Essay talk:Pros and Cons of Atheism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
All the cons happen regardless, though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've yet to see evidence presented of the impossibility of an afterlife. Sure, if you turn off the brain you turn off that brain's consciousness, but what's to stop the same consciousness from popping up somewhere else? It's a big multiverse, you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yet you've managed to invent this absolute certainty idea that if your purely hypothetical afterlife you've invented exists, it's somehow denied to people who don't believe in it. What you believe doesn't affect what's true. But being religious doesn't spare you from there being no afterlife(there totally isn't) and if that's somehow wrong('tis not), being atheist doesn't spare you from whatever happens. The cons happen regardless of whether you're atheist or not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're right that whatever happens happens, and it's certainly dubitable whether religious beliefs would offer any posthumous benefit. My point is merely that it seems overtly presumptive to assume that whatever happens is merely a bunch of nothing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't feel compelled to convince you. By I'm pretty sure dualism is bunk. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a question of dualism vs non-dualism, though. It's more a question of whether or not people's consciousnesses are locally/temporally unique phenomena. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't that what dualism is? Body/Consciousness being separate and/or distinct? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm not sure how that relates to my second sentence. Unless you're assuming our bodies, despite being mere physical constructs, are somehow inherently unique. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, you can absolutely believe in a clone of yourself if you want. Seemed pretty dualist the way you wrote it, is all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm not sure how that relates to my second sentence. Unless you're assuming our bodies, despite being mere physical constructs, are somehow inherently unique. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't that what dualism is? Body/Consciousness being separate and/or distinct? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a question of dualism vs non-dualism, though. It's more a question of whether or not people's consciousnesses are locally/temporally unique phenomena. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't feel compelled to convince you. By I'm pretty sure dualism is bunk. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're right that whatever happens happens, and it's certainly dubitable whether religious beliefs would offer any posthumous benefit. My point is merely that it seems overtly presumptive to assume that whatever happens is merely a bunch of nothing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yet you've managed to invent this absolute certainty idea that if your purely hypothetical afterlife you've invented exists, it's somehow denied to people who don't believe in it. What you believe doesn't affect what's true. But being religious doesn't spare you from there being no afterlife(there totally isn't) and if that's somehow wrong('tis not), being atheist doesn't spare you from whatever happens. The cons happen regardless of whether you're atheist or not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)