A Must Read!

[Thorne]

How do we know there is or is not an afterlife, many many people "feel" that an afterlife exists and is just as real and tangible as anything else. Science certiantly doesn't know, though sometimes it claims to know even when it doesnt, so how does the atheist claim differ any,,,a belief, based upon an assumption with not enough data to support it. Sounds just like most religions to me.

No, science claims only that there is no evidence for an afterlife. EVERY religion claims the existence of an afterlife without any evidence. Science's sole claim is that a lack of evidence for the existence of something is NOT equivalent to evidence FOR it's existence. How do we know there are no dragons? (Apart from the Kimodo variety.) How do we know there are no unicorns, or centaurs, or any of zillions of other made-up creatures and places? Can we prove that Burroughs' Barsoom does not exist on Mars? There is no way to prove that any of these things do NOT exist. But that doesn't make them real, regardless of how many people "feel" they do.

Basically, when a theist says, "There IS an afterlife" he's saying that he BELIEVES there is an afterlife, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of it. When a scientist, or an atheist, says "there is NOT an afterlife", he's saying that there is no rational reason to accept the existence of something for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Religion has always fluorished in ignorance.

So has science.

Not even close. Religion flourishes in the perpetuation of ignorance, keeping the believers away from any knowledge that contradicts dogma. Science flourishes by fighting ignorance, relishing knowledge, even if (one might even say, especially if) it contradicts scientific dogma.

What is it but a collection of stories and claims to explain the mysteries of life — wherever there is something we don't understand, that we lack real knowledge about, there is a priest ready to rush in and fill the gap with a story.

Or explain a tried and true well tested tradition.

With a story! Regardless of how old or how well known the story is, it's still just a story! And when facts intervene and contradict the story, the historical reaction of most religions has been to slay the messenger, to perpetuate the story. Tradition may be nice for maintaining the status quo and molding conformity. But sooner or later you have to finally stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!"

And it's always a story that gives the answer people want to hear.

Hardely, more often than not it gives an answer that is not what people want to hear...it is most certiantly not all cookies and cream.

I'll grant you that. But it still tells them that there will be an afterlife, even though there is no evidence for such a thing. To some people, even an eternity in hell might seem better than complete oblivion. To some people, an eternity in the Catholic heaven (the one I'm most familiar with) would BE a hell.

It's not what they made up, it was what was passed down to them through generation after generation.

Passed down from someone who made it up to begin with! Again, just because it's an old story doesn't mean it's accurate. The world is not flat, the sky is not a carpet with little lanterns hanging from it. The sun is not a glowing chariot being driven daily across the sky.

The historical accuracey for some of which is confirmed more and more everyday

Such as what? Have they learned that there really was a census in Palestine near the time of Jesus' birth? Have they found eyewitness accounts of his life, aside from those purported to be written by his followers? Have they even found any archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people spent 40 years wandering through Sinai? Not that I've heard!

and it isnt as if they didnt understand some of these things, so much as used language and traditons to represent it as a force in our lives.

Oh, I see. So demons inhabiting our bodies were just euphemisms for bacterial infections? They actually knew how vast the universe was, but only wanted to make it sound like the Earth was all there was? Please. Language and tradition only go so far. Perpetuating those traditions and stories in the light of real evidence is no different than believing in fairy tales.

There is a really good reason why so many people do believe in an afterlife

Yes, there is, and this article explains it. It's COMFORTABLE. It's far less frightening to believe in an afterlife than not. It's far more exciting to believe in flying saucers than not. Neither is a valid reason for holding such beliefs.

and just becuase science has difficulty measuring something doesnt mean it doesnt exisit

Quite true, but the longer we look for evidence of something without finding anything, the less likely it becomes that it DOES exist.

and stories of people who have died etc and returned are actually amazingly consistent and have been around for a very long time, which how some works like the Tibetian Book of the Dead came into being.

So you're saying that Muslims who have near death experiences see the same things as Christians? Do Buddhist's with those experiences catch glimpses of the Islamic Paradise? In fact, the things which people claim to see during near death experiences are remarkably similar to what they expect to see, in the vast majority of cases. If everyone saw the same, or even similar, things, then all of the religions would preach about the same, or similar, afterlife. They do not.

Which in all leads me to believe the author has never held someone's hand and spoke to them as they died

What difference does that make? You are confusing an emotional issue with a purely subjective one. Someone who is dying is not necessarily a reliable source of information, nor is someone who is saddened by a loved one's death. These are the very kinds of emotional responses which religions are notorious for exploiting.

nor really read or studied the religious texts and dogma he so vehmently wishes to decry as false.

I would venture to guess, based on things I've read elsewhere, that Myers is far more versed in the religious texts and dogma than the average fundamentalist believer. Certainly far more versed than I am. I freely admit my lack of in-depth knowledge. But then, I don't know all that much about ancient Oriental fairy tales, either.

So why is he argueing at all if its so obvious then wouldnt everyone just naturally follow such a defeatist path of thinking, roll over and die then since we have no purpose?

He's arguing because religious leaders are constantly trying to force their poisonous bile down our throats. He's arguing because millions of people around the world die needlessly due to religious intolerance and hatred. He's arguing because he knows, as I do, that people would rather believe what feels good than what is right.
And who says we do not have a purpose? Just because I don't spend my life on my knees telling some god how great he is, just so I can go to heaven and spend eternity doing the same damned thing, doesn't mean I don't have a purpose. I have a family. They provide a purpose. I have a life to live, and that provides a purpose. It's the only life I will ever have, and I want to live it as much and as well as I can. That's a purpose. If your purpose is to be good and die and go to heaven, why don't you just let yourself die so you can be with your god? After all, isn't that your sole purpose?

Coughs,, excuse me, most religions do not just offer paradise, if anything its more the other way around.

Ultimately, religions provide a path to follow which, supposedly, leads to some form of salvation or life after death or some way to continued existence. Whether you want to call it paradise or not, it's the easy way out. The belief that something of us will go on, despite there being no evidence for such a belief.

If all we had to go on was belief, (why, in fact thats the only thing any atheist is going on...belief. )

Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Then why use every bit of sophistry imaginable to misconstrue and attack that which you do not obviously really understand?

sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- 2 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid
I fail to see where the sophistry is in claiming that religions have no verifiable evidence to support their claims of a divine being or an afterlife. I realize it's hardly fair to fight fantasy with truth, or to counter wishful thinking with facts. But that's reality. Live with it.

I am deeply religious and I believe as do most of the deeply religious people I know that reality is paramount and matters a great deal but again I am going to point out sophistry when I see it and the author is attempting yet again to use it to convience us all that atheism is somehow superior becuase it has something or lacks something that religion cant possibley have a grasp of,,,when in fact it does.

And here we have real sophistry, claiming the author has said something which he has not actually said. No one claims that atheism is superior to faith. In fact, he says quite plainly that faith has far more comfort to offer people than atheism. What he IS saying is that reality, cold, hard, brutal reality, trumps wishful thinking every time. No amount of faith or religious dogma will allow you to jump off a ten story building and float gently down to the ground without suffering a single injury. Why? Because gravity is real and it's predictable and it can kill you. A good, scientifically designed parachute might save you, or a soundly engineered parafoil. But hand-waving and magical incantations won't help you worth a damn.

In fact, I can't even offer anyone soothing words and the promise of consolation, because there are none. We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help.

That feeling just proves that atheists exist at God's mercy too and can sence our smallness by comparrison just like the rest of us.

Oh, I can definitely sense our smallness. Just looking at the universe around us, the vast emptiness of space, how hostile and dangerous even the world on which we have evolved can be, makes me fall small and afraid. And God has nothing to do with it.

Believeing in a religion is not hiding in fear,,if anything it sometimes takes more courage than not believeing.

Oh? Ask a Muslim whether or not he's afraid of recanting his faith. Even if he wanted to, his religion would demand his death! How many women honestly believe they are only property, as so many religions preach? And how many of those women are afraid to speak out against those preachings? How many non-believers are hiding in churches, afraid to proclaim their non-belief because of the fear of ridicule and ostracism which they will most likely incur? And sure, it works both ways, no argument about that. The point is that it takes far more courage to state the truth when it directly contradicts the perceived truth of the masses. And believing in an afterlife, despite a total lack of evidence for such a condition, is simply hiding, from fear of obliteration.

Well then lets acctually be honest then for a change instead of manipulative and decietful.

I thought I was being honest. I'm not trying to be manipulative. I'm trying to tell the truth. However, if you can provide any real evidence for an afterlife, or even for gods, of any stripe, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be delighted to see it. Calling someone a liar just because they don't happen to agree with you is not providing evidence. Claiming that your particular belief system is the one true belief, despite all the belief systems in existence today and throughout history, is not proof either. And claiming something must be true just because 99% of the people in the world believe it to be true is not proof. Provide facts and evidence. Or propose an hypothesis which can be tested with proper procedures and practices. I'll wait.