Questions for theists.

[tackattack]

Just because something creates more questions does not make it somehow invalid or of no use whatsoever. Occam's Razor doesn't make the claims that make less assumption invalid, it just looks for the simplest answer first. It doesn't by nature eliminate anything, just focuses the discussion to something manageable. I agree the problem is complex by nature.

It was asked what happens after death. You rightly started with the simplest premise, nothing. I agree that nothing happens materially after biological death. That's the end of that.
As far as which side of the fence I strddle, that's why I'm been asking you to define your criteria.

The question wasn't "what happens after biological death", it was a question about souls and the after-life. The very nature of the question invalidates your biological stopping point or qould at least be outside it's defined attributes. Theology and philosophy, and subjective experience have many examples and postulations of that afterlife. I think I clearly showed my perspective on that. Here you start to question that stopping point with your questions of the eye. If we are to discuss that relationship let's start a new topic, so as not to clutter someone else's thread with topics outside this discussion's parameters.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can have a conversation in the hypothetical all day long, I just enjoy pausing at points (especially when enough claims have been made) to make sure that our hypothetical has some basis in reality. Not everything that can be imagined is true.

What is wrong with asking for people to substantiate a story about souls and the afterlife? I don't understand. When someone asks about souls and the afterlife how am I overstepping any boundaries by reminding those asking (or answering) the question that we have no evidence for either, and that we do have knowledge of death that does not include either of these things? If I'm derailing a thread my bad, just trying to roll with the punches. Perhaps I'm simply exuberant to be engaging in a discussion with a christian about the afterlife that didn't immediately devolve into a heated rant (or the thinly veiled implication) that I'm going to regret the things I say or think. It's refreshing and I've enjoyed it thoroughly. But, again, if our discussion is derailing the thread, my bad.

[tackattack]

I'm glad you can discuss the hypothetical the question would be who's reality. I agree that not everything hypothesized is, by default, true. The only reality I can speak from is my subjective reality. The only context I can use is the context of the question, which I believe is what you're not getting. You're not steeping outside your boundaries, just the premise of the questions.I'm aware of no measurable material evidence for souls, Ive shown in several places here experiences of the immaterial, I don't claim that as material evidence. You can not have knowledge of nothing, just an absence of evidence. Yet you're making a positive claim that "we do have knowledge of death that does not include either of these things".

I'm questioning your definition of death and that is is disingenuous to say "general death" as you connote, when you're a materialist and speaking about biological death. I don't think it's a derailment at this point, but this is a discussion forum and I proposed that we start up another thread for the parameter's you're obviously questioning. What is wrong with asking for people to substantiate a story about souls and the afterlife? Nothing at all, it just takes a lot of time and energy and I'd like it to be ordered a bit. I appreciate the energy and time you've put into this discussion. I too have enjoyed our discourse and think others have as well and look forward to many more.

[fr0d0]

ever waited more than 20 posts to rep a theist?

A lot longer. I didn't used to rep theists at all. Ask tacky. Nowadays I have no hesitation repping good posts that are entertaining or well made.

I can criticise ppl of my own persuasion quite easily. I can completely see the opposing persons POV. I like doing that... it's kind of a hobby.

I am surprised to have a female pooch tho'.

[Blam!]

To be honest, I would be satisfied with not only "good" reputations, but "bad reputations. But how come we don't have that option in our reputation system?

[Rayaan]

To be honest, I would be satisfied with not only "good" reputations, but "bad reputations. But how come we don't have that option in our reputation system?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-4403.html

The reason is simply to avoid negativity. If you don't like someone, then just don't give them any reps.

Say something good or be silent, but neutral reps are still allowed.
However, unfortunately, I've seen some members using the neutral reputation to write comments which are not actually neutral, but closer to being negative.

[Blam!]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-4403.html

The reason is simply to avoid negativity. If you don't like someone, then just don't give them any reps.

Say something good or be silent, but neutral reps are still allowed.
However, unfortunately, I've seen some members using the neutral reputation to write comments which are not actually neutral, but closer to being negative.

Ah. Didn't know we had one before. Thanks for the information, Rayaan.

---

I admit I've written some negative comments in some forums, but I'll try to refrain myself and be more civilized.

[thesummerqueen]

We try to stay civilized here, but sometimes the situation just goes tits up, you know?

[Rokcet Scientist]

'Reputations' are BS anyway. Either way. Just watch the news and you see dozens of 'reputations' built up, affected every day. And just as easily attacked the next.
It's mandated image building and character assassination. It's an industry! I was in it until it turned nasty. But the bottom line is: it's all BS.

[Statler Waldorf]

Thankfully I don't have to agree with what the Nazis deemed morally acceptable, and in this case, many people did not. Enough people to form an army large enough to crush Nazi Germany underfoot. Again, you're assuming that because someone deems something to be morally acceptable that I would believe this to be an objective decision, or that such a thing even exists. I do not. What one group of people feel is morally acceptable is in no way proof of, or a statement of "objective morality".

So you are saying it was not morally wrong to exterminate 6 million Jews?

An argument from ignorance? Perhaps you should google death, the dying prcoess, decomposition, and fairy tales. I've already handled two of them for you. You do appear to be suffering considerable amounts of difficulty with the concept of the final subject. The op has modified his statement to "we don't know if there is an afterlife" which isn't exactly his original statement. Even this new modification is unsatisfying. The minute you begin to describe an afterlife you've begun to make claims that can be criticized. We don't know that Russel's teapot doesn't exist either. What a compelling argument! Strong, positive, falsifiable claims. Why is this so difficult to elicit from the faithful?

Saying you know there is no afterlife is to make an argument from ignorance. If you want to be irrational, by all means don’t let me stop you, I prefer rationality myself though.

It's disingenuous, and you'd know a little about that wouldn't you Stat?

Yes I have learned quite a bit about it after studying you on here.

"We don't know-......, but, let me tell you what we know about souls, heaven, god, and all the rest" Bullshit. You aren't actually criticizing what we know, you're replacing it with what you wish to believe (because what we do know disagrees with you on a fundamental level) and then assuming the mantle of reason or inquiry. Absolute bullshit.
(yes, I realize that you haven't done this OP, I'm dealing with Statler, who has never seen an opportunity to troll he hasn't taken)

Again, saying you know that heaven, hell, souls, and the afterlife do not exist is still just an appeal to ignorance, I prefer rationality myself but whatever floats your boat.