logicboy01: ^^^
You see?

Anony evades the question and calls it a "demand to choose from ill-formed alternatives"

Simple multiple choice question and my guy dey dodge



#artfulDodger
#Anonyism
#Strawman
#EscapeTactics

Lol...exactly how I expected you to respond.

You really aren't capable of making sound points are you? The only tool you've got is mockery. That's it.

logicboy01: ^^^

$1 million says that Anony wont answer the question straight

LOL....This really got me laughing

$1 million says that you can't tell the difference between a question and a demand to choose from ill-formed alternatives.

mazaje:
It doesn't matter at all. . .I don't want to get into christian theology because how salvation is obtained has not been yet been agreed by christians. . .

Lololol.....you are such a funny fellow. You don't want to get into theology but all the while you have been been insisting that I take you up on a theological point (flawed as it may be but nonetheless...)

Secondly, you are wrong about Christians not agreeing about how one may be saved. All Christians know that one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and forsaking sin and living righteously.

I know you think that Christians believe that committing sin is fine as long as you "believe in Christ" but you are wrong.

There are those that claim faith alone is enough others claim faith and works. . .I won't like to get into that because this is not what the topic is about. . .

Except that the bible teaches that faith is evidenced by our works. (See James 2:14-26)....but of course you don't want to discuss that, you only want to hold the view (in bold) that your actions don't matter as long as you believe alone. Interesting how now you agree with me that that is not what the topic is about.

At the end what really matters is believing in the Jesus story and living according to it. . .That is what matters not how morally upright you live your life.

Lolololol.....so now you agree that what really matters is that one has to both believe in Christ and live his/her life according to Him yet it doesn't matter how one lives his life? Or are you saying that the life of Christ is not morally upright?

Christians do not live morally upright lives than non christians . . . .there is NO evidence what so ever to show that christians live morally upright lives more than non christians, no evidence for that what so ever. . .

Lolololol....Christians by definition live according to Christ. Are you saying that the life of Christ is not morally upright? As opposed to which other kind of life?

If at the end believing in Jesus is what matters and morality only makes sense because of the after life then why should non christians live morally upright lives?

Non-Christians should live a morally upright life because they will be judged in the afterlife based on how they lived their lives. If they are pure and without sin then they will be rewarded but if any sin is found in them, they will be punished. Furthermore, if they have repented of their sins and accepted Christ's atoning sacrifice, then they will be forgiven of the sins they may have commited...but if they reject God's forgiveness through Christ then they will have to pay for their sins themselves.

. . .Using you specifically as an example, you might be a moral person living according to the tenets of christianity but there are countless numbers of non christians that reject the stories of Jesus because they follow other stories from other religions that live better moral upright lives than you, but you believe you will be saved in the afterlife while they will be condemned even though they are better human beings than you morally.

Yes because I have repented of my sins and I have been forgiven. If they refuse to repent of their sins and reject God's forgiveness through Christ then they will be rightfully punished by God's judgement. Unless you want to tell me that they are perfectly moral with absolutely no sin. Is that what you are saying?

if morality only makes sense for humans because of the afterlife then why should they(non christians) live morally upright lives here on earth since they have already been condemn to eternal perdition in the afterlife?

I think I have answered this question enough times now.

. . .You just don't want to touch the question, you keep running away from it, because its very obvious that it destroys your points. . .

Looooool....I don't know how many times I need to answer a question before you understand the answer.

If acting morally on earth as human only makes sense because of the after life then majority of humans have no reason to act morally because they do NOT believe in the Jesus story and never will and for that they have been condemned already, so they have no reason to act morally in any way. . .

Lol you are all over the place.

Erhm...no, they are not condemned because they did not believe in Christ, they are condemned already for the immoral actions they have done and hence rejecting Christ - who would have saved them - leaves them in their condemnation.

I must really applaud your diligent efforts to consistently miss this very point.

But if morality depends on something else other than the afterlife then they have reason to live morally upright lives. . .

Something else like what?

mazaje:
You have not answered the question I have asked you at all. . .You keep trying to spin it but still end up saying the same thing. . .Is it christians that haven't done immoral things? Christians as well constantly do immoral things and they continue to do immoral things but the believe that because they accept and believe in Jesus and his salvation they will be saved in the afterlife, isn't that so?

No it isn't so. a person who believes in the sacrifice of Christ but who still continues in unrepentant sin afterwards will go to hell for his/her sin. Again this clearly demonstrates that it is sin that brings condemnation.

I think I have made the distinction very clear now. If you feel that it is not sin (immoral actions) that condemns a person, then please carry on with your belief just know that it isn't what Christianity teaches at all.


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

Ranchhoddas: sorry sir but i did not see your answer.Pls answer it again,if you don't mind.

You quoted it

mazaje:
Why should it matter that a muslim or a hindu for example live morally upright here on earth since his unbelief in Jesus has already condemned him in the after life?.

I have sufficiently answered you. It is inaccurate to say that their unbelief in Christ is the reason why they are condemned. They are condemned because they have done immoral things. Christ offers them the means of salvation and where they reject it, they remain in their condemned state.

I hope that's clear enough for you now.

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.

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?

I pledge to Nigeria my country,
to be faithful, loyal and honest.
To serve Nigeria will all my strength,
to defend her unity,
and uphold her honour and glory,
so help me God.

Is it proper for a public official upon being sworn into office to reject the Nigerian national pledge and then go on to sue the state for not changing the national pledge for him?

What next?

"Change the national coat of arms because I'm a Jew and eagles are unclean animals. While you're at it I have a problem with supporting a team called super eagles."?

"Change the cross in the England flag because I am a British muslim"?

Where does it stop?

While I can understand the sentiments of the atheist soldier, I believe that standing up for your beliefs is best shown by forfeiting those things that go contrary to it and not by trying to force them to comply specially with your beliefs.


Edit: Oh wait, "atheism is not a belief" Now that's kinda odd isn't it

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.

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.

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.

GeneralShepherd:

Yes

I see.

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.

Kay17:
Where did you hide the remainder of the Gods atheists deny?!

Lol....you are really a funny lady. Go and look up what it means to argue from silence

jayriginal:

Here is a list of things I never said.

I never said;

We dont divide
We dont give in to natural instincts
We cant separate the weak from the young
We dont need government/police/instruments of the law
People dont derive pleasure from the misery of others

Here is a list of things I never said that you said.

I never said that you said that;

We dont divide
We dont give in to natural instincts
We cant separate the weak from the young
We dont need government/police/instruments of the law
People dont derive pleasure from the misery of others

I simply pointed out to you that arguing that you are kind because you are capable of being kind is just as good as saying that you are cruel because you are capable of being cruel. It still doesn't tell us anything about why you should choose to be kind as opposed to being cruel since you are obviously capable of both.

I have told you why [b]I do good. If I say I have empathy or I share in the great struggle of humanity, that ought to be clear enough.[/b]

I am afraid but citing empathy and sharing in the "great struggle of humanity" are not valid reasons for why you do good especially since other people who do evil also share the same properties of empathy and the "great struggle of humanity".

Your reason is as bad as a person saying that the reason he tells lies and insults people is because he has a tongue. It will be perfectly in order to point out to the person that other people who also possess tongues don't lie and insult people and hence his reason is unacceptable.


If you have a valid reason for why you ought to do good then please let us hear it. So far you have only succeeded in blowing air

The question was: Why do you do good? What is your reason?

jayriginal:

As humans, we share a common struggle. We experience pain and pleasure, we bond. We can think and overide natural instincts. We know we can live together, old and young, strong and feeble. We can help ourselves and do not need to be forced into doing so. We are fully capable of deriving pleasure from making life better for others.

That's not quite true

As humans, we share a common struggle. We experience pain and pleasure, we bond but we also divide. We can think and override natural instincts but we can also give in to them.
We know we can live together, old and young, strong and feeble and we also know that we can also live apart and separate the weak from the strong.
Sometimes we can help ourselves and do not need to be forced into doing so but we also recognize the necessity of laws, governments and a police force to compel us to help one another for those other times when we don't want to be helpful.
We are fully capable of deriving pleasure from making life better for others and we are also fully capable of deriving pleasure in making life miserable for others.

The question you haven't answered is why make life better for others and not worse for them since we are fully capable of doing both? In other words, Why do you do good? (we will assume for the sake of argument that making life better for others is doing good)

That trumps being compelled to do good any day!

I never said that I was compelled to do good.

Kay17: Anony1 confuses atheism with antipathy for the incomprehensible Christian God. There is a layer of deceit at pretending that atheism is solely against Christianity, it is a denial of a whole category of existence -- supernatural.

Also, atheism treats all Gods to be of an equal disposition and to have a common cause.

Now all you have to do is provide evidence that would suggest that what you've said is true because I am quite sure that I do not think that atheism is necessarily the same as anti-Jehovah. . . .or perhaps you are telling one of your lies again.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

Will I be representing your view correctly if I say that you believe that a response to stimuli is an indicator of consciousness and where a response to stimuli is not found, the subject in question is therefore unconscious i.e. you believe a stone is unconscious because it doesn't respond to stimuli while a plant is conscious because it responds to stimuli i.e. you believe that consciousness depends on whether or not a thing is living?

TheBigUrban2:
False. A tree is conscious. A sleeping man is semi-conscious. A sleeping man can still respond to stimuli in his semi-conscious state

Will I be representing your view correctly if I say that you believe that a response to stimuli is an indicator of consciousness and where a response to stimuli is not found, the subject in question is therefore unconscious i.e. you believe a stone is unconscious because it doesn't respond to stimuli while a plant is conscious because it responds to stimuli.

striktlymi: ^^^You want Apatheist to express his own thoughts?

You would have better luck asking him to stay under water for 1 hour without surfacing.

I do hope I am wrong about that dude.

Apatheist:

Yet three pages later, he still hasn't expressed an original thought of his own concerning the issues he is addressing. Dear Striktlymi, It is looking like you were right after all.

GeneralShepherd: How is stone conscious? Does it respond to stimuli?

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.

macof:

mr anony this really is funny as you have just implied that having a good afterlife is judged by living morally not the belief in Christ

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.

mazaje:
I personally do not follow that line of thought that having a before life is necessary to have an after life, i just stated the fact that the afterlife is a man made construct and idea, that is why there are different versions of the afterlife based on the thoughts, fantasies and ideas of those that created the afterlife concept. . .

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:

Because it will make our stay here or earth worthwhile. . .

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.

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 life is the only one we know of, we don't know of any other one, we can only conceive or have ideas of another one, since this is the only one we know and have experienced then its up to us to make living a worth while experience. . .

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

The idea of an afterlife doesn't help us here at all. . .

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

If we strife for peace we all enjoy and blissful life, if we don't we all suffer, pains and agony. . .

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.

That is enough reason for us to pursue peace and see to it that we live moral lives. . .

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 society flourishes when there is peace and when every one lives moral lives. . .

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?

I am staying very much on point. . .I just don't have time for philosophical sophism. . .

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.

mazaje: MrAnony1 is here again with his convoluted logic. .LOL. . .OK let's see. . .

Lol, this would have made sense if you could use logic properly but hey never mind, I can't wait to see what you came up with

The after life is simply a man made invention that is why there are different ideas and versions of the after life. . .Each according to the ideas and fantasies of the men that created it. . . .

How exactly does this tell us whether or not a pre-life necessitates an afterlife? Your very first reply already goes off point.

It is very reasonable to act morally because it makes you live in peace and tranquility with those around you. . .
Living morally and abiding by societal moral laws makes the society orderly, organized, less chaotic and sees to it that we all flourish

If in the end we still die and rot anyway and are erased from any conscious existence, regardless of whether we strive for peace or for war then what is the point of upholding one and denouncing the other?


You would have noticed that I didn't bother with the rest of your post as it has nothing to do with whether a belief in an afterlife is consistent with a belief in objective moral duties.

If you want to discuss with me, you'll need to stay on point my friend.