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.
In trying to provide some logic foundation for a conviction that there may indeed be an afterlife, the first thought I confronted was the question, "Is God provably true or false, and if so, can that proof even be communicated by words written in a book, or words spoken by one person to another?" All religions depend on the idea that the answer to this question is yes. But history fairly conclusively demonstrates that religion has a well-recorded and consistent failure rate at proving God's existence. Thus religion relies upon faith rather than logic in assuring its supplicants that it can fulfill its social contract of comfort and forgiveness and ultimately shepherd us toward a return to grace and acceptance by our Creator, despite our "sins."
Originally posted by Amagnon
Stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs - I suggest only published authors should attempt posts as long as this.
Perhaps a summary at the top, with additional info might help people come to grips with this less than enthralling monologue.
EDIT: Gave the OP a bit of a skim read - the stance of supporting faith always annoys me.
If you have a look at what faith really is, then you understand why it is destructive.
Faith is believing something that does not have enough evidence to create a rational belief - in other words, it is a belief based on lack of evidence.
Beliefs formed in face of poor evidence can be described quite accurately as fantasies, or speculative theories - anyone can have one, and no two need be alike because they are based on little real evidence and can be adjusted as the 'user' desires.
My personal conviction is that all belief is unfounded - because physical reality cannot be proved, and non physical reality cannot be communicated, simply because all communication intersects physical reality - which automatically must corrupt it.
Therefore any truth is the sole possession of whoever it resides within, it is neither generic, communicable, transportable or demonstratively applicable to physical reality.
So I have no beliefs at all - I do however have values and convictions, but these are personal and need no evidence of truth - though tests of utility can be demonstrated by application to physical reality.
This probably all sounds like techno-babble to most - but these ideas are not the easiest things to communicate, and I try to be to the point and accurate as possible.
[edit on 24-3-2010 by Amagnon]
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
I had to take a breather and stop.
Let's see, the existence of a God proves nothing about an afterlife, UNLESS, and that's a big one, that anything written about said God, in concomitant advocacy of an afterlife, is also correct.
Conversly, the existence of an afterlife does not prove the existence of a creator God; that could just be how the universe works. Nor does existence of consciousness independent of material form, or even as an inherent properly of the material say anything about preserving one's human identity in any sense in an afterlife.
So, for one to be used to prove the other, we must assume that one implies the other or that certain statements are correct, without proof.
Originally posted by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU
That's so you can have fun 'getting it for yourself' Google-ing and such, why should the wordpower be exclusive to us who are scholarly and academic?
I expected you to ask me "So um. what is the forbidden fruit? Or the Tree of Life?"!
Or even; "Can you tell me GODs Plan?"! Haha... (I joke)
But seriously, most of what you were opining is such a simple set of definite terms to KNOW!
Originally posted by without_prejudice
I'm kind of disappointed that the only comments so far are that the full post can't be read. Disappointed in the readers a little, but in myself and my dubious writing abilities more. Oh well!