Is it not true that Sight does exist independent of us? That even if I was blind, or born without eyes, that sight and seeing would still exist? As said, I haven't changed my stance. I did a poorly-done argument earlier in this thread, I know. Indeed, because science will only prove what is demonstrate-able. A soul isn't a material thing. Any argument I can form will only be by inference, and which by you will say "The lack of evidence is astounding." Again, I'm not in this for the science of things, just the truth of things. If you're speaking about things such as "eletrical impulses" They're called Synapses. If you're curious about more sciencey-psychology part, please read up on the "Dualism/monoism" debate. Quite interesting I might say
Sight –noun 1. the power or faculty of seeing; perception of objects by use of the eyes; vision. 2. an act, fact, or instance of seeing. 3. one's range of vision on some specific occasion: Land is in sight. There are many more definitions but none of them help prove your point that sight is a "thing", for lack of a better term. And also, for me, science leads to the truth, everything else is just a deterrence. I don't wish to start an argument over beliefs here, but I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. And also, synapses are just the area where the signals are transmitted through neurons, not the actual impulses; but I don't really care about that, it was just an example.
Indeed, Science does lead to the truth. It leads by demonstration specifically. However, Everything else cannot be a deterrence. Statistics is a math that isn't deductive as it is interpretive and inferred logic (From a sample etc.) What about Social Sciences, such as Psychology (Which I love ) And Sociology? Such truths about people and trends wouldn't ever be considered truthful, or even possible a few hundred years ago. But alas, I agree with you. I don't wish to start an argument over beliefs (Such as this entire thread as been ) Neither have been proven to be the absolute truth yet. Indeed, I do understand where you are coming from. I'll respect your stance if you'll respect mine.
I guess I should have been more clear but when I said that science leads to truth, I pretty much meant everything logical (including math, psychology, etc); therefore excluding religions, superstitions, and personal beliefs based merely on what that individual wants to be true.
What's the question again? If we ever wish for death? if so, sometimes. But other than that, I'd have to say I do not believe in anything after death except not existing.
I am not sure what kind of answer you want. If Christians are right, you go to hell. If you are right, then you go to whichever of those your religion claims you belong in. In reality, neither of you are right, and you in all likelihood go nowhere. But the difficulty doesn't come from people having contradicting beliefs. Truth is not concerned with your or anyone else's beliefs.
See the relationship of the way "Heaven" and "good, "hell" and "bad". The words are connotative in-themselves The labeling of terms is does not matter. The truth is, and that is if you're a believer, that any sort of "good / pleasant / forever / awesome / etc" and anything sort of "hurt, fire, pain, alone , torture, etc" Is a sort of renamed "heaven" and hell" Hypothetically. E,g When you die, you go to a place in either goodie or baddie. One being of a terrible place to be, and the other a fantastic place to live forever. When I die, I go to a place in either heaven or hell. One being of a terrible place and the other fantastic. (I duno, you pick.) In essence, both have the end result of the same thing. An analogy would be one country calling an apple 'mmaple' while another calls it "nai-nai-". Same object, different names. You call it mmple I call it nai-nai. The object still is an apple, regardless of it's name. Whether or not you believe in an afterlife is up to you. There isn't any observable data to say "why in-fact there is a place called Good, and heres some pictures, and here are some pictures of bad. Take a look!" This is why there's faith involved, because it is something you know to be true and you hold on to it in the absence of data. EDIT: Travz21: Then you get into Moral relativism.. hahaah.
Of course religions conflict, that's why nearly every war and conflict that has taken place in the history of the world was done in the name of religion. If Christians are right, you go to hell. If your "awesome" religion is right, you go to heaven. If Atheists are right, then you're dead, and that's it, you don't go anywhere.
What I never understood was; if the Devil is against God and is a fallen angel or whatever, then why would he punish those who were bad in the afterlife? Surely the Devil would just be like "well played." And anyway, as far as I'm concerned, when you die, you die. And as a side note, there's far too many inaccuracies within most, if not all, religious groups for them to truly be followed based solely on blind faith.
That's what I don't get either. The devil would like people who've been bad. I bet hell is just one big party and the holy roller Christians just don't want us to have fun for eternity.
Well as far as I understand it, it's not the Devil who punishes them, God does. Imagine afterlife as a big hospital with God being in charge of the whole place. So if you're good, you'll be working as a doctor with angels as your supervisors and if you're bad you'll be working in maintenance cleaning toilets with Devil as your supervisor.
If the devil is the embodiment of evil, he wouldn't be nice to people just because they spite the things he doesn't like. He would still be a bastard to everyone. That's how I would look at it, anyway.
Some interpretation believe that Hell is simply complete absence of God, so if that is the case the Devil's "punishment" seems less purposeful. He just kind of rules over that. The idea of a centaur with a pitchfork surrounded by flames though seems so comical that it can't be seriously believed.