It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
I would think there would be a final destination.
originally posted by: BestinShow
a reply to: Daughter2
I also think there are second chances because reincarnation makes sense to me.
Makes sense, or satisfies your needs..? Big difference...
Not attacking you, or at least not trying to be a d!ck, but rather trying to push a conversation that should occur more often, as the topic deserves the attention: can humans separate critical thinking from belief?
I don't think so, but you may prove otherwise...
originally posted by: IntimateCat
That's no simple fact , that's just like your opinion man.
What if our bodies were immortal, what implications would that have. Would we be seeking death as opposed to eternal life. Suffering is a gift, for without it how could we polarize a greater will to live a much more meaningful life. The meaning of life is the meaning you put into it. Without a physical body you are just an observer, not a creator. Even if souls are real you forget everything upon reincarnation, perhaps to forget is the greatest gift. An immortal being will eventually come to know all that is and why it is so, sucking the wonder out of life.
If humans have no eternal soul, then the simple fact is that all human life is WORTHLESS. It doesn't matter who you love, who loves you, or how you are remembered in the ages to come. Suffering is nothing more than a random consequence of existence, and there is no right or wrong. Bigotry, hatred, genocide, tyranny, these things are all just abstract expressions of neurochemistry. At some point life will end, and the human body will decay back into the earth, then the sun will explode and it will be over for humanity. What we are today will eventually be a memory that can no longer be called back to cognizance. Sic transit gloria mundi; Thus passes the glory of the world.
It may be that brain events cause mental events or vice versa (e.g., having certain electrical activity in the brain may cause me to experience a pain; having an intention to raise my arm may cause bodily events). It may be that certain mental functions depend on brain functions before they can take place, and vice versa. It may be that for every mental activity, a neurophysiologist can find a physical activity in the brain with which it is correlated. But just because A causes B (fire causes smoke), or A cannot function without B functioning, or A and B are constantly correlated with each other, that does not mean that A is identical to B. Something is trilateral if and only if it is triangular.But trilaterality (the property of having three sides) is not identical to triangularity (the property of having three angles), even though they are constantly conjoined. It is not enough to establish physicalism that mental states and brain states are causally related or constantly conjoined with each other in an embodied person. Physicalism needs identity to make its case, and if something is true, or possibly true of a mental substance, property, or event that is not true, or possibly true of a physical substance, property, or event, physicalism is false.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Well its been awhile friend. I was just revisiting this topic the other day. J.P. Moreland has some really good talks on youtube addressing this point.
Here is an excerpt from one of his writings that I think is beautifully thought out.
I believe those that take the position that we have no soul are stuck with the idea that the mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire. The brain is the cause of certain mental states as fire is the cause of smoke. If this were the case I would find it hard to justify trusting anything that is produced by the mind including the thought that the mind is caused by brain.
I also think these thought tie in nicely with the Moral Argument. Without the soul there is nothing about a human being that is intrinsically valuable they are simply complex bags of flesh chemically fizzing to the make up of their DNA. There would be no reason that increasing the flourishing of humans would be objectively better than killing all humans. Good post.
However I don't believe life is meaningless even if we don't have a soul. We still have this life. We still have the ability to make others lives better. We have this experience and every day we are given opportunities to make people smile if we choose.
You would make a terrible atheist. Even those atheists who don't believe in spirituality, don't believe life is "WORTHLESS". Can you truly not see any value in your life whatsoever if there is no soul, no god, no religion? So if you found out tomorrow there was no god, you would go on a murderous rampage, because it would make no difference? You only value your life, and the lives of others because you believe god tells you to? That's really sad, priest. I value life as much or more now, than I did as a Christian.