't "hurr just believe what makes you feel good". It was that fundamentally "truth" is a matter of perspective and you'd be right to be sceptical of any notion of a universal truth. However you have to try anyway.

Just going full-relativism is last-man of the highest order.

>>2455161
I'm not a relativist.
>we live in an age where the educated cannot read

>>2455166
You are though, your logic is totally relativist.

You just autisticly insist that it isn't for no reason.

>>2455175
No, I simply have no logic.

>>2455195
And if you have no logic, then everything is relative.

ITT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

>>2455235
Not at all. Have you even read nee chee?

>>2455241
No, I know how people claim this nonsense works, I just reject it.

>>2455251
Yes.

Have you? Because at no point was he suggesting that you chuck logic, science and everything besides pure wishful thinking out the window.

>>2455267
>one must follow what this person, who spoke violently against dogmatism, says 100%
t. hasn't read nee chee

>>2455281
>one must follow what this person, who spoke violently against dogmatism, says 100%
Well if he's right then yeah.

I have a feeling that you've just read the wikipedia summary for Nietzsche and have now decided he's to philosophy what "Quantum physics" is to science. Something you can just namedrop to justify new-agey nonsense.

>>2452714
But animals can recognise themselves; monkeys, dolphins and elephants are all aware of their own being.

>>2455300
No, not at all.
>Well if he's right then yeah.
He can't be, because I'm right.

>>2452667
You are mixing up consciousness with self-awareness. One is the quality of experiencing qualia, the other is more like a degree of processing power. The latter is fundamentally able to be, and is, explained by science, the former isn't. Consciousness is not a behaviour.

>>2455315
>No, not at all.
Sure thing, buddy.

>He can't be, because I'm right.
You aren't though, you haven't explained yourself at all and you just insist that you're right for no reason.

Which is very dogmatic.

>>2455322
>Which is very dogmatic.
So?

Your interpretation is terribly shallow.

>>2455332
>So?
In summary: you're a retard.

>>2455338
Why?

>>2455352
You have me in a catch 22.

If I explain the logic behind why you're a retard you'll just ignore it and the idiocy will continue until 404.

If I say "you just are" or "I will it" or something for the irony that would require forgoing logic in favour of your retard methods, even if only for rhetorical purposes.

>>2452618
Your soul. Your chi has been defined, has been weighed outside of your body. Has mass.

>>2452796
>all deaths leave the brain intact

>>2456821

If you're referring to MacDougall's "experiments," kindly go and repeat the performance of his subjects.

>>2452703
>He's not inflicting punishment
>>"I will punish you"

Did you just ignore that statement that was directly attributed to God? If he simply said, "You will be punished," then you may have a point, but God himself explicitly stated that he is the one distributing punishment.

god is this autist who refuses to share linguistic concepts with other humans while attempting to engage in argumentation with them still posting?

>>2452618
People want to be eternally happy even when they're at rest.

>>2452798
>where is he then

Where are your thoughts?

I don't believe that the Christian God exists, but it seems that you don't understand the concept of immateriality. Obviously your thoughts, like all interpretations of internal and external stimuli, are contained within your brain, but you cannot physically locate them because they have no particular location.

There's more evidence for a life after death in the form of reincarnation than eternal non-existance. Think about youself, you arose seemingly out of nothing once (confirming that can happen), why shouldn't it happen again?

>>2457181
Because I cannot gestate into a new physical form that is greater than my own. Unless you argue that death does not mean the end for an individual and implies some sort of metaphysical growth into a new form, which even if it were true is not verifiable.

>>2457181
but I didn't form out of nothing. I formed out of a soup of elements and compounds. the process of biological reproduction is quite well-documented and understood.

>>2457293
>the process of biological reproduction is quite well-documented and understood

Actually we still don't know how abiogenesis could have occurred. The best we've managed is to synthesise a couple of amino acids, and that's in the best possible conditions we could create. Still a long way from knowing how proteins that could manufacture themselves could have just formed naturally.

>>2452618
>What logical arguments are there for an afterlife of any sort?
There is one for eternal recurrence though.
So you best get of the chinz and make the most of your life.

>>2457362
Wouldn't eternal recurrence mean that you get to experience loops constantly and then you would eventually be able to call upon previous memories to make shit different?

>>2452618
this is the afterlife
dualism is an illusion, as is materialism, when you die you rejoin the cosmic flow of the universe and are born again.

>>2452639

Professor Tipler, is that you?

File: 1482551846492.jpg (505KB, 1365x725px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1365x725px

there is no "afterlife" or "before life"
only life everlasting for those who are awakened to the Buddha nature in all things.

>>2457746

Frank was, admittedly, influenced by us.

>>2457776
didn't Buddha say that everything changes? So it would be more like non-life. I know there's a school of thought too influenced by Western bull that says that only the karma stays but that's antithetical to the normal teachings of Buddha. Same with the buddhism-lite of Alan Watts.

>>2457812
everything constantly changes
its as much non-life as it is life
its like a river of energy and the things we can perceive are just eddies in the water.

>>2457776
The universe is impermanent according to Buddhism. There is no everlasting life.

If you don't believe in a soul you won't believe in an afterlife. The point is that the soul's true nature is to not be attached to a body; it's to be a soul. Once you reach a state such that your soul knows its true nature, you become one with God in the "afterlife."

If you don't believe in a soul then you think that this body you inhabit is truly you and therefore when it's gone you will be too.

>>2457841
you live as the universe lives

>>2457068
>directly attributed to God?
kek, by who again?

NDEs prove an afterlife.

>people literally using the words "science" and "logic" as insults
>huge strawmen in many a posts and people outright refusing to accept being wrong even after out debated
>using "go back to /sci/, this is a humanities board" when losing an argument
&humanities ruined this fucking board. We've got a bunch of nu-christians from /pol/ ruining a board that should be dedicated to history

>>2452714
It's almost like facial recognition is one of humanities defining characteristics... NOPE must be a higher power

ITT: A flaming homosexual attacks belief, tell OP that you can take dicks in the butt and he no longer questions your belief.

>>2457165
>Where are your thoughts?
Inside my brain.

>>2452714
>all animals share the same brain

It's OK m8, the Wizard of Oz would have never been able to get people to do his bidding if everyone was too smart.

>>2452618
The only arguments against it depend on a prior embrace of materialistic naturalism. Arguments for it are equally hard to make as they are based on personal experiences that tend to vary markedly.

>>2452657
>This shows that its supernatural claims are true.
No.
>It goes that the existence of matter is dependent on conscious presence, and therefore that the mind exists independently of the brain
Also no.

>>2458469
By the Bible. That is a direct Bible quote, anon. Why are you arguing specifically this point?

>>2461818
>science has the answer for claims outside its boundaries

File: best pepe.png (162KB, 845x812px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 845x812px

>mfw i have solace in the afterlife because its my belief and there is nothing you can do to change it
>mfw atheistards who believe in nothing will have eternal depression

>>2462982
Again, by who exactly?

If you're using the Bible as a literal and sound historical source, I've got bad news for you...

File: Every room is a trophy room, with animated taxidermy.jpg (208KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 760x596px

If there is an afterlife, is the "soul" tired to its former vessel?
Does the "soul" care how its remains are treated? Does it care how others mourn for it?

>>2463206
The Bible is a more sound historical source than a shitload of other sources for events and people that you accept existed as fact.

>>2463519
The Bible is only a sound historical source, because for the longest time it was presumed to be historical fact.
Every year we find new things that the Bible gets wrong, that we thus far assumed it got right.

When you start with "the Bible is 100% true" and not much time has passed since, you end up with something like "the Bible is 80% true". This number will go down over time, as we find new ways to confirm things, rather than just rationalizing them to fit the one old book we have.

>>2463540
>Every year we find new things that the Bible gets wrong, that we thus far assumed it got right.
Not really, every year we find more and more evidence that the Bible was correct. The Pilate stone was only found in the 1960s and it was conclusively dated to around the time of Jesus showing that Pontius Pilate really was the prefect of Judea during the events of the Gospels.

Many bible thumpers assume that evidence for Jesus means evidence for the bible, it doesn't, it can also mean evidence for gnosticism, which is very likely given the persecution that gnostics experienced, outing them as the true ones.

>>2463540
It's the other way around.

The more scientific discoveries are made, the more the Bible is proven correct. Atheists used to scoff at the idea of "Hittites" ever existing, until archeologists actually discovered Hittite cultural remains.

Doctors used to think draining blood can cure illnesses. They were genuine, but wrong in their methods. The Bible says that life is in the blood.

Hundreds of archeological discoveries confirm the Bible is an accurate source of historical information. http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

>>2463549
Gnosticism says God is the bad guy and Satan is the good guy. No thanks.

File: nt_reliability1.jpg (2MB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3508x2480px

If historians treated every historical source like they do the new testament then 90% of history would be considered to be false. No matter how many times the histrocity of the New Testament is proven, some people just don't accept it, while they will happily accept other historical events as indisputable fact despite those events are supported by a dozen scraps of papyrus compared to the thousands of NT manuscripts we have dating right back to the first century. It's pure hypocrisy from people who just don't want to admit the Bible is a VERY reliable source

>>2463561
atheists hate God, thats why they refuse to accept overwhelming evidence.

rebellion and anger tend to make you irrational

>>2463552
You are, in the long standing tradition of your cult, rationalizing instead of reasoning.
Blood draining can in fact cure some illnesses, for one, and even though it was applied wrongly for decades and centuries, this is for purely scientific reasons, not because "life is in the blood".

>>2463563
>atheists hate God
Oh, nevermind, I forgot this board is full of cultists.

>>2455124
Science is not a set of beliefs and is by definition never wrong. If a view held by scientists is proven wrong, then the original viewpoint must have been reached through unscientific means. This has been the case many times in history, as with the unscientific assumption that the sun revolved around the Earth.

It is entirely possible that God is real and the Bible is 100% fact. If we ever are able to test and verify that, it would become scientific consensus. Science is not diametrically opposed to religion. It just so happens that thus far, the existence of God or an afterlife have not been verifiable through tests. If there is a God perhaps that will change aome day.

>>2463561

How many times do the numpties posting this need to be told that lots of copies of something, most of which were made hundreds of years later, doesn't have any bearing of whether the originals themselves are actually good sources for the purposes of studying history?

>>2463563

>atheists hate God

Do you hate Zeus?

>>2463555
No.
Gnosticism says salvation is achieved by reaching gnosis or illumination as opposed to mere belief.
You are mistaking the notion of an evil creator with God above him for biblical dichotomy.
To make it understandable my belief to you: Darkness vs light, darkness has almost godlike power but ultimately the light is stronger.

>>2463566
NDEs prove an afterlife.
The "its just brain chemicals" theory has been debunked as well.

>>2463577
>reaching gnosis or illumination
That's a Satanic belief.
"Ye shall be as gods!"
"Ye shall surely not die!"

Gnosticism has been refuted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkiBz9rYEs

>>2463581
>NDEs prove an afterlife.
No, they do not.
The "we just don't know" scientific consensus around them isn't because there are no possible solutions, its that there are multiple possible solutions that all fit, and we need to see which ones aren't true.
Protip: none of the ones considered are divine afterlife.

>>2463571
Why would they not be good sources when they have overwhelming archaeological evidence supporting them? Books written only 20 years after the event in question are gold for historians. In fact I'd go far to say that there is no other event in ancient history that has such a multitude of sources that were written so close to the event in question. So why are the books of the New Testament not reliable historical writings? I get the feeling you're prejudiced against them just because today they're part of the Bible. If we have lots of copies and those copies reconcile and those copies don't contradict any physical evidence we have of that time period then why should they not be considered reliable? Because it makes you uncomfortable to consider they might be true?

>>2463572
All pagan deities refer to fallen angels or nephilim, so yes I hate them. Pagans also glorify Nimrod. Paganism can be traced back to the Tower of Babel, where the occult started.

The Greek titans for example, are the legends of the pre-flood giants.

>>2463586
>Muslim dies and sees Jesus
>Atheist dies and sees Jesus
>Hindu dies and sees Jesus
>floating above your body
>tunnel and light
>experiencing horror of hell or glimpse of heaven
>being told "It's not your time yet"

hmmmmm.. gee i wonder what this means.

>>2463587
New-Atheists are irrational and illogical.

>>2463585
>refuted
I have reached gnosis myself.
Meanwhile I have yet to see one single of you child rapists do one (1) miracle like your book claims.

>>2463597
"Jesus" isn't some mathematical figure you can define and recognize, and 99.99999999% of those "I saw Jesus" people saw a black vertical bar in a white background, or a humanoid shape, or whatever.
And it is in fact your brain going through the archives and throwing random shit, like a dream, while its in chaos because its functions are failing.

>>2463602
>I have reached gnosis myself
You are demon possessed, good job for you.

>>2463607
Pluck the demon out then, you cant because powerless and deluded.

>>2463603
>Brain in 'chaos' creates a perfectly lucid experience of being with people and lets them imagine entire conversations
Sounds legit. How come the brain in chaos can create images that feel so real and coherent, and suspiciously similar for every single person? The brain in chaos that is dying shouldn't produce any coherent experience at all, it should be completely random

File: relegion.jpg (179KB, 740x1109px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 740x1109px

>>2463614
Gee, I don't fucking know. Its almost as if most of us experience a similar life, so we have comparable archives. Combined with nobody actually being able to see what the dying man saw, so we interpret his interpretation, further muddying the water, until some cultist on a hentai forum claims everyone sees Jesus when they are dying, despite nobody actually knowing how Jesus even looked like.

>>2463603
>brain chemicals argument
Already been debunked, google it.

tl;dr:
1. Patients are BRAIN-DEAD during the moment they have an NDE. There is no activity in the brain.

2. They accurately recount events in the room, such as doctors working on his body, or what is going on in the next room. This would be impossible if not for a soul.

3. Almost all NDEs resemble Christian afterlife, no matter the cultural, religious, or racial background of the person. Muslims see the same thing as Atheists do.

4. The experience changes their life around, they become a completely new person. They read the Bible and turn into Christians.

5. Hell/Heaven are described in great detail. People also say that these experiences are more real and vibrant than this life. Hell is undescribably terrifying and when recounting the story, NDE victims tend to start crying. Heaven is described as unbelievably beautiful with colors you've never seen before.

Sorry m8 but turns outs afterlife is real.

>>2463623
You are wrong. Google it.

1. Thats wrong.
2. Thats also wrong.
3-5 are also wrong.

Google it. Turns out you are wrong.

ITT: Atheists get REKT when confronted with facts and logic

>>2463627
Nice evidence mate

>>2463638
Then your argument is "ur rong google it", mine can be as well. Google it.

>>2463561
Why the fuck would they hold the new testament to a different standard? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or is it just persecution complex playing up?

>>2463652
When talking about pagan or secular sources, atheists tend to just accept it at face value.

When it comes to biblical sources, atheists suddenly go hyper-critic and judge it way harshly than they do with other sources, raising the standards.

It's called bias and cognitive dissonance. They hate Christianity so ofcourse they will talk shit about the mountains of evidence for it.

>>2463655
You're just literally repeating yourself, back yourself up please

>>2463662
>back yourself up
Literally this thread.

Read it. Then come back to me.

>>2463663
This thread is you making the same claim 50 times and people asking you to back it 50 times.

>>2463663
To see you repeat yourself even more? No, I demand you back up your claim or else it can be dismissed. Prove that there is a general trend that historians have different standards regarding the scriptures without adequate reasons behind it.
In fact if you can't provide evidence then your posts are proof of typical persecution complex.

>>2463587
>Why would they not be good sources when they have overwhelming archaeological evidence supporting them?

That doesn't even make sense.

The image you posted was about the New Testament. Since the NT is primarily about people that wouldn't have been major figures in their own life times you aren't going to have archaeological evidence for or against most of it.

I don't know what possible evidence you think would prove or disprove the Sermon on the Mount for example.

It's almost like you are completely clueless and unable to think coherently.

>>2452653
It literally is. Your brain makes you conscious.

>>2452667
More anthropocentric "humans are the chosen special snowflakes" BS

We evolved to have souls because the spirits of our ancestors guide us through life and provide us visions we call dreams.

File: 1475030201761.png (12KB, 506x492px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 506x492px

>>2463729
>mfw this guy probably thinks Exodus didn't happen because of the lack of archaeological evidence
Nice double think you atheist retard

>>2463056
But I'm not depressed about the prospect of not having an afterlife.

I'm already lucky to get one life, no point in being greedy.

>bait thread
>300+ posts

fuck off

Necrobump

>>2457797

And who might you be?

>>2464316
association =/= causation.