patrick.net

Dan is sometimes no better than the worst right wing trolls on this site.

Ah, typical Marcus bullshit. Dan makes a damn strong case against something I like. I have no idea how to construct a logical counter-argument. I have no evidence to contradict his. Therefore, I'll call him a troll or arrogant and hope that everyone else reading this is stupid enough to fall for a poisoning of the well.

Trolls disrupt conversations. I have stated my thesis clearly and have defended it against all attacks by specifically pointing out the flaws in the various attacks. That's not what trolls do; it's what a good debater does.

I have not misrepresented anyone's argument in this thread, but I have directly attacked those arguments with razor sharp logic pointing out the contradictions inherent in those arguments. Just because you haven't been able to make even a entry-level counter-argument does not make me a troll. You are just being a sore loser as usual.

63

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 2:33pm

I still agree with this guy (below).

Much in the same way that Fox News agrees with the "scientists" who say the recent cold spell disproves the myth of global warming.

64

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 2:37pm

Dan8267 says

the fact that the girl's suicide would be perfectly reasonable if the afterlife were real.

Yeah, you going to argue with that?

If the afterlife is real and god isn't more evil than all the pedophiles in history, then this girl is in heaven right now with her father. She is literally in paradise experiencing nothing but perfect bliss. There is nothing sad about that. And that is the entire point of the lie.

The only thing that makes her death a tragedy is that the lie is a lie and the girl is not in paradise experiencing perfect bliss. She no longer exists and is experiencing nothing. Sure, she would have died eventually, but without the lie of the afterlife, she could have had a wonderful and fulfilling life.

When you are ready to debate the actual core issue, let me know. So far, you keep pussying out of addressing the central issue.

65

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 2:41pm

bgamall4 says

No, according to Paul, it would be tragic.

Logic trumps Paul. Contradictions in beliefs is not proof of those beliefs.

Here's an example to simplify it even further.

Premise: All dogs are fury.
Fact: Fido is a dog.
Conclusion: Fido is fury.
Paul: But wait. I don't think Fido is fury.
New Conclusion: Although all dogs are fury and Fido is a dog, Fido is not fury. This statement does not contradict itself because Paul said so.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. You get to pick your premises, but not the consequences of those premises.

66

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 2:52pm

If you were capable of being honest,

Marcus's fatuous insults, vacuous rants, and pusillanimous attacks reveal what an unctuous clod he is.

67

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 2:58pm

bgamall4 says

Dan8267 says

Contradictions in beliefs is not proof of those beliefs.

There is no contradiction in Paul. He is sorrowful for his lost countrymen. He acknowledges that his countrymen are lost. No contradiction there.

I hate to break this to you, but Paul was a hypocritical asshole who's crimes are so horrendous he had to change his name from Saul to escape them. His opinion on matters should hardly carry any weight, even if you assume he was a real person and not yet another fictitious character from the Bible.

68

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 3:05pm

Didn't think so.

69

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 3:12pm

If the afterlife is real and god isn't more evil than all the pedophiles in history, then this girl is in heaven right now with her father. She is literally in paradise experiencing nothing but perfect bliss. There is nothing sad about that. And that is the entire point of the lie.

You should have gone in to sales. Although newsflash. Only the most emotionlly challenged radical atheist buys this bullshit. Bill Maher probably isn't even buying this, and like you he is way over invested in his antireligion dogma.

If you were correct then there should be a long history of Christians commiting suicide to be in heaven.

I notice you haven't addressed the obvious contradiction. How can someone have so much faith in the existence of heaven ? And yet never have learned that it's a major sin on a par with murder to kill oneself ? What, was she raised in some special religion where there's just one afterlife, and everyone gets to go, no matter what they do in this world ?

You also have no response for this.

He is not capable of considering the possibility that when the daughter said to her mother ""I want to see dad" that coming from a sick suicidal person that's really the equivalent of simply saying "I want to die."

If you were capable of being honest, and admitting that you can't really get everything that you want to from that one phrase

Can't you just be dignified for once ?

JodyChunder says

Which doesn't mean that we know for certain you are wrong. The problem is we don't know what her thinking is from that one phrase, and yet you're willing to sell the cause you read from some other radical atheist morons, who jump on this tragic situation to sell their message. It's disgusting, and also very transparent to anyone with real common sense and true intelligence.

70

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 3:18pm

Much in the same way that Fox News agrees with the "scientists" who say the recent cold spell disproves the myth of global warming.

YOu give proof that you eitrher lack integrty, or you think being an internet troll is just good fun and traits like human decency and honesty are meaningless here.

Marcus's fatuous insults, vacuous rants, and pusillanimous attacks reveal what an unctuous clod he is.

Acting like a psuedo intellectual doesn't restore your dignity or your integrity.

71 BobDDstryr 2014 Jan 13, 3:20pm

You keep saying that if you believe in an afterlife, that suicide is rational and logical; its still not. If there's an afterlife - you'll be able to see your loved ones again eventually, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can with this life - make friends, find love; have children; increase your circle of loved ones that you'd be spending your afterlife with.

You also keep saying that the only reason she could possibly have committed suicide is religion, so can't be due to depression. That you're expecting a 12-year-old girl to make a decision based on rational thought and logic, and be 100% truthful in her note. That's not how people work - especially children. And again - even if it was, committing suicide to see her father, also means having to miss her mother and all of her friends who won't be in the afterlife for many years.

The poor girl was depressed. Even as an atheist, when very depressed, suicide could seem rational - ie. I hurt really bad right now, and don't ever believe that things will get better. If I kill myself, I'll cease to be and the pain will stop. But things will get better! There's so much to live for! Losing a loved one hurts for a long time, but eventually you're able to function and enjoy life again! That's all true - but should a depressed 12-year-old be expected to know that, and believe it?

Did religion contribute to her making the decision that she ultimately did? Probably - but it also probably wasn't the only reason - lots of religious kids lose parents at a young age, and most don't decide to kill themselves. And you can't KNOW that that's the reason. Maybe she would have committed suicide anyway, but that made a convenient excuse. Maybe she felt that her mom would appreciate that note more than one saying "It hurts too much to continue living, and just being with you isn't good enough anymore." Maybe she thought she'd actually survive it, and it was an elaborate cry for help.

But you taking her note as 100% gospel seems, well.. rather foolish, for someone not in the habit of believing lies others have written down.

72

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 3:24pm

You keep saying that if you believe in an afterlife, that suicide is rational and logical; its still not. If there's an afterlife - you'll be able to see your loved ones again eventually, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can with this life - make friends, find love; have children; increase your circle of loved ones that you'd be spending your afterlife with.

Well said. But you're making too much sense.

Maybe she would have committed suicide anyway, but that made a convenient excuse. Maybe she felt that her mom would appreciate that note more than one saying "It hurts too much to continue living, and just being with you isn't good enough anymore." Maybe she thought she'd actually survive it, and it was an elaborate cry for help.

Another good point. What if her Mom was constantly saying that her dad is in haven but she didn't buy it and was in a sick suicidal state. In that case it seems like a reasonable thng to say to her Mom. In other words "if that's how you cope with dad being gone, hopefully it will work for coping with my being gone too."

That one phrase really tells us very little about whether she really believed she would see her dad. All we really know for sure is that when people kill themselves they are usually in a very sick state.

73

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:25pm

Only the most emotionlly challenged radical atheist buys this bullshit

Just because you say something is bullshit, does not make it so. Notice that you cannot say why it is bullshit, whereas I can easily point out why your statements are bullshit. For example, your entire first paragraph is an assertion and offers no explanation of why one should reject my statements.

If you were correct then there should be a long history of Christians commiting suicide to be in heaven.

Hardly. Just because Christians have been hypocrites for millennia does not invalidate my argument.

My argument has consistently been that either
1. The girl's death is not tragic
2. There is no afterlife

Only one of these options is true because the truth of one necessitates the falsehood of the other.

Just because throughout history Christians have said one thing and done another does not invalid the above point.

Once again, you are cowardly skirting around the issue instead of dealing with it directly. That alone illustrates how irrefutable the argument is.

I notice you haven't addressed the obvious contradiction. How can someone have so much faith in the existence of heaven ? And yet never have learned that it's a sin.

There is no contradiction. She simply believed she was not sinning by dying to see her dad. And there is plenty of reason to agree with her. Let's look at each possible case.

Case 1: There is no god.
She did not sin. She does not go to hell. There is no afterlife. She does not see dad.

Case 2: There is a god and it is less evil than a pedophile.
Any god who would put this girl in hell is more evil than a pedophile. Therefore, in this case, she does not go to hell whether or not it was a "sin". Of course, one could also argue that it's not a sin if she didn't believe it was a sin, i.e., she had no evil intention, but that's academic since only a despicably evil god would send this little girl to hell anyway.

Case 3: There is a god and it is more evil than a pedophile.
Well, all bets are off. You can live a good life and do everything right, and that bastard god will still have demons rape your ass for shits and giggles. He's fucking evil, so being good does not mean you won't burn in hell. Actually, being evil is probably the best way to get into heaven.

In case 1 and 2, she did not sin. In case 2, her strategy was optimal. In case 3, she should have just slaughtered a bunch of babies on her way out to appease the evil god.

74

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:27pm

You also have no response for this.

Oh, did I completely trump your ass when I called your bluff? Perhaps next time you should ask me the question before assuming I would have no response.

By the way, if I don't actually have a solution to a problem, I'll be the first to admit it. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when that's the truth. There is something wrong with presenting something as the truth that isn't.

75

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:31pm

Dan8267 says

Much in the same way that Fox News agrees with the "scientists" who say the recent cold spell disproves the myth of global warming.

YOu give proof that you eitrher lack integrty, or you think being an internet troll is just good fun and traits like human decency and honesty are meaningless here.

Honey, if the shoe fits...

Despite hating Fox News, you act a lot like it. You substitute talking points for facts just like Fox News does.

No religion is going to admit that it is at best worthless and at worst lethal to children. Of course they are going to contradict the facts just like Big Tobacco did about smoking and cancer and Big Energy did about fossil fuels and climate change.

Acting like a psuedo intellectual doesn't restore your dignity or your integrity.

1 This psuedo intellectual has kicked your ass in every debate -- and I use the term loosely -- we've ever had.
2. Just because you say a person has no dignity or integrity doesn't make it so. You keep thinking you can change reality by repeating lies. Again, you're like Fox News.

76

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 3:39pm

There is something wrong with presenting something as the truth that isn't.

Do you mean like presenting one little phrase in a suicde note about wanting to see her dad, as proof that she believed she would literally see him again.

That from that you have proof that wasn't only for her mothers benefit (who probably constantly said that her father was in heaven) and that it wasn't a way of expressing that she was sick and wanted to die in a way that would as unpainful for her mother as possible.

A little more considering what others say, and a little less of your self involved convoluted laughable "logic" would go a long way here, but hey, I'm not surprised.

You keep thinking you can change reality by repeating lies. Again, you're like Fox News.

Really ? Interesting.

My point is only that you don't know why the girl killed herself. You don't know that having a real belief she would see her father again was her reason. It's all based on one phrase in a suicide note. You can dance all you want, your initial assumption is faulty.

This is really all I have to say on this, and it's self evident and obviously true.

All your supposed logic impresses nobody. I honestly do not believe that you are impressed with yourself here. If I were in your shoes now, I would own up to the truth, but...hey if you're impressed with your performance in this debate, congratulations.

77

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:49pm

You keep saying that if you believe in an afterlife, that suicide is rational and logical; its still not. If there's an afterlife - you'll be able to see your loved ones again eventually, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can with this life - make friends, find love; have children; increase your circle of loved ones that you'd be spending your afterlife with.

Premise: The Christian afterlife exists.

All babies are born innocent. If they die after baptism, they go straight to heaven. If they live a normal life, they might commit a mortal sin and go to hell. There is nothing in an 80-year Earthly life that can even remotely approach the gravity of an eternity in paradise or an eternity in hell. Therefore, it is an moral imperative to baptize and kill all babies immediately after birth.

If you do not accept this conclusion, then you do not accept the premise. You might lie to yourself and others about this, but the contradiction is clear. Unless you honestly believe that murdering babies is moral because you are saving them from eternal damnation, then you do not deep down believe in the afterlife.

And that's an afterlife in which you can make friends and find love. As for children, what parent could possibly enjoy heaven if her child were in hell? Certainly no parent who loves as god says. So if any parent is in heaven, so must all the parent's children, and by iteration, all her descendants. And what loving child could enjoy heaven, if her parent were in hell? By the same logic, all ancestors must also be in heaven. And holy shit, this goes all the way back to single-celled organisms. Yet another flaw in the very concept of a paradise in an afterlife.

You also keep saying that the only reason she could possibly have committed suicide is religion, so can't be due to depression.

The article and the girl's note are quite clear. To try to change the facts is a dodge. Address the core issue: either the girl's death is not tragic, or the afterlife is not real.

If I kill myself, I'll cease to be and the pain will stop. But things will get better! There's so much to live for! Losing a loved one hurts for a long time, but eventually you're able to function and enjoy life again! That's all true - but should a depressed 12-year-old be expected to know that, and believe it?

Again, all this assumes that the afterlife is a lie. That's my point.

But you taking her note as 100% gospel seems, well.. rather foolish, for someone not in the habit of believing lies others have written down.

Oh, but you see, even if I accepted your dodge, even if this were a hypothetical situation, nothing would change.

The fact that the girl's death is not a tragedy if the afterlife were real is still true regardless of the girl's intent or state of mind. So even if I granted the bullshit factual change of the girl's motives, that would not make a difference. The contradiction inherent in the afterlife lie remains. This contradiction has always existed even before this girl committed suicide. The contradiction would not go away even if you traveled back in time and stopped the girl from committing suicide and she later was happy.

So regardless of whether or not you inflict some mental damage into this girl or change her reasons for dying, it's still not a tragedy if the afterlife is real and the afterlife is a lie if her death is a tragedy.

78

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:50pm

Well said. But you're making too much sense.

Translation: Finally, someone backed me up. I better support him quickly because I'm losing this battle.

79

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:52pm

bgamall4 says

Christ was the perfect sacrifice and wiped away all that Paul did, something that the blood of bulls and goats could not do.

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If the afterlife is real, the girl's death is not tragic. If the girl's death is tragic, the afterlife cannot be real.

No amount of irrelevant Bible thumping is going to address that point.

80

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:54pm

Dan8267 says

There is something wrong with presenting something as the truth that isn't.

Do you meanlike presenting one little phrase in a suicde note about wanting to see her dad, as proof that she believed she would literally see him again.

Oh honey, don't cry. That was in the original article. I didn't make this tragic story up. If people like me in the Bronze Age had won the war between rationality and superstition, that girl would be alive today.

Continuing the lie of the afterlife simply jeopardizes more lives. It's time to end the lie.

81

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 3:55pm

My point is only that you don't know why the girl killed herself.

Yet another dodge. See my previous response.

82

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 4:00pm

marcus says

If you were capable of being honest,

Marcus's fatuous insults, vacuous rants, and pusillanimous attacks reveal what an unctuous clod he is.

Maybe I was out of line with the comments about honesty, integrity, dignity, common decency and such. I was projecting, what I think you must be able to see, but as hard as it is to believe, I guess I have to accept that you can't. .

83

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 4:01pm

You don't know that having a real belief she would see her father again was her reason.

All your supposed logic impresses nobody.

The girl leaves a suicide note clearly expressing her reason for taking her life, and that's not good enough evidence to understand her intentions, but you know that my logic impresses nobody in the entire world. Exactly where did you get that knowledge from?

In any case, whether or not my logic impresses is irrelevant. It is correct and that is all that matters. And it's not "my" logic; it's logic. For an alleged math teacher, you certainly seem to lack the understanding of the universality of logic.

Still, you are consistent in one way. Having failed to make an actual argument to counter mine, you resort to calling your opposition arrogant. As I've said many times to you, the messenger does not matter. The message is valid no matter where it came from. Have you learned nothing over the past two years? Don't you ever get bored with making the same predictable mistakes?

84

Dan8267 2014 Jan 13, 4:03pm

Maybe I was out of line with the comments about honesty, integrity, dignity, common decency and such. I was projecting, what I think you must be able to see, but as hard as it is to believe, I guess I have to accept that you can't. .

Maybe I was out of line with comparing you to monkey masturbating at the zoo. Monkeys aren't all that bad.

See, I can make a backhanded apology, too.

85

marcus 2014 Jan 13, 4:12pm

marcus says

Dan8267 says

There is something wrong with presenting something as the truth that isn't.

Do you meanlike presenting one little phrase in a suicde note about wanting to see her dad, as proof that she believed she would literally see him again.

Oh honey, don't cry. That was in the original article. I didn't make this tragic story up.

So your position is that there is some article that says that that one phrase "I wan't to see dad again" is proof that she believed she would see her father again, and that that was her motive rather than some severely depressed and sick state of mind ?

AS far as I can tell you never really addressed this, and now you say some article proved it ?

Not only does no article prove that, you have never even addressed this anywhere in your long winded diarrhea of the keyboard sorry excuse for an argument.

Wtf man ? I hope you're on drugs.

86

Y 2014 Jan 13, 10:28pm

That's because God gave you your life, therefore when he takes it it is not murder, it is repossession.

Vicente says

God apparently can drop the roof in on a church with worshippers int it, and not be perceived as a murderer

87

Y 2014 Jan 13, 10:31pm

This is true. We will need to perform a molecular autopsy to determine the truth.

marcus says

Only the most emotionlly challenged radical atheist buys this bullshit

Just because you say something is bullshit, does not make it so.

88

Y 2014 Jan 13, 10:38pm

Your link provides thousands of opinions, none on which a simple majority of scientists agree.
Thanks for making my point.

SoftShell says

So tell us how the brain 'creates' consciousness...

http://bit.ly/1d2zd8R

In any case, how the brain creates consciousness is irrelevant. We know that it does whether or not why understand how it does. Try keeping your consciousness intact after having your brain removed. Sure, you can keep the brain step to keep you vital organs running, but without the rest of the brain, you aren't you. Period.

Please feel free to call me on this by doing a self-lobotomy.

89

Y 2014 Jan 13, 10:46pm

Or...
The fact that consciousnesses occupies physical components doesn't mean it is simple or worthless

Until we truly understand consciousness, all bets are off regarding the survival/ejection/extradimensional transportation/termination of consciousness upon the body's demise.

At this point, nothing what either of us wrote in this post can be verified 100% accurate. To think otherwise is a form of self delusion.

Your insistence on 'knowing the fate of consciousness' upon death is as self delusional as the worst fundamentalist. The most intellectually honest among us have the ability to just say "I don't know".

Quigley says

If Dan is right, and the mind is simply an electrochemical phenomenon within a piece of organic jelly that ceases upon death, then why is this sad

The fact that consciousnesses arises from physical components instead of make-believe fairy mystical components doesn't mean it is simple or worthless

90

Y 2014 Jan 13, 10:50pm

Wow. You really need to set aside your notions of 'what is/isn't ' for awhile and reexamine your statement below.

SoftShell says

So tell us how the brain 'creates' consciousness...

http://bit.ly/1d2zd8R

In any case, how the brain creates consciousness is irrelevant.

91

Y 2014 Jan 13, 10:57pm

Ok, tell us how.
And a google link that provides thousands of unique answers doesn't cut it.

Key to this point is the question :
"Does the brain create consciousness, or is consciousness a separate entity occupying the brain"

In either situation, consciousness would not exist in the body upon death.

Once can clearly know that the brain does create consciousness without knowing how it does this,

92

Y 2014 Jan 13, 11:06pm

The problem with this statement is that there are a lot of people who do know how "your computer does this" without a doubt.
With consciousness, no one on the planet comes close to knowing without a doubt what it is.

JodyChunder says

Dan8267 says

just like one can know that your computer creates the images on the screen you are currently looking at without knowing how your computer does this.

93

Y 2014 Jan 13, 11:12pm

And this is your blind spot.
It is very sad for people here on earth who have loved ones who have moved on, regardless of where they moved on to.
That is a basic human trait.

If the afterlife is real and god isn't more evil than all the pedophiles in history, then this girl is in heaven right now with her father. She is literally in paradise experiencing nothing but perfect bliss. There is nothing sad about that. And that is the entire point of the lie.

94

Y 2014 Jan 13, 11:19pm

Another example of your blind spot.
The girls death is tragic to living people emotionally attached to her, regardless of whether there is or is not an afterlife.
That's the part you do not get.

My argument has consistently been that either

1. The girl's death is not tragic

2. There is no afterlife

Only one of these options is true because the truth of one necessitates the falsehood of the other.

95

MisdemeanorRebel 2014 Jan 14, 12:31am

Do we have any evidence that Casper the Friendly Ghost doesn't really exist? Prove me wrong, scientists! This is a Burden Shifter.

What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The Null Hypothesis is the correct one until there is at least some evidence to the contrary. The burden of evidence lies with the person offering an explanation, not with the hearers.

96 humanity 2014 Jan 14, 2:13am

So, I see this thread has changed from a question of whether we can blame religion for this girls suicide, because of a phrase in her suicide note, to the question of whether there is an afterlife ?

Nobody knows, but it seems that humans have evolved to hold beliefs along these lines.

In the abstract, I believe it works like this.

When one loses their parents, I believe that that fear of death is decreased, regardless of belief or not in afterlife. That was (is) my experience. It's like this, "If they can go, so can I." Part of dealing with the loss of those you love as much or more than you love yourself, is that your own mortality is now more real, and it is also less scary.

When a person finally does die, it natural to feel at that time, that one is joining those loved ones who have died, whether it be in nothingness, or some unknowable incarnation or whatever does or does not exist after life.

When I die, I expect that I won't have any particular belief in what is going to happen to my "self" or my soul. But I think I will think about my parents, as well as other ancestors and loved ones who have died before me, and I will feel at least in the abstract that I am "joining" them. Meaning that the same thing that happened to them is happening to me.

At that time, I may hold a hope for some continuation (in the abstract) of "my energy" or whatever, maybe more. I don't see any harm in that. And I expect that those like Dan, will have a position closer to mine than to what they say now, when they are in their final hours.

(sorry if I seem to have gotten too morbid - maybe sharing too much - or sharing what is too personal)

97 BobDDstryr 2014 Jan 14, 2:47am

Premise: The Christian afterlife exists.

All babies are born innocent. If they die after baptism, they go straight to heaven. If they live a normal life, they might commit a mortal sin and go to hell. There is nothing in an 80-year Earthly life that can even remotely approach the gravity of an eternity in paradise or an eternity in hell. Therefore, it is an moral imperative to baptize and kill all babies immediately after birth.

If you do not accept this conclusion, then you do not accept the premise. You might lie to yourself and others about this, but the contradiction is clear. Unless you honestly believe that murdering babies is moral because you are saving them from eternal damnation, then you do not deep down believe in the afterlife.
And that's an afterlife in which you can make friends and find love. As for children, what parent could possibly enjoy heaven if her child were in hell? Certainly no parent who loves as god says. So if any parent is in heaven, so must all the parent's children, and by iteration, all her descendants. And what loving child could enjoy heaven, if her parent were in hell? By the same logic, all ancestors must also be in heaven. And holy shit, this goes all the way back to single-celled organisms. Yet another flaw in the very concept of a paradise in an afterlife.

Dan - for someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, you sure do seem very certain about how it must work. I wasn't specifically addressing Christianity - so I'm not sure why you feel compelled to. It's entirely possible that there is an afterlife - but that Christianity is wrong in some/all of the aspects about it. Even among Christians, there are many different views of the afterlife. Maybe one of the other religions is correct. Maybe there's an afterlife - but none of them have it quite right.

The article and the girl's note are quite clear. To try to change the facts is a dodge. Address the core issue: either the girl's death is not tragic, or the afterlife is not real.

The article also states that they aren't sure what she believed. Oh, but you don't have to believe that part, because of a religious conspiracy, defending itself. And then you present a false choice - those aren't the only two options.

BobDDstryr says

If I kill myself, I'll cease to be and the pain will stop. But things will get better! There's so much to live for! Losing a loved one hurts for a long time, but eventually you're able to function and enjoy life again! That's all true - but should a depressed 12-year-old be expected to know that, and believe it?

Again, all this assumes that the afterlife is a lie. That's my point.

But you've missed MY point, which is that a logical argument can be made for an atheist to commit suicide. So - even if she were a rational and committed atheist, she may have made the decision to commit suicide to end her pain. Which would mean that the underlying cause was the depression; the religion was just a contributing factor.

Oh, but you see, even if I accepted your dodge, even if this were a hypothetical situation, nothing would change.

The fact that the girl's death is not a tragedy if the afterlife were real is still true regardless of the girl's intent or state of mind. So even if I granted the bullshit factual change of the girl's motives, that would not make a difference. The contradiction inherent in the afterlife lie remains. This contradiction has always existed even before this girl committed suicide. The contradiction would not go away even if you traveled back in time and stopped the girl from committing suicide and she later was happy.

So regardless of whether or not you inflict some mental damage into this girl or change her reasons for dying, it's still not a tragedy if the afterlife is real and the afterlife is a lie if her death is a tragedy.

You keep trying to boil things down to a choice - "either the afterlife exists, exactly as a I stipulate it, or there is no afterlife." But, these aren't the only two options. The afterlife may work differently than you keep saying it must - but whether there is, or isn't, one, the death is a tragedy.

98

Dan8267 2014 Jan 28, 12:08pm

Alright, I was too busy over the past two weeks to address the bullshit from the pro-religion crowd, but now that I've got some time...

Let's start by recapping the arguments.

A 12-year-old girl kills herself in order to see her dead father again. I make the following arguments.

D1. The lie of the afterlife has tragically caused the death of a girl. We should no longer tell this lie because it does motivate people to make bad decisions.

D2. The death of the girl is tragic if and only if the afterlife is a lie. The death of the girl is joyful if and only if the afterlife is not a lie.

D3. By D2, anyone who considers the death of this girl to be a tragedy is tacitly admitting that he does not really believe in the afterlife.

These are Marcus's counterarguments and how I responded to them.

M1. Maybe the girl was lying about her motives to spare her mother's feelings.

D4. The news about this girl does not support such speculation.

D5. This counter-argument is a dodge. Even if this were a hypothetical situation, the arguments D2 and D3 would still stand. Even D1 would still stand because the lie of the afterlife does make irrational decisions perfectly rational including killing oneself.

M2. Maybe the girl was an avid atheist who killed herself so that other atheists can use her death as propaganda.

D6. M2 is a ridiculous argument. There is no reason to believe that a 12-year-old girl would give up her entire life simply to make a political point she would never see. This is a ludicrous stretch of the imagination not based on any facts, human nature, or common sense. It is speculation as crazy as saying the entire news industry made up the story and the girl never existed. Marcus is grasping at straws.

M3. I hate Dan. I think he's arrogant. Therefore, we should ignore this story and its implications since Dan brought it up.

D7. Poisoning the Well

M4. The girl's death is irrelevant because a person who kills herself, by definition, "has a very sick state of mind".

D8. Suicide is not evidence of any psychological problem. Suicide is the last act of a free man. -Seneca

Each human being has the inherent right to decide whether or not to keep living. Every person owns his or her own life, and your opinion on whether or not someone else should keep living doesn't amount to jack shit. When it comes to one's own life, every person is the sole owner and decision maker of whether or not to keep living and does not have to justify his or her decision to you or anyone else. To argue otherwise is selfish and arrogant.

That said, to make such an important decision based on a falsehood is a terrible thing. And that is the point of D1.

D9. The only psychological problem inflicted on this girl was the belief in the afterlife. A delusion, no matter how socially accepted, is still a delusion, and delusion is, by definition, mental illness.

D10. Even if the girl were retarded as Marcus implies, this tragic death would still affirm D1 as there are mentally ill people in the world who could be persuaded by the lie of the afterlife to take their lives. Furthermore, young children, who are well-known to be less than optimal thinkers, can be persuaded by false myths and lies of paradise to either take their lives or to be careless causing their deaths. After all, death has no sting if there is an afterlife, the very point of D1, D2, and D3.

M5. Various personal attacks against me, and again that for some reason Marcus thinks invalidates my arguments.

Repeat D7, Poisoning the Well. The messenger is irrelevant. Whether Marcus is right or wrong about me, it does not change the validity of arguments D1, D2, and D3 as well as the fact that every argument Marcus has made has been shown to be weak, flawed, and unfounded.

M6. OK. The girl's death is tragic, but only because suicide is a mortal sin and she's being tortured in hell for all eternality now.

D8. For any god to let this girl be tortured in hell in the worse possible way for all eternally, would make that god more evil than all the pedophiles in all of history put together. After all, hell would mean this girl getting raped and worse for all eternity, and that's way worse than the few times a mortal man could rape a child. And how much worse would the rape by with demon dicks?

It is an inescapable logical conclusion that any god putting this girl in hell to be raped and tortured by demons would be more evil than all pedophiles in history. Therefore, either god is evil and all bets on the afterlife are off, or this girl is not in hell and did not "sin" when she took her own life to see her dad.

Thus there is no contradiction. If the afterlife is real and god is anything less than pure fucking evil, the girl is in paradise and we should all be happy she killed herself. It was a good decision. However, if the afterlife is a lie, then the girl's death is tragic and such tragedies should be avoided in the future by ending the lie of the afterlife.

M6 is nothing more than another dodge attempt. Marcus can't deal with the heart of the issue and therefore looks for any loopholes to avoid the entire subject matter.

M7. All your supposed logic impresses nobody.

D9. Logic is not owned by any person. Logic is universal and absolute. As an alleged math teacher, you should understand this. I guess it's true that those who can't, teach.

The only valid response to a logical argument, regardless of how much you hate the person making it, is another logical argument based on facts and reason. Saying how much you dislike the other person isn't a response to his arguments.

I say the square root of two is irrational and provide a proof of that. You respond that it's not because I'm ugly. You must be a great math teacher. [That was sarcasm. I know you're reading skills are as bad as your math skills.]

Then Marcus repeatsM1, M2, and M3 without even addressing the arguments D4, D5, D6, and D7 which utterly destroy M1, M2, and M3.

Repeating arguments that have already been discredited does not restore their credibility. You have to address the responses you dropped.

Well, that takes care of Marcus. Now for Shrek.

That's because God gave you your life, therefore when he takes it it is not murder, it is repossession.

If your god owns your life, then you are a slave and he is a despicable slaver. To even attempt to own another sentient being is evil. To play with a sentient being's life is utterly disgraceful.

Your link provides thousands of opinions, none on which a simple majority of scientists agree.

Thanks for making my point.

I don't know what "your point" is, but I can assure you that it is a scientifically accepted fact that the brain is responsible entirely for consciousness and self-awareness, for every thought and every emotion you have ever experienced or will ever experience. This fact is easily demonstrable by mind-altering substances, all of which work on the brain.

This is the 21st century. At this point, anyone who denies that the brain is entirely responsible for our mind is like someone who denies that Earth is round and the sun is a star. At a certain point, such ignorance indicates that a person should not be respected by others.

The fact that consciousnesses occupies physical components doesn't mean it is simple or worthless

And no one has argued that. On the contrary, the fact that the physical brain is entirely responsible for your existence as a person makes this mundane, Earthly life ever so much more precious. If the mythical soul were responsible for your existence, then your Earthly life would have little if any value.

Until we truly understand consciousness, all bets are off regarding the survival/ejection/extradimensional transportation/termination of consciousness upon the body's demise.

Not only do I not believe that, but neither do you. I'm quite certain that you do not accept the possibility that in order to ensure life after death, you must rape a thousand cows. Unless you go cow fucking just to be safe, you don't believe that there is nothing we can conclude about the so-called afterlife.

At this point, nothing what either of us wrote in this post can be verified 100% accurate.

I can be 100% certain that my computer doesn't run any apps when it is powered down. For the exact same reason, I can be certain that the computer I call my brain -- or yours -- doesn't run any sentience when powered down. Both computers follow the same laws of physics. And yes, things are knowable with physics.

Your insistence on 'knowing the fate of consciousness' upon death is as self delusional as the worst fundamentalist. The most intellectually honest among us have the ability to just say "I don't know".

Make a case to back up the assertion that knowing the fate of consciousness upon death is delusional. I have made a damn good case in the previous paragraph to the contrary. As for intellectually honesty, that goes both ways. I have no problem saying "I don't know" something when that's the case. But it is dishonest to say that one does not and can not know something that one does.

I know the Earth is round and revolves around the sun due to gravitational attractiveness. To say otherwise is a lie. I know my computer performs no operations when powered down. I know that no human brain performs any operations when powered down. It is merely the acceptance of the known laws of physics that dictates this conclusion. There is nothing delusional or dishonest about knowing the laws of electricity and chemistry and being able to do the math.

Sentience is created and sustained by the brain. When the brain dies, the mind dies. It is an inescapable logical conclusion.

But I await your counter-argument that the death of sentience is unknowable. Make sure it's a good one.

Wow. You really need to set aside your notions of 'what is/isn't ' for awhile and reexamine your statement below.

This is a non-statement and merits no response.

"Does the brain create consciousness, or is consciousness a separate entity occupying the brain"

Clearly the brain creates consciousness. Numerous unethical experiments such as performing a lobotomy proves this beyond any doubt.

The problem with this statement is that there are a lot of people who do know how "your computer does this" without a doubt.

Whether or not a person understands how a computer works, does not affect how the computer works.

With consciousness, no one on the planet comes close to knowing without a doubt what it is.

One does not have to understand the implementation of consciousness to know beyond any doubt that whatever the implementation is, it is performed entirely by the brain. How the brain creates consciousness is irrelevant to the fact that it is the brain that creates consciousness.

In other words, ignorance does not leave room for the possibility of an afterlife. The God of the Gaps argument does not imply an afterlife.

Furthermore, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that if the afterlife did exist, then this girl's death is something we should rejoice. Are you rejoicing it?

And this is your blind spot.

It is very sad for people here on earth who have loved ones who have moved on, regardless of where they moved on to.

That is a basic human trait.

Irrelevant. The tragedy isn't that the girl's mother is sad. The tragedy is that the girl's one and only life is over, prematurely, and for no good reason.

If the afterlife exists, then the logical, rational, and sensible thing would be for the mother to kill herself and thus unite with her husband and daughter. This would end the mother's suffering and bring great joy to her. If you do not think this is the most reasonable course of action, then you do not believe in the afterlife.

Again, the question of the afterlife is not an academic issue. It has very practical implications including whether or not to continue living, whether or not to wear your seatbelt, whether or not to strive for justice in this world. Damn important decisions are based on the conclusion of whether or not the afterlife is a lie, and if you pick wrongly, then you make very bad decision with grave consequences.

The girls death is tragic to living people emotionally attached to her, regardless of whether there is or is not an afterlife.

That's the part you do not get.

On the contrary, the entire point of the afterlife lie is to make death have no sting. It is precisely because deep down everyone knows the afterlife is a bold face lie, that people find death tragic. They pretend to believe in the afterlife, but they really don't. People morn the irreversible loss of a human being precisely because they know the afterlife is a lie.

That's the part you do not get.

humanity says

So, I see this thread has changed from a question of whether we can blame religion for this girls suicide, because of a phrase in her suicide note, to the question of whether there is an afterlife ?

Actually, the entire thesis of this thread was about the afterlife lie, not religion. See D1, D2, and D3.

humanity says

it seems that humans have evolved to hold beliefs along these lines.

Yes, the evolutionary cause of superstition, including believe in reincarnation and afterlives, has been well studied in science. It's basically a trick our genes play on us because the negative consequence, for our genes, of intelligence is that the host organisms (humans) now realize that they are mortal and that would negatively affect slaving away for the benefits of our genes unless we are tricked into thinking we just might be immortal.

In any case, the fact that evolution has created part of human nature does not make that part of human nature good. Rape worked in the Stone Age as a strategy for getting your genes into the next generation. The fact that raped worked for tens of millions of years does not make rape good, nor does it mean we should promote the behavior or rape or the genes that contribute to this behavior. Evolution is a form of gradual ascent. Gradual ascent does not lead to global maximums, a.k.a. optimal solutions.

Consider belief in afterlives and other supernatural beliefs to be evolutionary baggage that is best discredited with frontal lobe thinking.

humanity says

And I expect that those like Dan, will have a position closer to mine than to what they say now, when they are in their final hours.

Even if what you are saying is true -- and it's pure conjecture -- that does not imply that the afterlife is real. In fact, it makes the opposite case. It argues that belief in the afterlife is driven by irrational fear and therefore such a belief should have no credit. Your argument is basically that the Denial Stage of Loss and Grief is reason for people's false belief in the afterlife. The Denial Stage is all about falsely denying a painful truth.

Dan - for someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, you sure do seem very certain about how it must work.

I am certain how logic works. It is self-evident.

I notice that you haven't actually made a counter-argument to the argument that the Christian afterlife implies the moral imperative to kill children. That argument stands.

It's entirely possible that there is an afterlife - but that Christianity is wrong in some/all of the aspects about it.

The brain argument disproves any afterlife, but I'll play along. So if anything is possible in the afterlife, then it could be that you are condemned to being tortured in hell unless you commit at least one murder. Are you prepared to act upon that assumption?

After all, if all bets are off, god could be evil. Hell, Satan could be god. And to please god, you must commit a murder. Do so, and you get to live forever in paradise. Don't murder anyone, and you are tortured in hell for all eternity. Are you going to act on the belief that this is even a remote possibility?

The fact that you do not go around murdering people like a homicidal maniac is proof that you accept some assumptions you think are reasonable and reject a multitude of assumptions you think are unreasonable. The assumption of any afterlife is unreasonable. The question is can you think clearly enough to understand this? All afterlife assumptions, if put to the test, lead to making bad decisions.

The article also states that they aren't sure what she believed. Oh, but you don't have to believe that part, because of a religious conspiracy, defending itself. And then you present a false choice - those aren't the only two options.

Entirely wrong. First, we have no reason to doubt the girl's letter. Second, of course the press isn't going to admit that the girl was being honest because the press fears negative reaction if they even remotely imply that religious beliefs caused a tragedy.

Third, and most importantly, it is irrelevant if the girl was lying. That doesn't change the facts that:
1. It is no tragedy that she died if there is an afterlife.
2. It was a reasonable and good decision to kill herself if there is an afterlife, even if she doesn't believe in it.
3. If there is no afterlife, then the lie of an afterlife is a bad thing because it does make sense to ends one life if one believes in that lie.

So even if I accepted your dodge -- and it is entirely a dodge -- that still is not a counterpoint to the fact that the afterlife is a lie and one we should not tell.

Fourth, I have never stated that the lie of the afterlife or this girl's tragic death was the result of a religious conspiracy. You are just making up a Straw Man argument. Yes, I will argue that religion is evil, but I have not and will not do so in this thread. This thread has purely been about the afterlife lie and I have stayed on that theme.

Fifth, yes, there are only two choices when it comes to suicide: yes or no. There isn't really a third option, now is there? It's pretty much a litmus test. And yes, there is either an afterlife or there isn't.

But you've missed MY point, which is that a logical argument can be made for an atheist to commit suicide. So - even if she were a rational and committed atheist, she may have made the decision to commit suicide to end her pain. Which would mean that the underlying cause was the depression; the religion was just a contributing factor.

Of course an atheist can logically commit suicide. I'm an atheist and I'm 100% for euthanasia. I thoroughly supported Dr. Jack Kevorkian. And as I've said earlier in this post, suicide is the last act of a free man and every person owns his or her own life and is the only person who has any say in whether or not that life should continue.

However, when one is deciding whether or not to live, that decision should be made on correct facts, not lies. For example, if the doctor tells you that you will die horrifically in agonizing pain tomorrow, then it had better damn well be true; it would be terrible if you decided to commit suicide and it turned out the doctor was just being a dick and pulling your leg. The same thing goes for afterlife lies.

Nonetheless your point is irrelevant to D1, D2, and D3. The fact is that if the afterlife is real, then it is a perfectly reasonable thing for a 12-year-old to commit suicide to be with her dad even if she wasn't feeling any pain or sadness. Hell, if the afterlife is real, it is a moral imperative to kill babies as I've shown above.

Thus, if you do not accept these conclusions then you are, by mathematical necessity, rejecting the premises that led to them. And that is my point.

You keep trying to boil things down to a choice - "either the afterlife exists, exactly as a I stipulate it, or there is no afterlife."

Actually, I haven't stipulated how the fictitious afterlife is. That was done by Western religions. And the girl in the original story is using the widely accepted afterlife myth of our society.

The afterlife may work differently than you keep saying it must

You mean "than the believers keep saying it must".

And I've addressed that above in this post. You aren't killing people based on the belief that the Satan god wants you to.

whether there is, or isn't, one, the death is a tragedy.

No. The entire point of the afterlife life is to make death not a tragedy any more than birth is. When a person is born, they don't cease to exist, they just transition from one environment to another. According to all afterlife myths, by definition, death is the same, a mere transition from one environment to another. Thus, it is not tragic.

The real tragedy of death is that it is the ending of a person's existence. That is exactly why we mourn the loss of someone who dies. If the afterlife lie were true, we would again see everyone who has died. A death would be nothing more than someone moving far away for a short period of time. And yes, a human lifespan is a damn short period of time compared to eternity.

Death is tragic and painful precisely because deep down inside we know it is real and permanent no matter how much we lie to ourselves on the surface. Death would simply not be death if there were an afterlife, and thus Earthly life would not be that important.

In conclusion, no argument has yet to directly attack D1, D2, and D3.

D1. The lie of the afterlife has tragically caused the death of a girl. We should no longer tell this lie because it does motivate people to make bad decisions.

D2. The death of the girl is tragic if and only if the afterlife is a lie. The death of the girl is joyful if and only if the afterlife is not a lie.

D3. By D2, anyone who considers the death of this girl to be a tragedy is tacitly admitting that he does not really believe in the afterlife.

99

Y 2014 Jan 28, 12:55pm

Clearly the brain contains consciousness.
It is not clear how or if the brain creates it.
That is speculation on your part.

SoftShell says

"Does the brain create consciousness, or is consciousness a separate entity occupying the brain"

Clearly the brain creates consciousness. Numerous unethical experiments such as performing a lobotomy proves this beyond any doubt.

100

curious2 2014 Jan 28, 1:22pm