TOPIC: Open discussion on what happens after death

Mr Red X wrote: I'd say there's much more evidence for the science

Zeronixes wrote: Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.

Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical.

The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc.

The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest.

A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no.

Mr Red X wrote: yeah, I'm definitely more leaned towards that side of the argument.

Mr Red X wrote: biology and that

Zeronixes wrote: While thats technically right Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle does have requirements such as the pre-existence of particles and waves in the first place thus it can’t be applied to the initial creation of energy as it is assumed that particles and waves would not exist.

Mr Red X wrote: The fact that you had to write that in brackets shows how pointless it is talking to you

Whenever Red X posts on a topic it just turns to shit so quickly lmao

RealDenis wrote: I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.

to make it short, it's okay to think about something we dont have knowledge about only if we keep our answers by ourself since it will change by each person and arguing about it would be useless

Wow.
None has ever claimed that science made us. And none made science, science is something we do to gain knowledge.
The things we explore are as intrinsically in this universe as God would be if he existed.
You claim to have proof and don't show it.
You ask questions that I could apply on your belief too, just that I can find logical answers.
And last but not least, I hope there is no God, since that would mean that he created you and millions of other people who don't think for themselves.


Or at all.

I'm an atheist and a guy who sticks to science and to facts. I will have to go with the most boring and logical answer: "We don't know, and we can't know, at least not for now."

I believe there is some sort of after life, and that we do have some sort of creator however, I don't believe the person / people that did create us want us to worship them, rather they just want us to live our lives, but that raises the question as to why that person would have created us, which is something I can't answer.

Mr Red X wrote:
If I remember right you're from north africa, explains all.

Mr Red X wrote:
Considering atheists are a big minority, not really.

Mr Red X wrote:

so I just had a thought, if reincarnation was a thing within people, there would always be the same amount of people on the planet

I just want to fucking die

Eddie. wrote: yes unless physics apply to souls

Eddie. wrote:
Nice work, Einstein!

Zeronixes wrote: Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.

But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do.

Dr Richard wrote: Thats not what atheism is though, atheism is the active denial of the existence of a higher power, not only the acceptance of our lack of knowledge. Simply saying “We don’t know” is what an agnostic would say, an atheist on the other hand would say “We don’t know and thus God does not exist” which is pretty stupid imo because by that logic the same thing could be applied to the existence of aliens for example like “We don’t know aliens exist and therefore they don’t”. Attitudes like that are what prevent progression in a society or field.