(February 4, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Lek Wrote: Your words are meaningless Rhythm. Due to all the failed experiments, science has proven to me that life is non-material. No magic involved.

That's nonsense. The only thing that could be said to be "non-material" about life is consciousness(and I think it is arguable that even that is material), and science has shown that it is highly dependent upon the material. Your belief in supernatural entities has no scientific basis.

(February 4, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Lek Wrote: I believe it's non-material because science has never demonstrated how life can come about from a non-living source.

Are you seriously that happy about basing your belief so strongly on an argument from ignorance? Does that make you proud?

Well, I'll tell you what, Lek: you know what science has also never demonstrated? That god exists. So if you're going to be consistent in what you consider to be good argumentation, you also can't believe in god.

So, better break out the special pleading to go with that argument from ignorance, eh?

My first taste of death being something that is natural and not to be feared came when I was 13. I used to mow the lawn for an elderly couple across the street, and every time when I went in to get paid, I would sit and chat with them for an hour or so. They were both in rough shape(neither could see or hear very well), and they never got any visits from their family. So, I made it a point to visit, because I could tell they enjoyed it.

Anyways, whenever I came in and asked the old man how he was doing, he would inevitably and without fail say, "I'm just waiting to die." It was the kind of stark honesty a young teenager isn't used to, but after I listened to him explain how he felt at the age of 85, I realized that death could sometimes not be so bad and that the cessation of suffering can be preferable.

Of course, my severe depression and my suicide attempt have cured me of any fear of death. Sometimes I even find myself yearning for it...

(February 4, 2015 at 10:30 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Lek Wrote: Your words are meaningless Rhythm. Due to all the failed experiments, science has proven to me that life is non-material. No magic involved.

Are you seriously saying that based on empirical evidence you reject the existence of the real world? Or is it only the organic portion of the world whose existence you question?

No. I just believe that the "force" that I would call the life in a biological being is non-material.

Did... did somebody say "the force"?

(February 5, 2015 at 12:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Are you seriously that happy about basing your belief so strongly on an argument from ignorance? Does that make you proud?

Well, I'll tell you what, Lek: you know what science has also never demonstrated? That god exists. So if you're going to be consistent in what you consider to be good argumentation, you also can't believe in god.

So, better break out the special pleading to go with that argument from ignorance, eh?

Why do you believe otherwise when science has not been able to create a material being and make it live? Are you not basing your opinion on ignorance? A living being has something within it that all the same materials, simply assembled, do not have.

But if what you all say is true, you should have no fear of death because you won't be aware of the fact that you are dead.

(February 5, 2015 at 12:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Why do you believe otherwise when science has not been able to create a material being and make it live?

Because "science can't X" is not positive evidence for your claim; just because one thing can't do something, doesn't mean it's impossible for all things. Meanwhile, the physical readily exists and is demonstrable with ease; if I have evidence for one thing, and shifty fallacious arguments to get around the lack of evidence for another thing, then probabilistically it's more likely that the thing with evidence is true, rather than the thing for whom the proponents have to try and con us into believing. That's just rational.

Quote: Are you not basing your opinion on ignorance?

No, because my opinion is probabilistic and recognizes the limits of our current knowledge without attempting to overreach the way yours does. I attribute a higher probability to physically derived life because all the components of that can easily be shown to exist, whereas the additional parts you claim, are not. Show me some evidence, not fallacies, and I'll change my mind.

All of this is completely separate from the larger point, which is that a tu coque fallacy does not excuse your egregious argument from ignorance. Even if you were completely right and I was doing it too- you're not, but if you were- that wouldn't suddenly make it okay for you to do it. A fallacy doesn't become reasonable when multiple people do it; I'm surprised how often I need to explain this basic concept to christians, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote: A living being has something within it that all the same materials, simply assembled, do not have.

Yes: a biological birth and molecular construction within the womb that we haven't yet been able to replicate. Just because we can't perfectly replicate nature yet, doesn't mean that magic is involved.

(February 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because "science can't X" is not positive evidence for your claim; just because one thing can't do something, doesn't mean it's impossible for all things. Meanwhile, the physical readily exists and is demonstrable with ease; if I have evidence for one thing, and shifty fallacious arguments to get around the lack of evidence for another thing, then probabilistically it's more likely that the thing with evidence is true, rather than the thing for whom the proponents have to try and con us into believing. That's just rational.

I didn't even say that it is proven that the life in us is non-material. I said that I think we should not be 100% convinced that it is not.

It also just hit me that the thought of death to atheists would be easier to face than for most theists. When facing death, many theists worry that they haven't lived a moral life, and are worried that they will suffer for it after death. An atheist believes he can live in any he wants and he will meet the same end as everybody else. There is no fear of any retribution for what he has done. The Stalins and Neros of the world really don't have any more reason to fear death than the good people.

Nero was an atheist? Or just a not-Christian. I know it's hard for you folks to tell the difference.

(February 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because "science can't X" is not positive evidence for your claim; just because one thing can't do something, doesn't mean it's impossible for all things. Meanwhile, the physical readily exists and is demonstrable with ease; if I have evidence for one thing, and shifty fallacious arguments to get around the lack of evidence for another thing, then probabilistically it's more likely that the thing with evidence is true, rather than the thing for whom the proponents have to try and con us into believing. That's just rational.

I didn't even say that it is proven that the life in us is non-material. I said that I think we should not be 100% convinced that it is not.

And I don't believe anyone has claimed 100% certainty. What has been claimed is that there is no evidence for your belief and some evidence against it.

Quote:It also just hit me that the thought of death to atheists would be easier to face than for most theists. When facing death, many theists worry that they haven't lived a moral life, and are worried that they will suffer for it after death. An atheist believes he can live in any he wants and he will meet the same end as everybody else. There is no fear of any retribution for what he has done. The Stalins and Neros of the world really don't have any more reason to fear death than the good people.

Correct. What a relief. I can exercise empathy for its own sake.