Funny although not 20 characters
Bollocks. Oh wait, I’ve spent 14 years reviewing scientific papers covering relevant topics, including papers covering subject matter that you don’t even know exists.
Again, bollocks.
Before providing numerous cogent reasons why those of us who paid attention in class dismiss pre-scientific mythologies and their merely asserted magic entities, I’ll attend to the obvious deficits of elementary knowledge that tend to be a feature of mythology fanboy utterings on this matter. I shall therefore explain how proper discourse actually works in properly constituted rigorous fields of human endeavour.
First of all, whoever presents an assertion, is required to support that assertion with a proper standard of evidence. Those of us who are suspicious of said assertion don’t have to support the contrary assertion, we simply have to sit back and watch you fail to support YOUR assertion, which not only becomes safely discardable as a result of your failure, but remains irrelevant from the standpoint of acquiring substantive knowledge.
Quite simply, YOU are the one asserting that your cartoon magic man exists, therefore YOU are required to support this assertion. All we’re required to do is sit back and watch you fail to do so. Oh, and “My mythology says so” isn’t “evidence” for your cartoon magic man, it’s evidence for the propensity of the authors thereof to engage in fanciful fabrication.
As a corollary, dismissal of the assertions in question isn’t “faith”, it’s the very antithesis thereof. Because mythology fanboys have provided us with a wealth of observational data, to the effect that “faith” consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. NOT accepting those assertions uncritically is therefore the antithesis of “faith” by definition.
In addition, assertions possess, when presented, the status “truth value unknown”, and until those assertions are tested in order to remedy this epistemological deficit, those assertions are again safely discardable, because they provide no useful or substantive knowledge while in that state of limbo. Only when assertions are tested via proper, rigorous tests, to determine their truth value, does this status change. The assertions found to be false, are discarded except for pedagogical purposes, and the assertions found to be true, are the ones that become the evidentially supported postulates underpinning our knowledge base.
This, indeed, is how every proper, rigorously constructed human endeavour operates, from pure mathematics to empirical science. Unfortunately, some seek to exempt their favourite mythologies, and the assertions contained therein, from this elementary but reliable framework. This isn’t going to happen among those of us who paid attention in class.
Now, as for those cogent reasons to dismiss fantasy magic entities, including your favourite one …
[1] If your magic entity is asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, it can be dismissed on those grounds alone. Which means that your favourite magic entity, along with several others, are tossed into the bin before I move on.
[2] Mythology fanboys of various species, have had over 5,000 years to provide genuine evidence for their various asserted fantastic magic entities, and in all that time, have provided nothing better than “my mythology says so”.
[3] Mythology fanboys are incapable of agreeing among themselves on a global scale, which of the numerous mythologies humans have invented is purportedly the “right” mythology, and, adherents of a particular mythology are incapable of agreeing among themselves what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Apparently your cartoon magic man, if it actually exists, is happy with this hilarious and absurd morass of anti-consilience on the part of its worshippers.
[4] Mythologies contain assertions about the natural world, that have been utterly destroyed by scientific discoveries, and which no genuinely existing god type entity would allow itself to be associated with. For example, your favourite goat herder mythology contains within its pages the farcical assertion that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.
This assertion was found to be a risible lie by a 19th century monk, whose landmark scientific research not only taught us how genetics actually operates, but laid the foundations of modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
Apparently your cartoon magic man, if it ever existed, was not only too stupid to present basic biological facts correctly, but as also insufficiently “omniscient” to foresee the emergence of said 19th century monk and his diligent scientific experiments.
Given that your favourite goat herder mythology asserts that your cartoon magic man has “perfect foreknowledge” of the future, failing to take note of the work of a 19th century monk falsifying this assertion is an epic blunder.
[5] Several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past centuries, and as a corollary, have rendered cartoon magic men from goat herder mythologies superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
[6] Indeed, expanding upon [5] above, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and interactions, that the authors of pre-scientifc mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about, despite purportedly having the alleged “creator” of the universe present to tell them about said classes of entities and interactions. Furthermore,said scientists have placed said classes of entities and interactions into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, of a sort that the authors of mythologies would have regarded as magic.
[7] If the authors of any of the mythologies in question had indeed alighted upon the keys to the cosmos, and as a corollary, that the work of Nobel level scientists was supposedly all “wrong”, why does that supposedly “wrong” work of said Nobel level scientists work, and mythological assertions don’t?
[8] If any of the mythologies humans have invented, were something other than fanciful fiction treated farcically as fact, and there was some substance lurking within the obscurantist prose, why do mythology fanboys have to lie repeatedly in order to propagandise for their favourite mythologies? Mythology fanboys gatecrash various sites repeatedly, to post well-known and previously destroyed lies about atheism, atheists and various scientific topics, and in the latter case, demonstrate that they frequently lack sufficient functioning neurons to understand the scientific topics they claim to be able to dismiss.
So, that’s no less than EIGHT cogent reasons for dismissing your cartoon magic man (and all the others as well).
What was that you were saying about there being “no intellectual reason” for not treating your imaginary cartoon magic man as real?
2 Likes
I don’t know. I don’t even know that nothing in an absolute sense is possible, or what you’re trying to imply by accidentally? Why do you ask?
I have seen no objective evidence we can survive our own deaths in any meaningful way, with or without any deity. I have also seen no objective evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible.
2 Likes
First of all, spare me the condescending niceties. Then, addessing the question at hand, let’s take a closer look at you utterance:
First, you need to define which god you are referring to, which properties it has, and what you mean by “life after death”. Second, it is a loaded hypothetical question that at the very least allude to the existence of a god and life after death. Thus, it underhandedly presupposes the existence of both these undefined terms.
Next, let’s try to exhaust the possibilities here. For short hand notation, let’s give this god a name – I’ll call him Bob. We can classify the options for the existence of Bob thus:
- Bob does not exist (null hypothesis).
- Bob exists, but does not interact with our universe in any significant or meaningful way that can be distinguished from natural phenomena explained by science. Thus, there is effectively no way to demonstrate or prove his existence. Essentially the same as option 1.
- Bob exists, but has not (yet) been demonstrated to exist. Bob’s interaction with our universe is vague enough that it is hard to distinguish from natural phenomena, or Bob wishes to hide in the shadows, playing hide-and-seek. The world essentially works as if Bob does not exist. Effectively the same as option 1.
- Bob exists, and has been demonstrated or proven to exist. Obviously not true, as there is no Bob-proof.
Thus, options 1) through 3) can be summed up like this: It is (so far) impossible to distinguish a universe with Bob from a universe without Bob. For all practical purposes, it’s as if Bob does not exist, or plainly: Bob’s existence is irrelevant.
Therefore, your question “Without a God can there be life after death?” makes the presupposition that Bob would make any difference. Which he clearly doesn’t. Now, let’s turn to “life after death”, or LAD for short. We have the following options:
a. There is no LAD.
b. There is a LAD, but it cannot be demonstrated.
c. There is a LAD, but it has not yet been demonstrated.
d. There is a LAD, and it has been demonstrated.
Option a) is the null hypothesis. Option b) is essentially the same as a), as there is no way to distinguish between the two. Since LAD has not been demonstrated, option d) is out. Option c) boils down to the definition of LAD and its nature. If life is purely an emergent property of chemical and physical processes, then so is LAD. If there is a supernatural aspect of life, then we’re truly into the domain of pure speculation. Therefore, asking questions about LAD presupposes a non-demonstrated phenomenon.
Thus, your question “Without a God can there be life after death?” presupposes that Bob or the existence of Bob would make any difference, and an as-of-yet undemonstrated and undefined LAD.
In conclusion: Yes, your question relies on presuppositions about undefined entities and terms, and makes no sense.
2 Likes
How did you find out that I’m god?
1 Like
Had no idea your name is Bob 
But in the first iteration of the reply, I chose Bob because it lent itself to referring to belivers of Bob as BoBs. But then, after a few iterations and alterations and changes, I dropped that, but Bob stuck.
2 Likes
Which deity, and the complete absence of objective evidence is sufficient reason, or did you intend to offer something more than bare claims that don’t even define what it is you’re claiming exists?
Either it all accidentally came from nothing or it came from something. If it came from something it MAY HAVE? had a purpose. I call that something, God. (Not in the sense that most here understand ‘God’ to be). I expect to be vaporized any time now. I at least tried. Enjoy your lives everyone!
Methinks I understand why you are an atheist. The Beatles, right? ‘no religion too’. Oops that was John after the Beatles. Even so…
DaldieDuckweather has been waddled out of the building.
1 Like
Whatever gave you such a nonsensical idea?
First, before anything can come from nothing, you have to demonstrate that nothing can exist. Please do so.
Next, just because there is something, in no way implies that there is a purpose. When people use things, they ascribe them with purpose. That does not mean the things themselves have a purpose. If I have a chair, I can use it to sit on and sitting on could be its purpose. I could use the same chair for firewood, in which case firewood would be its purpose. Or I may use the chair to beat you over the head, in which case a murder weapon may be its purpose. If I happen to be on a sinking ship and the chair floats, a flotation device may be its purpose. Simply because something exists, does not magically imbue it with purpose.
What something? You have said nothing? Your rambling nonsense and then asserting God without facts, reason, or evidence of any kind.
1 Like
No, that’s called a false dichotomy fallacy., also known as a false dilemma.
That is semantically the same as saying it may not have a purpose, all you have said is you don’t know whether it has a purpose or not. In order for me to believe it had a purpose, this would need to demonstrated with sufficient objective evidence, do you have any to support that notion?
Well that conclusion doesn’t follow at all, however you might explain which deity this is, and if you can accurately define it, and then demonstrate any objective evidence it exists?
Well I will say that this is a debate forum, and if you value or are emotionally invested in a belief, and don’t want that belief subjected to critical scrutiny, then this is the wrong place to bring it, but if you are curious as to why others don’t share such beliefs then this is a good place to learn why.
If you move your cursor over someone’s profile (top LH) and click on it you should be able to see their profile, and in there it will say whether they are theists or atheists or identify as agnostic.
I am an atheist since I lack belief in any deity or deities, and when god concepts are presented that are unfalsifiable I am also an agnostic.
1 Like
I wish I’d read that first… 
1 Like
Where did this god come from?
1 Like
My wife says my name is Bob because it’s spelled the same forward or backward, so it’s easy for me to remember and to write.
1 Like
I think I’m both. Atheist and Anti Theist. Religion annoys me. Some days more than others. There’s a lot of Christians in Missouri.
2 Likes
I don’t think there is a difference because “atheist” is simply a grammatical construct with the “a” reversing the sense of the word “theist” so “with god” becomes “not with god”. I think the “ism” is a bit of a misnomer because atheism, by and of itself, carries no philosophical components and I don’t think there are “flavours” of atheism and I don’t really accept the concept of agnosticism. You either believe in a god (theist) or you don’t (atheist); it’s a binary concept.
Anything else, like whether I am anti-theist or whatever is in addition to being an atheist.
UK Atheist
1 Like
That’s because agnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief, one can be either an atheist or a theist and still be an agnostic. I am just baffled why anyone would base belief on not knowing. I generally withhold belief from claims when I can’t or don’t know if they are true.
I don’t agree. I have no knowledge of a god and nor do theists. Would you not agree that the agnostic, at the time of assessment/statement, still rejects the existence of god? That a person believes they “know” something is pretty much irrelevant IMO; I believe I “know” things but it only takes one thing to prove I’m deluded and, after all, I’m almost certainly unable to directly see any of the universe I think I observe around me.
UK Atheist
1 Like
With what specifically?
That would make you an agnostic.
No, an agnostic is someone who believes nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of god. It is a claim about knowledge, not about belief or the lack of belief in any deity per se.
Agnostic
noun
- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant how? A belief is simply the affirmation of a claim, that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Hence knowledge is not a necessary condition of belief, but I think it is a rational one, since without any objective evidence one can only use subjective bias.
I don’t see what this has to do with agnosticism? For context here is your original claim:
And again neither position requires knowledge, hence one can be an agnostic and an atheist, or one can be an agnostic and a theist, though as I stated before, I am baffled why anyone would believe something they admit they can know nothing about, to me that is a rational reason to a) remain agnostic, and b) withhold belief.