A rational explanation for hell?

[Faith No More]

One could even argue that the harshness and coldness and the limitations of life only add to the immense brutal beauty of it all.

Exactly. For example, what makes life precious? Death, and the fact that it is final.

[Captain Scarlet]

I am explaining to you that every observation we have made about life and death leads us to the conlusion that there is no "experience of death". The thing which you call the "self" or mistakenly refer to as the "soul" that has "experiences" is a product of a biological machine. When that biological machine cease to function, you will be unable to experience anything. You will not have use of any of your senses (because they depend on the functions of this machine), and you are no longer producing thought (another function of this machine). You are not "nothing" materially, you have simply ceased functioning, what is so hard to understand about this?

Positing all manner of psychopomps to fill the backdrop on an eternal morality play, then casually load it on the back of our fear of death is absurd. It isn't what we don't know about death that makes an afterlife possible, it is what we do know about death that makes it impossible.

Exactly Rhythym, let those who propose a soul or dualism describe exactly what it is, and assuming that that definition includes reference to the immaterial, exactly how the immaterial interfaces with the material. Otherwise it is an appeal to magic. Parsimony and the available evidence would lead us to conclude that we are indeed biological machines and that the mind and brain are connected.

[C Rod]

The last part should say ",well" not ",will". I am grasping at a truth of reality and importance. I think when talking about importance or known reality, analogies are just an easy dodge to persuade any real consideration.

Actually, analogies are a very good tool to explain something in an understandable way, which is why great literature is filled with them.

From what I can tell from your answer, you are basically saying the afterlife gives you hope, which is why it is important to you. I, however, was making the point that it's better to base your beliefs on reality and not on something that is fantasy but makes you feel well. At first glimpse, life can appear to be harsh and cold without things such as god and the afterlife, but they don't have to be.

I wouldn't say hope but an acceptance that is hope. Something additional to my life.
But like Rhythm said, when he couldn't reply back with a observational answer, "Somebody has to come back from the dead to tell you what the experience is like." And im like yea. We see death and we see that it is final. But i want to know what the experience is like, the actual death. But he could not tell me so he dodged with that conclusion. If death is like this why don't you fight it or go all out. Or sense there are many claims of an afterlife then it should be considered.
Comparing the "teapot" to the testimonies of men about a God is what gets me. That analogy may be a comparable one sense there is no observational proof but one is extensively detailed and one is a mere idea told for logical purposes. But an atheists will fight for the atheist agenda.

[The Grand Nudger]

I never dodge troll.

---

Your arguments and objections would receive less of my attention if they weren't so profoundly ignorant.

[C Rod]

I never dodge troll.

---

Your arguments and objections would receive less of my attention if they weren't so profoundly ignorant.

Very but what are you gonna do.


Wait... but come to the conclusion of "crazy" and ask for physical evidence of the metaphysical.

[Epimethean]

Well, since there is no, and has never been, such evidence of a god as anything other than a human construct, why do you remain stuck in your groove, CRod? You say it isn't hope, but that is all it CAN be.

[Faith No More]

Or sense there are many claims of an afterlife then it should be considered.

This is where you are very wrong my friend. Many people make many claims to many different things, but that is no reason to consider something. One must use logic and reasoning to determine the existence of an afterlife. Using these tools one, can only come to the conclusion that it his a human construct to deal with a temporary existence.

Comparing the "teapot" to the testimonies of men about a God is what gets me. That analogy may be a comparable one sense there is no observational proof but one is extensively detailed and one is a mere idea told for logical purposes. But an atheists will fight for the atheist agenda.

Extensively detailed? Just because something can be described does not make it valid. That is the point of the teapot. Also Greek mythology is just as extensively detailed so it must be just as valid according to your argument.

And I'm not sure what you mean by atheist agenda. The only agenda atheists have that I am aware of is to get people to live in reality.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

And I'm not sure what you mean by atheist agenda. The only agenda atheists have that I am aware of is to get people to live in reality.

Actually there's no such thing as an atheist agenda. Atheism is about belief, lack of belief to be precise. An atheists is only a person who does not believe in gods. NOTHING else is implied or may be inferred.


My atheism was an inevitable conclusion(an effect,not a cause) of my skepticism. IE I began demanding answers,especially in the form of credible evidence.I found none in over 20 years of searching.

That theist apologists are unable or unwilling to understand is not my problem. I have no desire to even try to disabuse anyone of anything.There are two reasons (1) Nothing as prosaic as reason or evidence will change the position of the dogmatic believer and (2) I REALLY, TRULY,could not give a flying wooly fuck about the personal superstitions of others. (as long as they stay out of my face)

[KichigaiNeko]

And I'm not sure what you mean by atheist agenda. The only agenda atheists have that I am aware of is to get people to live in reality.

Actually there's no such thing as an atheist agenda. Atheism is about belief, lack of belief to be precise. An atheists is only a person who does not believe in gods. NOTHING else is implied or may be inferred.


My atheism was an inevitable conclusion(an effect,not a cause) of my skepticism. IE I began demanding answers,especially in the form of credible evidence.I found none in over 20 years of searching.

That theist apologists are unable or unwilling to understand is not my problem. I have no desire to even try to disabuse anyone of anything.There are two reasons (1) Nothing as prosaic as reason or evidence will change the position of the dogmatic believer and (2) I REALLY, TRULY,could not give a flying wooly fuck about the personal superstitions of others. (as long as they stay out of my face)

woolly has two "L's" in it I think..but I totally agree with you pad!

---

Hel is a deity construct and a very "nice person" (for a given value of nice)
The hell of theology is the darkest places in your own mind where no one can hear you scream

Ergo= It's all in your own mind.....get over it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imaginary friends and cosmic theme parks.