TheBigUrban2:
a) If heaven/hell has no effect on your morality (you are not good just because of heaven/hell) how then can you say that the afterlife has effect on moral obligations?

I don't understand this question. It seems like you are asking me "If the afterlife has no effect on your morality, how then can it have an effect on your morality?" The question already assumes that the afterlife has no effect on morality. It is a loaded question

That's like me asking "if you haven't stopped beating your wife, how then can you say that you have stopped beating your wife." The question already assumes that you beat your wife and actually leaves you no room to answer. It is equally a loaded question.


My position is simple: If there is no afterlife then there is no obligation upon us to live our lives in any particular manner since in the end we all die and rot away regardless of whatever we did.
To give you an analogy; Assuming that whether or not you work hard in the office, you will never be paid regardless of whether you do an excellent or a shoddy job or absolutely nothing, then there is no way one can say that you are under any obligation to work hard hence it is not reasonable to work hard in that case.

b) IF....it is a big if.

You've really not said anything here

MrAnony1:
I don't understand this question. It seems like you are asking me "If the afterlife has no effect on your morality, how then can it have an effect on your morality?" The question already assumes that the afterlife has no effect on morality. It is a loaded question

That's like me asking "if you haven't stopped beating your wife, how then can you say that you have stopped beating your wife." The question already assumes that you beat your wife and actually leaves you no room to answer. It is equally a loaded question.


My position is simple: If there is no afterlife then there is no obligation upon us to live our lives in any particular manner since in the end we all die and rot away regardless of whatever we did.
To give you an analogy; Assuming that whether or not you work hard in the office, you will never be paid regardless of whether you do an excellent or a shoddy job or absolutely nothing, then there is no way one can say that you are under any obligation to work hard hence it is not reasonable to work hard in that case.




You've really not said anything here

To cut the long story short-


Are you moral because of heaven/hell? Yes or no?

GeneralShepherd:

Even though I have atheist leanings, I don't actually have a view. I honestly wish to understand other people's views.

I see, do you at least believe that morality exists and that we ought to live morally?

GeneralShepherd:

A non-living thing is not conscious

I got that the first time. My question is: Do you think consciousness depends on whether or not a thing is living?

TheBigUrban2:
Consciousness is a state of awareness.

Being conscious is far more than reacting to stimuli. Being self aware requires voluntary actions. A freshly dead body can react to stimuli eg, a snake head biting a finger put in the mouth even after the body has been severed.

Very good.

A stone isnt self aware. A tree is. They bend to sunlight and some even eat insects.

Do you think a tree is aware that it is bending towards sunlight? i.e. Is the tree bending towards sunlight by it's volition or could it voluntarily choose not to bend towards sunlight?
If the tree cannot make choices, how then do you know that it is conscious? If on the other hand it can make choices, then please provide evidence of this happening.

TheBigUrban2:
To cut the long story short-


Are you moral because of heaven/hell? Yes or no?

I perceive that you are not interested in a discourse but rather you want a short soundbite that you can more easily misrepresent. In that case the long answer which I have already provided is sufficient.

MrAnony1:
Very good.


Do you think a tree is aware that it is bending towards sunlight? i.e. Is the tree bending towards sunlight by it's volition or could it voluntarily choose not to bend towards sunlight?
If the tree cannot make choices, how then do you know that it is conscious? If on the other hand it can make choices, then please provide evidence of this happening.

You are going away from the original point. Your questions are highly irrelevant. A tree is conscious. No need to be diverted by your ridiculous questions

MrAnony1:
I perceive that you are not interested in a discourse but rather you want a short soundbite that you can more easily misrepresent. In that case the long answer which I have already provided is sufficient.

lol. Someone will still ask you this question further along.

Goodbye

TheBigUrban2:


You are going away from the original point. Your questions are highly irrelevant. A tree is conscious. No need to be diverted by your ridiculous questions

I am not diverting from the original point at all. I don't hold that consciousness is tied to whether a thing is alive or responds to stimuli. I also don't think that a tree is conscious. You are the one arguing that it is. You have even defined consciousness. Now all you have to do is show that your tree meets your definition. You can't and therefore we must reject your opinion because it is false.

Calling my questions ridiculous didn't mask the fact that you failed to explain how your tree is conscious according to your own definition of consciousness.

TheBigUrban2:


lol. Someone will still ask you this question further along.

Goodbye

And I will give that person the same answer that I have given you.

Goodbye.

MrAnony1:
I am not diverting from the original point at all. I don't hold that consciousness is tied to whether a thing is alive or responds to stimuli. I also don't think that a tree is conscious. You are the one arguing that it is. You have even defined consciousness. Now all you have to do is show that your tree meets your definition. You can't and therefore we must reject your opinion because it is false.

Calling my questions ridiculous didn't mask the fact that you failed to explain how your tree is conscious according to your own definition of consciousness.

Feel free to state that a tree isnt conscious. You will still contradict yourself later. Bookmarked

bye

MrAnony1:
Good so you do not think that a pre-life necessitates an afterlife and secondly you believe that there is no such thing as an afterlife anyway.

Continuing . . . . . so I asked you why one ought to live morally if the outcome is the same for both the moral and the immoral. This was your reply:

I don't know what you understand "worthwhile" to mean but if the final outcome is the same regardless of what you do, then you cannot say that one action was worthwhile and the other wasn't worthwhile since both ended in the same outcome.

I have already given you the definition of worthwhile in the context I used it, it simply means living and flourishing as a society or a people. . .

To give you an analogy, assuming that whether or not you work hard in the office, you will still not be paid at the end of the month regardless of whether you do an excellent or a shoddy job then there is no way one can say that working hard is more worthwhile than lazing about.

The reason humans do anything is because we look towards a future outcome. Take away that future outcome and immediately, there is no point in continuing with the present action. If you can't understand this basic concept then I doubt that I can really help you.

This your analogy is just silly because that is NOT how thing work in a normal society, when you work you get paid, when you don't you do not get paid, simple. so I fail to see how you bring or allude to an aberration and use it to make your case. . .It is actually in your own world view that such an analogy will work. . In your world view only those that believe in Jesus will be saved. .Over 70 percent of the world's population are already condemned for being who they are under your world view and have no reason to live moral lives because they do not believe in the stories you believe in. . .There are many thing that we do that do not depend on any future actions. . .The future outcome doesn't have to be eternal or because of an afterlife, when we all decide to live in tranquility with each other we do so because we want our future stay here on earth to be blissful not because of some afterlife. . .I repeat under your world view a non christian has no reason to live a morally upright lfe because he had been condemed to eternal perdition already just because he refuses to believe in stories. . .His moral uprightness does not matter. . .A non christian has no reason to live a moral life under your worldview. . .

How so? How do you make living a worthwhile experience?

By trying to live in peace with the next man. . .That way the society will flourish. . .Even your worldview teaches you to live moral lives in this world because it matters, not even because of the after life, because according to your worldview people that do not buy into your stories are already doomed. . .they have no reason to live moral upright lives. . .Regardless of the afterlife you keep yapping about. . .

Actually it does because an expected outcome is what makes the way we choose to live our lives worth the effort

Sure, the expected outcome doesn't have to be eternal. . If i go about harming others, me or my own will be harmed. . .if I live in peace with people and do right by them, the tendency of them doing right by me is also very high. . .It has nothing to do with afterlife , its effect is simply here and now. . .We expect to flourish and as such we set standards that will help us achieve that as a society, nothing to do with an afterlife. . .I repeat under your world view non christians have no reason to live moral lives because they have been condemned already. . .

This is simply not true. In a time of war, only the weak suffer, the strongest flourish and that is enough incentive for the strong to strive for war.

Not true, in terms of war every body suffers, the weak the strong, every body suffers in the long run. . .If what you are saying is true then why are the strong nations not going about destroying the weaker nations in the world today?. . .

And I have equally shown you enough reason to strive for war. By living immoral lives and robbing others we can become very rich and prolong our lives with our wealth. As long as we are clever enough not to get caught, we can live long luxurious lives while the goody-two shoes die of hunger blaming their woes on us.

The same will be done to you. . .Look at Nigeria today, where the rich feel they can have their ways and do what they want, the same rich are facing the blacklash from the poor in form of BH, Armed robbery, Kidnapping etc. . .Providing a solution to the societal ill's is what matter not the after life justice, because if the after life is true the leader of BH despite all the killings he has done will be having mindless sex with countless virgins in heaven, while you will be burning in hell despite all your upright living. . .the afterlife justice is meaningless. . .Since it is based on belief first and how you act according to it and not based on how morally you lived. . .If the afterlife justice is true then you will rot in Allah's hell along with 80% of humanity for not believing in him and Mohammed his last messenger. . .People have no reason to live moral lives if the after life according to you or the muslims is true. . .

False. The society flourishes after the strong have eliminated the weak. Besides, why should I care put the society's well-being before my own since we all die and rot anyway?

Which society will flourish after the strong has eliminated the weak?. . .Don't they weak in the society play any role?. . .The society flousishe better when their is diversity. . .You still haven't told me why muslims, Hindus, Taoist, Bahi, etc need to live moral lives when they have already been condemned to eternal perdition in your world view for being who they are. . .

Call it whatever you like, but if you are not able to demonstrate an understanding of the most basic implications of an afterlife. I see no point in proceeding to discuss with you advanced details of the various ways the afterlife is understood.

As you would have noticed again, I have not bothered to respond to your off-point monologue.

You can't respond to them because they destroy everything you have said, under your world view a non christian has NO reason to live a moral upright life because he has been condemned to eternal perdition for being who he/she is. . Not because he /she lived a morally bankrupt life. . .under your world view morality does not matter, belief is what matters first and not morality, so why should non christians live moral lives under your world view?. . .If the afterlife matters at all then the leader of BH Shekau will be in heaven enjoying countless virgins and having mindless sex while about 80% of humanity will rot in hell for being unbelievers. . .Your after life reason for morality makes absolutely no sense at all, as such you do not want to touch it, you just prefer dancing around the whole issue, under your worldview the majority of people have no reason to live moral lives here on earth because they have been condemned already for believing in something else. . .

MrAnony1:

Wrong, that is not what I said at all. Here is what I said;

a) If an afterlife does not exist then man really has no actual moral obligations i.e It is not reasonable to act morally

b) If an afterlife exists and it's outcome depends on the way the present life is lived, then there are actual moral obligations and hence it is reasonable to act morally.

Why should muslims, Hindus, Taoist, Bahi, Yizdi etc all live moral lives when they have already been condemned already according to you world view?. . .

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.John 3:18


Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.Mark 16:16

Why should non christians live moral lives since they have already been condemned to eternal perdition for being who they are?. . .Under your world view majority of humanity have no reason to live moral lives because it does not matter at all. . .

The afterlife can make people act immorally as well, if the afterlife is true then ISIS and BH are all killing people according to the grand designer and after all the attrocities they have commited they will enjoy etternal bliss while the rest of humanity will rot in hell because they refused to accept the right revelation of Mohammed. . .

Your after life hypothesis is NOT a basis for people to act morally, it actually does not believe in morality at all. . .majority of humans have no reason to act morally if your after life hypothesis is true. . .because living a moral upright life does not matter. . .what matters is the belief you hold. .

MrAnony1:
I got that the first time. My question is: Do you think consciousness depends on whether or not a thing is living?

Yes

MrAnony1:

Wrong, that is not what I said at all. Here is what I said;

a) If an afterlife does not exist then man really has no actual moral obligations i.e It is not reasonable to act morally

b) If an afterlife exists and it's outcome depends on the way the present life is lived, then there are actual moral obligations and hence it is reasonable to act morally.

and this implies morality decides ur experience of afterlife and not belief in Christ...simple as that

MrAnony1:
I hope you do realize that a response to stimuli and consciousness are in totally different categories. For instance, a mango tree responds to stimuli but is not necessarily conscious. A dreaming man is conscious of his dreams though he may not necessarily respond to external stimuli.


P/s: I am still awaiting a response to my comments on the first page of this thread here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1886955/when-die#26034521

I would like us to have a conversation on the points I raised. I hope you didn't mention me in the OP only to have me ignored.

False. A tree is conscious so is a sleeping man

GeneralShepherd:

Annony, I really don't agree that a stone is conscious. Why? because a stone can and will never exhibit the characteristics of a living thing.

A non-living thing can never be conscious

And you think consciousness = living

GeneralShepherd:

A non-living thing is not conscious

Define living and then define consciousness

macof:

Define living and then define consciousness

Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: \-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 1629
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness ; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness> 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
processes


Source: Webster


A living organism must possess the characteristics

Movement, respiration, nutrition (feeding), irritability, growth,excretion, reproduction and death.

Any thing that doesn't possess these characteristics is by definition a non-living thing

TheBigUrban2:


Consciousness is a state of awareness.

Being conscious is far more than reacting to stimuli. Being self aware requires voluntary actions. A freshly dead body can react to stimuli eg, a snake head biting a finger put in the mouth even after the body has been severed.



A stone isnt self aware. A tree is. They bend to sunlight and some even eat insects.

And to you reaction is not as a result of awareness??
Don't stones react to external bodies??

Doesn't our planet react to sunlight, doesn't water react to earthquakes, dropping stones etc

GeneralShepherd:


Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: \-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 1629
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness ; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness> 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
processes


Source: Webster

And do you think there can be reaction without awareness??

macof:

And do you think there can be reaction without awareness??

I have edited my last post. Your question does not follow, please whats your point?

see how una dey allow dis clown carry u enter bush....

GeneralShepherd:

I have edited my last post. Your question does not follow, please whats your point?

I saw ur edited post.

The question follows actually, because you define living as "Movement, respiration, nutrition (feeding),
irritability, growth,excretion, reproduction
and death."

And consciousness as "the state of being aware"

So now do you agree that non-living things react?
If yes do you think there can be reaction without awareness??

macof:

I saw ur edited post.

The question follows actually, because you define living as "Movement, respiration, nutrition (feeding),
irritability, growth,excretion, reproduction
and death."

And consciousness as "the state of being aware"

So now do you agree that non-living things react?
If yes do you think there can be reaction without awareness??

So if I carry a stone and forcefully use it to push another stone (a reaction occurs) that means both stones are aware of each other?. . . What do you mean when you say a stone is aware? . . Does a stone know that it is different from the pool of water beside it? When a wave of water forcefully cut some part of a stone does that mean the stone is aware of the water?

mazaje:

So if I carry a stone and forcefully use it to push another stone (a reaction occurs) that means both stones are aware of each other?. . . What do you mean when you say a stone is aware? . . Does a stone know that it is different from the pool of water beside it? When a wave of water forcefully cut some part of a stone does that mean the stone is aware of the water?

Answer me pls can there be a reaction without awareness??

Bare in mind that you are not a stone, you don't know what being a stone is like so you can only be sure they are aware of what they react to...that is if you agree there's no reaction without awareness
We don't know the full scope of a stone's awareness it doesn't talk we only know it reacts...but the question is does it react out of awareness or does reaction just happen out of nothing??

macof:

I saw ur edited post.

The question follows actually, because you define living as "Movement, respiration, nutrition (feeding),
irritability, growth,excretion, reproduction
and death."

And consciousness as "the state of being aware"

So now do you agree that non-living things react?
If yes do you think there can be reaction without awareness??

Non living things cannot react on their own volition or in response to stimuli. So I don't agree non-living things react nor do I agree that they are aware

macof:

Answer me pls can there be a reaction without awareness??

Bare in mind that you are not a stone, you don't know what being a stone is like so you can only be sure they are aware of what they react to...that is if you agree there's no reaction without awareness
We don't know the full scope of a stone's awareness it doesn't talk we only know it reacts...but the question is does it react out of awareness or does reaction just happen out of nothing??

What do you mean by awareness?. . .You refuse to define what you mean by awareness. . .Define what you mean by awareness first. . .If I use a stone to forcefully hit another stone and make it move, a reaction has taken place does that mean the two stones are aware of each other?. . If yes then how so?. . .

macof:

And to you reaction is not as a result of awareness??
Don't stones react to external bodies??

Doesn't our planet react to sunlight, doesn't water react to earthquakes, dropping stones etc

Wow....Anony's dubious logic has rubbed off on you!!!


You interchange two different definitions of "react" to cause confusion



1)A tree turns to ashes when you burn it
2) A tree bends to sunlight

1) and 2) are very different reactions.


A tree eating an insect is very different from a stone breaking apart due to erosion.


I'll leave you to your falsehood......

TheBigUrban2:


Wow....Anony's dubious logic has rubbed off on you!!!


You interchange two different definitions of "react" to cause confusion



1)A tree turns to ashes when you burn it
2) A tree bends to sunlight

1) and 2) are very different reactions.


A tree eating an insect is very different from a stone breaking apart due to erosion.


I'll leave you to your falsehood......

Nobody is rubbed off on me. It's a very simple analogy...my question is supposed to make you think

Now pls answer can something react to wat it isn't aware of?

a dead plant or a growing plant...can it react to something if it isn't aware of it?
Can you react to something when you are not aware of it?

It's not your place to declare it falsehood, why you making conclusions to a matter still in debate even your master scientist still debate it

mazaje:

What do you mean by awareness?. . .You refuse to define what you mean by awareness. . .Define what you mean by awareness first. . .If I use a stone to forcefully hit another stone and make it move, a reaction has taken place does that mean the two stones are aware of each other?. . If yes then how so?. . .

Why not answer my question and not this question for an answer thing you doing

Does reaction occur in the absence of awareness??

GeneralShepherd:

Non living things cannot react on their own volition or in response to stimuli. So I don't agree non-living things react nor do I agree that they are aware

What's this one saying Why are you generalizing? Humans aren't the only things on this planet you know.
Reaction is an action in response, the key there is "action" and "response". You don't respond out of your volition to stimuli, it comes at you and you act in response. Its like responding to pain, touch, temperature etc
Whether physiologically or psychologically, a reaction is only in response to an earlier action, it is never out of volition, the only volition here is how far we choose to react (in very few cases) which in fact takes another action in response, a counter reaction, it still points to the same logic.
if you are not acting in response that's not reaction but merely action.

rocks react to temperature, because they don't sweat don't mean they don't react.
We are all engineered differently

so jst to make sure.. you deny that rocks react with temperature and pressure?