Being patronised is the least of your worries if you believe any of that rubbish.
People back in the 19th century would have said the same thing about anyone who predicted a 'digital online world' where people could communicate through a network of cables under the ground and electronic machines, and then be able to see what that person said on a screen. People would also have thought it about those who talked about signals in the air a couple of hundred years before radio waves were discovered/created.
People back in the 19th century would have said the same thing about anyone who predicted a 'digital online world' where people could communicate through a network of cables under the ground and electronic machines, and then be able to see what that person said on a screen. People would also have thought it about those who talked about signals in the air a couple of hundred years before radio waves were discovered/created.
That happend in life though... Anything is possible in this life.... But not when ur dead
That happend in life though... Anything is possible in this life.... But not when ur dead
If you take a Physicalist/Materialist position then yes. If you take an Idealist or even Dualist position then not necessarily, or even no. I think in time it's perfectly possible Idealism will win out.
"Idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." wiki.
I sincerely believe that we just shut down and that's it, no tunnels, no lights, no sitting on fluffy clouds strumming a harp. The idea that my dead relatives are somehow "watching over me" gives me the fear but if, when I die, I wake up sitting on a cloud then I shall certainly stand corrected. In the meantime, I will continue to believe that life after death is just something concocted by humans a long time ago because we couldn't get our heads round the fact that we could just cease to exist.
What you choose to believe is irrelevant, not to mention complete and utter nonsense.
You have not a single piece of factual information to back up what is nothing more than your own wishful thinking. When you die, you will cease to exist. You will not survive as a particle of energy containing your personality because the organ that contains you personality (your brain) will be dead and non-functioning. Incidentally, your personality is partially genetic and inherited from your parents.
Our ancestors were primitive when compared to us. To suggest otherwise is not only absurd, but insulting to the scientists who have discovered and explained so much and gave you the technology, good health and longevity to come on here and post this rubbish. The scientific understanding of the ancient Egyptians is n no way comparable to today's. It's a ridiculous comparison to say the least. If you prefer to live your life according to the views of ancient civilisations who were so stupid as to sacrifice their own children to a non-existent deity they made up, then I feel sorry for you.
Just spotted this. I think we just need to remember that there are no absolute values by which we can judge whether we are better or worse than previous civilisations. All our judgements are based on past actions being acceptable or unacceptable to our present sensibilities. There are no absolute moral values in nature that would allow is to make absolute judgements.
Also, while we evolve and adapt, that evolution and adaptation has no direction. It seems to us that the increase in scientific knowledge is a good thing - but there is no way we can state that as an absolute truth.
We like to think we are evolving into better societies, better people. But it's a relative position - there is no external standard to confirm it.
Having said that, as you say, it would be unusual for a modern day person to prefer an earlier age with what appears to us to be more brutish morality and less knowledge (though I seem to remember that is how Battlestar Gallactica ended!).
Having said that, as you say, it would be unusual for a modern day person to prefer an earlier age with what appears to us to be more brutish morality and less knowledge (though I seem to remember that is how Battlestar Gallactica ended!).
I agree. I would much rather be in this day and age that has loads of scientific and historical information written down than in an age where ignorance FAR outweighed knowledge on things.
there are often some very disparaging remarks about our ancestors; like primitive goat herders, savage desert dwellers etc. What do people expect, we dragged ourselves out of the slime and tried to survive in this mud and rock world. They probably had a lot of time at night to look up at the stars and wonder what they were. What do we do now, sit at a computer that someone else designed and built and tell dirty jokes(not that there' anything wrong with that )...when was the last time you wondered about some part of nature?
To use our ancestor's lack of technology as some kind of reason to attack their intellect seems stupid. Could any of the sceptics on here make a bow and arrow, make a stone axe, light a fire...? I guess some might....I would say it takes a lot more skill to do any of that than drive a car that someone else came up with.
there are often some very disparaging remarks about our ancestors; like primitive goat herders, savage desert dwellers etc. What do people expect, we dragged ourselves out of the slime and tried to survive in this mud and rock world. They probably had a lot of time at night to look up at the stars and wonder what they were. What do we do now, sit at a computer that someone else designed and built and tell dirty jokes...when was the last time you wondered about some part of nature?
To use our ancestor's lack of technology as some kind of reason to attack their intellect seems stupid. Could any of the sceptics on here make a bow and arrow, make a stone axe, light a fire...? I guess some might....I would say it takes a lot more skill to do any of that than drive a car that someone else came up with.
A bit of humility could come in when we think of how primitive we will look to humans of the future. ;-) How pathetic our little science and barbaric our methods. How awful auto correct.
most people can't remember being babies, so it is not surprising that people can't remember before that....doesn't prove that there was nothing before we were formed into humans.
most people can't remember being babies, so it is not surprising that people can't remember before that....doesn't prove that there was nothing before we were formed into humans.
1. People can't remember being babies for the simple reason that the mechanism is developing at the time and doesn't store memories. This is not a mystery.
2. People have no memory prior to that as the mechanism didn't exist.
3. The mechanism doesn't exist after death.
You didn't exist as a human because all the atoms that make up your being now were in a state of high entropy hence you have no concept of existence from the beginning of time up to early childhood. You simply didn't exist.
After death your body returns to a state of high entropy and again you have no way of having a concept of existence. You are now in oblivion and simply no longer exist.
Beginning of time, high entropy. Then lower entropy and a brief window of light and then back to high entropy.
1. People can't remember being babies for the simple reason that the mechanism is developing at the time and doesn't store memories. This is not a mystery.
yes, but regardless of memory, people were babies, and they had thoughts, feelings, and experiences.....so the lack of memory doesn't prove that someone didn't exist before they were formed into a human.
yes, but regardless of memory, people were babies, and they had thoughts, feelings, and experiences.....so the lack of memory doesn't prove that someone didn't exist before they were formed into a human.
What about the fact that they didn't exist?
You seem to be making a distinction between 'existing' and 'formed into a human' where there isn't one.
1. People can't remember being babies for the simple reason that the mechanism is developing at the time and doesn't store memories. This is not a mystery.
2. People have no memory prior to that as the mechanism didn't exist.
3. The mechanism doesn't exist after death.
You didn't exist as a human because all the atoms that make up your being now were in a state of high entropy hence you have no concept of existence from the beginning of time up to early childhood. You simply didn't exist.
After death your body returns to a state of high entropy and again you have no way of having a concept of existence. You are now in oblivion and simply no longer exist.
Beginning of time, high entropy. Then lower entropy and a brief window of light and then back to high entropy.
Disappointing isn't it?
It's possible though that mothers could pass on memories of being in the womb to her fetus, so the child 'remembers' via the mother.
there are often some very disparaging remarks about our ancestors; like primitive goat herders, savage desert dwellers etc. What do people expect, we dragged ourselves out of the slime and tried to survive in this mud and rock world. They probably had a lot of time at night to look up at the stars and wonder what they were. What do we do now, sit at a computer that someone else designed and built and tell dirty jokes(not that there' anything wrong with that )...when was the last time you wondered about some part of nature?
To use our ancestor's lack of technology as some kind of reason to attack their intellect seems stupid. Could any of the sceptics on here make a bow and arrow, make a stone axe, light a fire...? I guess some might....I would say it takes a lot more skill to do any of that than drive a car that someone else came up with.
When I remark about this I am not really having a go at the Bronze age people who tried to explain the world as best they could at the time.
I am actually having a go at those who still place the ancient stories above the vast mountains of evidence about our universe discovered by the modern scientific method.
Comments
People back in the 19th century would have said the same thing about anyone who predicted a 'digital online world' where people could communicate through a network of cables under the ground and electronic machines, and then be able to see what that person said on a screen. People would also have thought it about those who talked about signals in the air a couple of hundred years before radio waves were discovered/created.
That happend in life though... Anything is possible in this life.... But not when ur dead
If you take a Physicalist/Materialist position then yes. If you take an Idealist or even Dualist position then not necessarily, or even no. I think in time it's perfectly possible Idealism will win out.
"Idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." wiki.
The difference is, you can say that now because you know they exist. The attitudes towards them two things back then would have been quite different.
Just spotted this. I think we just need to remember that there are no absolute values by which we can judge whether we are better or worse than previous civilisations. All our judgements are based on past actions being acceptable or unacceptable to our present sensibilities. There are no absolute moral values in nature that would allow is to make absolute judgements.
Also, while we evolve and adapt, that evolution and adaptation has no direction. It seems to us that the increase in scientific knowledge is a good thing - but there is no way we can state that as an absolute truth.
We like to think we are evolving into better societies, better people. But it's a relative position - there is no external standard to confirm it.
Having said that, as you say, it would be unusual for a modern day person to prefer an earlier age with what appears to us to be more brutish morality and less knowledge (though I seem to remember that is how Battlestar Gallactica ended!).
i have seen some strange things over the years, so a bit of me do think that there may be something after death,
I agree. There's a lot we don't know about the brain. A lot of it will remain a mystery for decades to come.
I agree. I would much rather be in this day and age that has loads of scientific and historical information written down than in an age where ignorance FAR outweighed knowledge on things.
Why do so many extremely intelligent people believe in God and Heaven, isn't it clear that God didn't create the Earth and there was no Adam and Eve?
We need the second coming of Christ, that would be something worth watching on Sky News.
Brainwashing is far more powerful than intelligence.
The original question offers only three replies, yes, no, don't know and doubt it was posted to act as a launch pad for personal diatribes.
I'm in the 'yes' camp
If anyone is in the "yes" camp then the answer to original question can only be....yes..../thread..
credit to Vulpes with #9 of course.
Except that if children have a predisposition to believe, there's that hypothesis out the window.
To use our ancestor's lack of technology as some kind of reason to attack their intellect seems stupid. Could any of the sceptics on here make a bow and arrow, make a stone axe, light a fire...? I guess some might....I would say it takes a lot more skill to do any of that than drive a car that someone else came up with.
A bit of humility could come in when we think of how primitive we will look to humans of the future. ;-) How pathetic our little science and barbaric our methods. How awful auto correct.
This scenario stands up to scrutiny better than any other.
How was it before we were born? Some religion thinks we were spirits waiting for a body to inhabit. So we need to clarify.
1. People can't remember being babies for the simple reason that the mechanism is developing at the time and doesn't store memories. This is not a mystery.
2. People have no memory prior to that as the mechanism didn't exist.
3. The mechanism doesn't exist after death.
You didn't exist as a human because all the atoms that make up your being now were in a state of high entropy hence you have no concept of existence from the beginning of time up to early childhood. You simply didn't exist.
After death your body returns to a state of high entropy and again you have no way of having a concept of existence. You are now in oblivion and simply no longer exist.
Beginning of time, high entropy. Then lower entropy and a brief window of light and then back to high entropy.
Disappointing isn't it?
yes, but regardless of memory, people were babies, and they had thoughts, feelings, and experiences.....so the lack of memory doesn't prove that someone didn't exist before they were formed into a human.
What about the fact that they didn't exist?
You seem to be making a distinction between 'existing' and 'formed into a human' where there isn't one.
It's possible though that mothers could pass on memories of being in the womb to her fetus, so the child 'remembers' via the mother.
When I remark about this I am not really having a go at the Bronze age people who tried to explain the world as best they could at the time.
I am actually having a go at those who still place the ancient stories above the vast mountains of evidence about our universe discovered by the modern scientific method.
Creationists in particular really piss me off.
This is the 21st century.