Nihilus wrote:

Um...har har. Joke...right?

yes.  or is it?  hmmm....

Pat Thielen wrote:
This is just another one of those topics debating things that can't be proven or disproven with science. Be warned.

 

Yeah, I call these Coleman gets to Bash people cause it makes him feel better discussions. All the posts start with a premise that can't be proven by science so it must be false.

Absolutle waste of time to even participate anymore. You can not graft new ideas on a closed mind.

Charles Morris wrote:

Yeah, I call these Coleman gets to Bash people cause it makes him feel better discussions. All the posts start with a premise that can't be proven by science so it must be false.

Absolutle waste of time to even participate anymore. You can not graft new ideas on a closed mind.

Are you claiming that I claim that things not proven by science must be false?  Please point to the post where I claim that.  Thanks.

Actually, my intent is not to bash, but to question claims and assumptions.  I gather from the emotional tenor of some of the replies that some people actually do feel bashed when I pose those questions.  Everyone has the option of replying, "I have evidence, and it's..." or "I have no evidence, but I believe anyway..." or however they choose, or to not reply at all.  I suppose you have the free-speech right to assert your belief that my motive is to make myself feel better.  Would that be in contrast to your motive, which is nobler?

Anyway, it's nice of you to participate in what is an "absolute waste of time" to participate in.

Justin wrote:
I didn't feel bashed. I have a lot of beliefs that don't have scientific or evidentiary basis. It's appropriate to say, "What are the bases of your beliefs?" It's appropriate to say, "What are the logical bases of your beliefs?" It's fine to say, "Do you have provable evidence for your beliefs?"

I believe I'm marginally happier with my entry-level Nikon prosumer camera then I would've been with a similar Canon. I have no scientific basis for my belief. It's just the way I feel about it. I'm not threatened by the fact that I have no scientific basis. I'm comfortable with how I feel. And I'm always open for relevant facts to educate me further.

There's no need to feel challenged or insulted. The fact that provable evidence has not been found doesn't mean that something doesn't exist (yikes, a triple negative). If you're comfortable with your beliefs, I'd recommend you keep feeling that way unless something better comes along.

Well said, Justin.  And I'm comfortable with my Sony F707 with the Carl Zeiss lens.  Call it a lesser god.  :-)

Nihilus wrote:
Um...har har. Joke...right?

Christopher Bush wrote:
yes.  or is it?  hmmm....

Well, just in case...and using any reason to include a Michael Shermer quotation:

"Death is a part of life, and pretending that the dead are gathering in a television studio in New York to talk twaddle with a former ballroom-dance instructor is an insult to the intelligence and humanity of the living." -- Michael Shermer

Charles Morris wrote:
All the posts start with a premise that can't be proven by science so it must be false.

All of "these discussions" start with illogical ideas that makes no common sense other than fancifully in our imaginations. Then, the ecstatic: "Look! Science doesn't know/care about/address the answer to this question! Therefore, any means by which to verify it's reality is fair game...including my own personal intuition!!".

Science has not "disproven" underpants gnomes either. Do you believe in underpants gnomes? Do you understand your reasons for not believing in them?

RED Photographic wrote:
So, anyone who starts quoting scientific fact as a basis for not believing in an afterlife is, surely, on shaky ground, as there is no scientific proof of exactly how everything started.

You're forgetting my underpants gnomes. What bigotry makes you despise them so? They deserve equal treatment in the "ideas that science cannot answer" category. Care to tell me why you don't consider them equally viable?

Nihilus wrote:
Science has not "disproven" underpants gnomes either. Do you believe in underpants gnomes? Do you understand your reasons for not believing in them?

I believe the underpants gnomes will one day remember what Phase 2 is.

RED Photographic wrote:
I don't want to hijack this thread, but I would like, for a second, to turn it on it's head.  We don't KNOW if there is an afterlife, but, equally, we don't KNOW how the universe originated, where the matter came from that started the whole thing off.  There are lots of theories, but no real proof.  So, anyone who starts quoting scientific fact as a basis for not believing in an afterlife is, surely, on shaky ground, as there is no scientific proof of exactly how everything started.

There is, however, evidence supporting some of these theories.  There is, as yet, no evidence supporting the existence of underpants gnomes... but I'll get it one day.  >:d

Nihilus wrote:

You're forgetting my underpants gnomes. What bigotry makes you despise them so? They deserve equal treatment in the "ideas that science cannot answer" category. Care to tell me why you don't consider them equally viable?

The bigotry of ignorance, I'm afraid, which infiltrates much that I do.

But, bearing in mind the absence of any real evidence for most of what's gone on in this thread, positive or negative, your theory can indeed hold its own in the competition.