macof:

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

Guy, shift.


I dont have time for pseudoscientific pseudointellectuals.

TheBigUrban2:


Guy, shift.


I dont have time for pseudoscientific pseudointellectuals.

Yh yh you are all talk no intellect.

Simple reality staring at you in the face

I really don't know what to say to a foolish statement claiming that a stone is conscious and you are derailing this thread!

mazaje:

Projecting it means its true. . .if only you know how many scientist have projected many things and abandoned them. . .it is something scientist do constantly. . Project things and abandon them when the evidence is lacking. . .Projecting something means noting. . .It is you own yoruba spiritual delusion that is something eh?. . .

How far man?

Oro and Egungun is very common in Yoruba society. . .though I agree it more of festive today but the real deal is with those that holds the esoteric knowledge.


Did you even care to read the post I linked concerning the russian billionaires?

Itskov’s first highly ambitious goal, called Avatar A, involves a person controlling a robotic human replica through a brain-machine interface (BMI), a technology that already exists.

The project has undergone some success and with time, other facet of the project would be concluded. This is science and not spirituality. . . .

Other facet would drill into:

His ultimate goal is to transfer a person’s mind or consciousness from a living brain into a machine with that its personality and memories intact.

The so called “Cyborg” will have no physical form, and exist in a network similar to the Internet and be able to travel at the speed of light all over the Earth, or even into the space.


This is of what similar to Yoruba Egungun and Oro. . . . . . .it has no physical; and if that is needed, the consciousness would be invoke on any voluntares.



This is science project. . . . .I actually know you dont like it but that is the fact. It has been in our system thousands of years ago. . . .for evidence, meet a babalawo on that.

*dont just need to point direction to someone that only TALK

mazaje:

So because some scientist are working to see if something is possible means it;s a factual reality?. . .Their work remains a plan and an idea they believe is workable, so far they have failed to show that is it real and workable. . .So fail. . .So babalawo speaks to the people that are dead. eh?. . .What am I to do with all these nonsense?. . .Christians go to heaven see Jesus their dead relatives and come back, some have also claimed to have reincarnated. . .After all the dailama is a reincarnated god according to him and people that believe in him. . .I don't have time for all these superstitions and endless mythology. . .

why would you have time when you are close minded?

Did you take your time to read the link of detailing the project? Didnt you see there facet of the project already existing? Didnt you see on the page the time frame and period the project would be completed?

If you want to deny something, do it with sense and not this tactful ways of throwing something out of the window. This is science project and not spirituality. The known fact is that science is a million miles away from spirituality. All the inventions and discovery today rest on the shoulder of ancient spirituality. All the technologies today simply is the remouldling of anciet spiritual model. If there is something new science brings on board and have no traces in the ancient time, you can let us have the list here.

Mind or call it consciousness would be uploaded on internet server . . . .just like the ancient Yoruba people have invented there own model of accessing consciousness of both the dead and the living through spiritual mode. Egungun and Oro has been and will always be. Sit your azz behind your computer and shout to hell how it is fictitious while your mate in russia are working tireless on bringing spirituality into science world.

mazaje:

What am I do to with this fictitious myth?. . .

what do you have to say about this?

"""""""His ultimate goal is to transfer a person’s mind or consciousness from a living brain into a machine with that its personality and memories intact.

The so called “Cyborg” will have no physical form, and exist in a network similar to the Internet and be able to travel at the speed of light all over the Earth, or even into the space.""""""

you gon call it fictitious truth because it projected by scientists?



Indeed, yall atheists are noisemakers

mazaje:

Ok, Fair enough, I can agree with some of what you have said. . .I just want people to be clear when they say things and you have been able to do that. . .

what exactly is it you are agreeing to here that I havent said?

And stop lying, there is no way you can be clear on a subject when your only intention is negation of everything folykaze says.

macof:


I never even mentioned egungun. Because doing that might seem too Yoruba-centric. But if u so interested in the technology of egungun I am nt the person to discuss that with. There are experts I could link you up with only if you are humble enough to actually take it serious and undergo your objective testing

is there evidence for planets outside our galaxy? that doesn't stop scientists from looking for them.
If scientists were like you they would have said "there's no evidence, it doesn't exist, this world we see with our eyes right around us is the only thing that exist"
science would be nothing today without search - which is among the baics of spirituality

The structure of mars was known to be made up of Metals, they named it after a Roman God of metals and wars

Helium was found to be the reason for the heat and colour of the sun they named it After the Greek God of sunlight

And you think ancient spiritualities got nothing to offer??

All that science would ever find evidence to, has been told by the ancients.

Even the far away milky way and Orion stars was known by the dogon people of Mali long before your evidence was found by science.

The name Orion was given by ancient greeks it wasn't science until modern scientists said they found evidence.

so why attack everything ancient when modern has never posed to prove ancient wrong??

Spirituality is a profound source of science bro, you cannot understand the universe without following the basics of spirituality


Btw my questions were; have you have seen a dinosaur fossil, have u ever observed a genus evolve? Have you ever observed a bang of photons?

You are basically believing what you have read but there's a reason you believe it isn't there?

I throway salute my brother. . . You have it all.

Abeg do not waste your time directing Mazaje to any Awo. . . .he is unserious type that only comes online to bark.

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

Oga; do some learning here https://www.nairaland.com/1460798/universe-conscious .

And how can you provide evidence that Cat has a mind?

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.

Is self awareness not consciousness?

TheBigUrban2:


Guy, shift.


I dont have time for pseudoscientific pseudointellectuals.

Oga answer this simple question. . . .stop making yourself a coward.



Can there be a reaction without awareness?

GeneralShepherd: I really don't know what to say to a foolish statement claiming that a stone is conscious and you are derailing this thread!

Stop crying foul. . . . .


How can you talk of after-biological death of consciousness when you dont know what being conscious and consciousness is?

You started a thread about death when you dont know what a life is.

It just seem you guys just create a thread ignorantly only to talk ill of religion belief.




Oga. . . . .consciousness is a state of being conscious.


Conscious is aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.




Is stone not responding or reacting to heat? How can you respond or react to something without being aware of it?

If stone is not aware of it body temperature, it can not react to it. Therefore, it is conscious.


The second definition of conscious is being active. . . . .

A stone is made up of energy. . . . .have you heard of case where energy is being inactive?

Therefore, a stone is conscious.





Beat that!

FOLYKAZE:

Stop crying foul. . . . .


How can you talk of after-biological death of consciousness when you dont know what being conscious and consciousness is?

You started a thread about death when you dont know what a life is.

It just seem you guys just create a thread ignorantly only to talk ill of religion belief.




Oga. . . . .consciousness is a state of being conscious.


Conscious is aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.

The


Is stone not responding or reacting to heat? How can you respond or react to something without being aware of it?

If stone is not aware of it body temperature, it can not react to it. Therefore, it is conscious.


The second definition of conscious is being active. . . . .

A stone is made up of energy. . . . .have you heard of case where energy is being inactive?

Therefore, a stone is conscious.





Beat that!

I stopped reading at 'conciousness is a state of being conscious '.

GeneralShepherd:


I stopped reading at 'conciousness is a state of being conscious '.

And that is how dictionary put it.

Are you the one that formed the word? So how can you choose your own meaning created out of your head to a word that doesnt originate from you?

Enjoy. . . .http://i.word.com/idictionary/consciousness and stick to the 'lalalal' you think consciousness is.

GeneralShepherd: I really don't know what to say to a foolish statement claiming that a stone is conscious and you are derailing this thread!

@mazaje and TheBigUrban2 why have you 3 not provided answers to a simple question??

Can there be reaction without awareness?? Simple question, you either are too dumb to not know the answer or too insincere to say it.

FOLYKAZE:

I throway salute my brother. . . You have it all.

Abeg do not waste your time directing Mazaje to any Awo. . . .he is unserious type that only comes online to bark.

It's funny how the guy asked for objective testing, and ran away when I faced him
Noisemakers, even the worlds leading scientists would never say a stone doesn't react like generalshepherd

macof:

It's funny how the guy asked for objective testing, and ran away when I faced him
Noisemakers, even the worlds leading scientists would never say a stone doesn't react like generalshepherd

What would you have to do with hateist who just hate everything about God, religion and spirituality. What baffles me most is how someone can claim to disbelieve in God but can not define what God is. The other one on another thread find it hard to define what superntural is, yet you see them shouting illogicallity to hell.
How can someone create a thread about consciousness and death, and that very person do not know what consciousness and being living or alive is not to go into the extent of death?

And pls do not challenge them. . . . . .we know very well that coward changing his moniker like clothes called Logicboy aka TheBigUrban2 who is scared of Osanyin but can come online to tell us how Osanyin is a doll. How can a matured man get scared of a doll?

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.


The bolded describe them very well. . . .they are bunch of noisemakers

FOLYKAZE:

What would you have to do with hateist who just hate everything about God, religion and spirituality. What baffles me most is how someone can claim to disbelieve in God but can not define what God is. The other one on another thread find it hard to define what superntural is, yet you see them shouting illogicallity to hell.
How can someone create a thread about consciousness and death, and that very person do not know what consciousness and being living or alive is not to go into the extent of death?

And pls do not challenge them. . . . . .we know very well that coward changing his moniker like clothes called Logicboy aka TheBigUrban2 who is scared of Osanyin but can come online to tell us how Osanyin is a doll. How can a matured man get scared of a doll?

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.


The bolded describe them very well. . . .they are bunch of noisemakers

You expect logicboy to take this shapeless doll that is just whistling any how seriously?. . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIPimX-ZiCY

This doll is what you call artificial intelligence and you expect anybody to take you seriously?. . . whistling sounds come from the doll and the man keeps saying he is interpreting what the dull is saying. . .

TheBigUrban2 see what our man is calling artificial intelligence. . .

mazaje:

You expect logicboy to take this shapeless doll that is just whistling any how seriously?. . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIPimX-ZiCY

This dull is what you call artificial intelligence and you expect anybody to take you seriously?. . . whistling sounds come from the dull and the man keeps saying he is interpreting what the dull is saying. . .

TheBigUrban2 see what our man is calling artificial intelligence. . .

LOL.

mazaje:
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. . .

Clearly you do not know the meaning of the word "worthwhile" please consult a dictionary at your earliest convenience

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.

You have just demonstrated that you do not understand analogies. If you can't understand how wages after work is analogous to a reward after a life well lived then I doubt I can really help you. The remainder that I struck out is the irrelevant tangent which you keep trying to sneak into every answer. I simply won't respond to a red herring

By trying to live in peace with the next man. . .That way the society will flourish. . .

Society can also flourish by the strong killing off the weak and disabled in order to maintain a healthy gene pool,

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

If I am strong enough to harm others and protect my own, me and my own will not be harmed. I keep showing you that there are alternative ways to achieve the same result. What you need to show is why one has more value than the other in an objective sense.

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?. . .

Erhm....they are. Russia vs Ukraine, Israel vs Gaza, USA vs Iraq, USA's gradual economic destruction developing countries:- putting them in debt due to their huge market advantage. It seems that it is the weak who suffer in war. You have no points

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. . .

Lolololol except that majority of the victims of his so called "backlash against the rich" are poor. How many big politicians have Boko Haram gone after? Which of the 200 kidnapped girls come from a rich family? It is the weak that perish. The fittest survive.

Providing a solution to the societal ill's is what matter not the after life justice

I am sure that there would be no societal ills if everyone believed in justice after life and lived their lives in accordance to the transcendent moral law so as not to be found guilty on judgement day.

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

Lololol.....if you believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then you would agree that the reason why you are here today is that the strong have consistently eliminated the weak for millions of years. Survival of the fittest. That is how humans and every other creature have flourished. Not by your "diversity".

You can't respond to them because they destroy everything you have said

Actually no, I don't respond to them because not only are they are irrelevant to the point I am making, you don't understand the basics of the worldviews you are trying to address.

GeneralShepherd:

Yes

I see.

macof:

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

Go and read up on the fallacy of arguing from silence i.e. basing your argument upon what has not been said.

Your argument is like saying that you need a tongue to speak implies you don't need vocal chords. It is just silly.

MrAnony1:
I am sure that there would be no societal ills if everyone believed in justice after life and lived their lives in accordance to the transcendent moral law so as not to be found guilty on judgement day.

This sums up everything you have been saying in this debate. . .You claim that living morally will only make sense if their is an afterlife and here you went further by saying that their will be no societal ills if people live their lives according to the transcendent moral law so as not to be found guilty on judgement day, but the reality is that their is NOTHING like transcendent moral law, all moral laws are man made. . .Even if we are to agree that there is a transcendent moral law then which is it? Is it the sharia. . .Or those found in the Hindu verders for example?. . .

If we are to go by what you are saying then ISIS is actually doing what is right according to this transcendent moral law, because they are trying to establish a caliphate according to their moral law giver. . . They are trying not to be found guilty on judgement day so they have to see to it that islam takes over and the real sharia is established in accordance to their vision of the afterlife. . .

If the afterlife is true and matters then people like Osama Bin Laden are in heaven having mindless sex with countless virgins. . .If the after life is true then war criminals like George Bush will go to heaven despite the fact that he lied to the whole world and about a million people are dead in Iraq as a result of his lies(He said god told him to invade Iraq). Meaning he was carrying out god's plan. . .

The afterlife has absolutely no bearing on why people should live moral lives. . .Since the afterlife can actually make people live immoral lives, as with the case with ISIS killing people because they believe they are doing what their moral law giver has told them to do which is to establish an Islamic caliphate even if it means killing every body . . .

Under you own world view non christians have no reason to act morally because they have already been condemned in the afterlife regardless of how morally upright they lived their lives. . Muslims, hindu, yazidis for example who are living very good and moral lives but rejects the stories of Jesus are already condemned already to eternal perdition for not believing, so why should they live a moral upright life since they are already doomed in the afterlife?. . .In your worldview they have no reason to live morally because they have already been condemned in the afterlife for non believing. . .Your afterlife hypothesis has no bearing on human morality in anyway. . .When it comes to morality people need to find common ground and do what will make them flourish better collectively as human beings not because of some afterlife that has no bearing on anything humans do here on earth. . .Your afterlife justice is actually immoral and re-pungent because what system of justice condemns people for unbelief and not how they treated their fellow humans?. . .I repeat under your world view majority of humans have no reason to live morally upright lives. . .

MrAnony1:
Go and read up on the fallacy of arguing from silence i.e. basing your argument upon what has not been said.

Your argument is like saying that you need a tongue to speak implies you don't need vocal chords. It is just silly.

Maybe you need to unfollow the thread or just edit ur silly posts.

macof:

Maybe you need to unfollow the thread or just edit ur silly posts.

I have no need to edit my post or unfollow the thread. I just can't be blamed for your fallacious reasoning.

mazaje:

This sums up everything you have been saying in this debate. . .You claim that living morally will only make sense if their is an afterlife and here you went further by saying that their will be no societal ills if people live their lives according to the transcendent moral law so as not to be found guilty on judgement day, but the reality is that their is NOTHING like transcendent moral law

You did good by not misrepresenting my argument....however, there was something really interesting in your response which I will point out.

1. You DID NOT argue against the fact that IF an afterlife exists whose outcome will depend on how the present life is lived, then we have every reason to live according to the transcendent moral law by which we will be judged and that if not then we have no reason to live according to any moral laws since the outcome is the same regardless of how we lived.

You DID NOT attempt to refute the above rather you claimed that a transcendent moral law does not exist.

2. It was also interesting to note that you didn't even try to refute the fact that humans and every other organism have flourished for years by the strong preying on the weak and eliminating them hence debunking your position that "diversity" and caring for the weak will enhance human flourishing.

all moral laws are man made. . .

If all moral laws are man-made, then I don't see why they are binding upon anyone to adhere to them. "If thou shalt not murder" was made by a man then surely nothing prevents another man from making his own law as "thou shalt always murder".
To say that one law is valid and the other is not is to appeal to an independent authority that transcends man's laws.

Even if we are to agree that there is a transcendent moral law then which is it? Is it the sharia. . .Or those found in the Hindu verders for example?. . .

Let's say that we agree that there is a transcendent moral law, I hope you realize that this allows the possibility of some people to be wrong about it and that being wrong about the law doesn't in any way imply that the law doesn't exist.

MrAnony1:
You did good by not misrepresenting my argument....however, there was something really interesting in your response which I will point out.

1. You DID NOT argue against the fact that IF an afterlife exists whose outcome will depend on how the present life is lived, then we have every reason to live according to the transcendent moral law by which we will be judged and that if not then we have no reason to live according to any moral laws since the outcome is the same regardless of how we lived.

You DID NOT attempt to refute the above rather you claimed that a transcendent moral law does not exist.

I have told you why we need to live moral lives regardless of whether we accept the after life or not, you just refused to accept it. . .Firstly, even if humans were immortal there will still be a need for us to live moral lives. . .We can't go about causing each other pain because we are immortal, we need to see to it that we live meaningful lives here on earth regardless of our belief in the afterlife. . .There is a point in developing character, living in peace with our neighbors and increasing knowledge before death overtakes us: to provide peace of mind and intellectual satisfaction to our lives and to the lives of those we care about for their own sake because pursuing these goals enriches our lives. From the fact that death is inevitable it does not follow that nothing we do matters now. On the contrary, our lives matter a great deal to us. If they did not, we would not find the idea of our own death so distressing--it wouldn't matter that our lives will come to an end. The fact that we're all eventually going to die has no relevance to whether our activities are worthwhile in the here and now.

Secondly, I have stated that the afterlife can lead people to act immorally. . .I have already, and gave an example with ISIS and boko haram. . .According to them they are doing what the transcendent moral law giver has told them to do, which is establish an islamic caliphate even if it means killing every body to achieve that aim, also according to them if they die in the process they get to go to heaven and enjoy for eternity. . . .So the afterlife can actually make people to live immoral lives . . .

2. It was also interesting to note that you didn't even try to refute the fact that humans and every other organism have flourished for years by the strong preying on the weak and eliminating them hence debunking your position that "diversity" and caring for the weak will enhance human flourishing.

You want me to try to refuse your points but completely stay away from my points that completely destroy you very weak arguments. . .Humans will flourish much more if every body is protected, that is the bottom line, you are yet to tell me why non christians need to live morally upright lives when they have already been condemned in the afterlife. . .In your world view non christians have no reason to live morally upright lives because they are already doomed and condemned to eternal perdition for their unbelief, tell me why they should live orally upright lives if the afterlife is what matters when it comes to living morally upright lives, , ,Why should a Yazidi or a hindu live morally upright life here on earth when he is already condemned?. . .Tell me pls, stop running away from it. . .

If all moral laws are man-made, then I don't see why they are binding upon anyone to adhere to them. "If thou shalt not murder" was made by a man then surely nothing prevents another man from making his own law as "thou shalt always murder".
To say that one law is valid and the other is not is to appeal to an independent authority that transcends man's laws.

Who made the law that the voting age in Nigeria should be 18?. . .was it Yahweh or Allah?. . .Why do Nigerians abide by it?. . .Who made the law that women should not drive in Saudi Arabia, was it Zeus or Allah and why do the women there abide by it?. . .Who made the law not to criminalize pot in some state in the united states?. . .Was it Odin or Jesus and why do people there adhere to it?. . .Show me just one moral law that was not created by man. . .ALL moral laws are man made that is why they differ from country to country and are always evolving. . .Thou shall not murder is a man made law, it was set in place to make sure that the society does not degenerate into chaos. . .Beside that murder is NOT always wrong, there is legitimate murder, if you attack me with a stick and I have a gun I can murder you and walk away freely according to the laws of some land. . .Once I fear for my life i can stand my ground, its the law of the land in many states in the USA, Travon martins is dead and his killer (a 28 years old man then) walking away freely because he feared for his life when the 18 years old boy was punching him. . .Who made the stand your ground laws?. . .Was it Yahweh?. .Why do people abide by it. . . You just keep making statements that have NOTHING to do with reality. .. In reality ALL laws are man made end of story, no god has ever made any laws for humans, humans make laws and use their various gods as an enforcing mechanism. . .Perfect example is the sharia system. . .

Let's say that we agree that there is a transcendent moral law, I hope you realize that this allows the possibility of some people to be wrong about it and that being wrong about the law doesn't in any way imply that the law doesn't exist.

Only that in reality there is no such moral law giver, humans are their own moral law givers everywhere they find themselves. . .If we are to agree why does it have to be the god of your own religion and not some other god of another religion?. . .

I will keep repeating myself until you give me an answer, why should non christians live moral upright lives since they have been condemned already for their unbelief according to your world view if the afterlife is the reason why people need to live moral lives?. . . Answer it and stop running away. . .

MrAnony1:
I have no need to edit my post or unfollow the thread. I just can't be blamed for your fallacious reasoning.

see mumu trying to insult me.
You made a clear statement everybody understood, to you living morally is due to the hope of having a blissful afterlife.

Which has canceled the factor of belief in Christ. That simple.
Either you edit ur post or you just keep quiet

macof:

see mumu trying to insult me.
You made a clear statement everybody understood, to you living morally is due to the hope of having a blissful afterlife.

Which has canceled the factor of belief in Christ. That simple.
Either you edit ur post or you just keep quiet

He will never address that point, expect him to come around and do his usual Anony dance. . .

mazaje:

I have told you why we need to live moral lives regardless of whether we accept the after life or not, you just refused to accept it. . .

Erhm....I didn't just refuse to accept it. You haven't given me any reason to. You cannot say that you need to perform an action regardless of any outcome and then demand that I perform said action.

Firstly, even if humans were immortal there will still be a need for us to live moral lives. . .

Actually no. If humans lived forever in this world, there will be no need to act in any particular manner because we will still live on forever anyway.

There is a point in developing character, living in peace with our neighbors and increasing knowledge before death overtakes us: to provide peace of mind and intellectual satisfaction to our lives and to the lives of those we care about for their own sake because pursuing these goals enriches our lives

What exactly is the point when you and all the neighbours you live in peace with and develop knowledge for will still die and rot away even if you had lived in war and fulfilled all your desires.

. From the fact that death is inevitable it does not follow that nothing we do matters now.

How so?

On the contrary, our lives matter a great deal to us...If they did not, we would not find the idea of our own death so distressing

I hope you realize that this does not come close to answering the question of why the way we live matters. Mind you, the life of a serial killer matters as much to him as the life of a philanthropist and both would equally find the idea of their own death distressing.
The question that still has not been answered is why one type of life is objectively better than the other seeing that the outcome is the same for both of them.

--it wouldn't matter that our lives will come to an end. The fact that we're all eventually going to die has no relevance to whether our activities are worthwhile in the here and now.

I would say that the worth of our activities have no relevance if it is a fact that we all share the same end in death.

Secondly, I have stated that the afterlife can lead people to act immorally. . .I have already, and gave an example with ISIS and boko haram. . .According to them they are doing what the transcendent moral law giver has told them to do, which is establish an islamic caliphate even if it means killing every body to achieve that aim, also according to them if they die in the process they get to go to heaven and enjoy for eternity. . . .So the afterlife can actually make people to live immoral lives . . .

It is possible to have false beliefs about the afterlife but that notwithstanding; you don't have a reason why ISIS shouldn't go around beheading people if that's what gives them meaning in life. After all, both the person who beheads people and the person who doesn't all die and rot away and are forgotten in the end. Why shouldn't ISIS murder people?

This is the question you first need to answer correctly before we go into any depth.

You want me to try to refuse your points but completely stay away from my points that completely destroy you very weak arguments. .

The reason why I haven't addressed your points is not because they are any good but because you haven't answered the questions that will give us a platform from which to engage with them. Before we argue about whether certain specific beliefs about the afterlife are moral or immoral, we must first establish whether a belief in the afterlife gives us reason to act morally.

Humans will flourish much more if every body is protected, that is the bottom line...

This is empty ideology and devoid of fact. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, all creatures flourish by eliminating the weak and preserving the strong who then pass on their genes to the next generation. Or do you reject Darwin's theory of evolution as false?

Who made the law that the voting age in Nigeria should be 18?. . .

Questions like this show that you don't know what moral laws are.

Only that in reality there is no such moral law giver, humans are their own moral law givers everywhere they find themselves. . .

Actually you are wrong. In reality there is a transcendent moral law giver. If humans are moral givers everywhere they find themselves, then boko haram and ISIS are right to behead people because they have given themselves the moral laws of their choosing.

If we are to agree why does it have to be the god of your own religion and not some other god of another religion?. . .

And I asked you if you would at least grant the possibility of true and false religions. If you don't think that a true religion is possible then there is no point in answering your question if you believe that all religions are false

I will keep repeating myself until you give me an answer, why should non christians live moral upright lives since they have been condemned already for their unbelief according to your world view if the afterlife is the reason why people need to live moral lives?. . . Answer it and stop running away. . .

And I too will keep repeating my answer. I am not running away. I am happy to answer you as soon as you demonstrate that understand the basics of what is being talked about.
Why is my worldview (which you have misrepresented by the way) wrong if there is no afterlife such that in the end whether or not I hold unto it, we will all still die and rot away and be forgotten?

MrAnony1:
Erhm....I didn't just refuse to accept it. You haven't given me any reason to. You cannot say that you need to perform an action regardless of any outcome and then demand that I perform said action.


Actually no. If humans lived forever in this world, there will be no need to act in any particular manner because we will still live on forever anyway.


What exactly is the point when you and all the neighbours you live in peace with and develop knowledge for will still die and rot away even if you had lived in war and fulfilled all your desires.


How so?


I hope you realize that this does not come close to answering the question of why the way we live matters. Mind you, the life of a serial killer matters as much to him as the life of a philanthropist and both would equally find the idea of their own death distressing.
The question that still has not been answered is why one type of life is objectively better than the other seeing that the outcome is the same for both of them.


I would say that the worth of our activities have no relevance if it is a fact that we all share the same end in death.


It is possible to have false beliefs about the afterlife but that notwithstanding; you don't have a reason why ISIS shouldn't go around beheading people if that's what gives them meaning in life. After all, both the person who beheads people and the person who doesn't all die and rot away and are forgotten in the end. Why shouldn't ISIS murder people?

This is the question you first need to answer correctly before we go into any depth.





The reason why I haven't addressed your points is not because they are any good but because you haven't answered the questions that will give us a platform from which to engage with them. Before we argue about whether certain specific beliefs about the afterlife are moral or immoral, we must first establish whether a belief in the afterlife gives us reason to act morally.


This is empty ideology and devoid of fact. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, all creatures flourish by eliminating the weak and preserving the strong who then pass on their genes to the next generation. Or do you reject Darwin's theory of evolution as false?



Questions like this show that you don't know what moral laws are.


Actually you are wrong. In reality there is a transcendent moral law giver. If humans are moral givers everywhere they find themselves, then boko haram and ISIS are right to behead people because they have given themselves the moral laws of their choosing.


And I asked you if you would at least grant the possibility of true and false religions. If you don't think that a true religion is possible then there is no point in answering your question if you believe that all religions are false


And I too will keep repeating my answer. I am not running away. I am happy to answer you as soon as you demonstrate that understand the basics of what is being talked about.
Why is my worldview (which you have misrepresented by the way) wrong if there is no afterlife such that in the end whether or not I hold unto it, we will all still die and rot away and be forgotten?

Ok, I agree, people have no reason to act morally unless if there is life after death, now you tell me, why should non christians act morally since they have already been condemned to eternal perdition in the after life for their unbelief, no matter how good and morally upright non believer in the christian religion lives his/her life, he/she has already been doomed and condemned to eternal perdition for his/her unbelief, so tell me, why should any unbeliever in the christian religion act morally if acting morally only makes sense because of the after life?. . .Don't run away. . . just answer it. . .

mazaje:

Ok, I agree, people have no reason to act morally unless if there is life after death

Good.

now you tell me, why should non christians act morally since they have already been condemned to eternal perdition in the after life for their unbelief, no matter how good and morally upright non believer in the christian religion lives his/her life, he/she has already been doomed and condemned to eternal perdition for his/her unbelief, so tell me, why should any unbeliever in the christian religion act morally if acting morally only makes sense because of the after life?. . .Don't run away. . . just answer it. . .

The assumption you have made is simply false and shows that you don't understand Christianity.

1. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All are therefore rightfully condemned. You are welcome to refute this by showing one person who has never sinned (i.e. someone is completely morally pure).

2. Christ came and paid the price for our sins hence taking the condemnation on our behalf

3. As many as reject the fact that Christ paid the price for them are simply demanding to bear their condemnation upon themselves.
...hence John 3:16-18

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 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 3:16-18


For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. - Romans 2:11-16


P/s: It was very interesting to observe how you quoted John 3:18 out of context completely ignoring the preceding verses which explain how Christ did not come to condemn the world but to save it.