Altfish
Veteran Member
Oh dear, Dinesh D'Souza; people don't get much more odious than him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Belief in afterlife
- Thread starter Jadamas
- Start date
Even a cursory glance shows that he has nothing of value to say.
You know what? You are correct.
Last edited:
By all means, read his piece. It is good to spread awareness of his ideas, such as they are.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Its not something I really want to look into. I read part of the Quran. I just wondered (briefly) if Muslims do have a heaven. Im not too familar with christians heaven but I hear about them all the time. I dont think jews do but they love to correct me so I dont know.
While I imagine a number of possibilities of how an afterlife might work, I don't currently believe any one of them are true. Just not enough concrete evidence any particular possibility of an afterlife to raise to the level of affording one any belief. There are some scenarios I think maybe more of a possibility than others.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes, you must read the article but then search YouTube for Debunked videos.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Do you have any opinion/thought as to why there is there such a strong push by those who do hold some form of belief (or, using your terms "acceptance") of god in labeling those who do not believe (or, as you assert, "reject") god as something other than what they, themselves claim to be? I see this time and time again from theists/believers, but never really the same from non-believers. That is, I don't see non-believers challenging believers' claims that they believe, or what they believe in. We may challenge the ideas themselves, but not the fact that the person claims to hold the ideas/beliefs.
We don't insinuate that they are really non-believers in disguise or say things like "You don't really believe in god... you simply accept the possibility." That's something akin to what you are saying about atheists - that they don't really "not believe in god", it is that they "reject god" - which seems to me your way of trying to inject god's existence into the equation no matter what anyone feels about the prospect. It is very disingenuous.
Whatever you want to call it (non-belief, disbelief, rejection), I guarantee I am as sure that god doesn't exist as you may be that he does. Probably more so. If undeniable evidence is someday presented, I'd be forced to change my mind - but I am just as sure that that day will never come.
PureX
Veteran Member
Arguments about what people believe or don't believe are mostly the result of egotism. Our "beliefs" seem to be presumed a part of, or reflection of our identity. So that to assert one's beliefs and/or attack someone else's is mostly an exercise in egotism (ego being the mechanism that protects self-identity). And it's why debates based on what the participants "believe in" or don't, rarely net any positive resolution, and often quickly digress into pointless ad hominems and blind assertions of knowledge and truth that are beyond the humanly possible.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I consider this life the afterlife.
For all practical intents and purposes we were all dead before we were born. Who's to say there weren't other lives when you take atoms and molecules into consideration.
Combining, falling apart, recombining, falling apart again.. .
Beliefs very concerning both reincarnation and Rebirth(?). I do not believe it is a failure to understand (core concepts?), since they very also. The point is many believers of Zen Buddhism are atheists, and beleive in an after life.
Do they? Perhaps. I am not aware of any, but who knows.
Zen Buddhism is not uniformly on set of beliefs concerning reincarnation, rebirth, and ah . . . god(s). It is influenced by Shinto and the concept of Kami in Japan, and inherits some features of Chinese Chan Buddhism a school of Mahayana Buddhism. It is common to find statues Kannon the Chinese Goddess/God in Chinese Buddhism Guanyin. All these attributes contribute to the belief of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence involved.
There are, of course, Zen Buddhists who believe there is no after life, but differences in belief should not be attributed to an egocentric lack of understanding.
I'm not technically an atheist, but close enough.
I don't think there's an afterlife. Since the Darwinian point that makes life meaningful is surviving long enough to breed, what's the point of living on anyway? Just ego?
The afterlife has all the traits of fiction: no meaningful description or explanation as to what it is. What's the mechanism of resurrection, what quality does a resurrected body have that the original didn't?
Or, what is a soul, why does the body need one, why does the soul need a body, how does a soul perceive, and since having no hormones means having no capacity either to desire or to love, what's the point?
Why isn't immortality infinite tedium and why isn't death preferable?
How is heaven governed and how can I change a government there that I don't like?
And so on and so on.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
So, as an answer to my question of why there is a push from theists to deny the atheist a "disbelief in god" your answer is that egotism is what is driving the theist/believer to do this? I'm asking because you just did it in that prior post I originally replied to... yet you seem to be denouncing egotism as something negative (specifically - something that leads to attacks, pointless ad hominems and blind assertions).
PureX
Veteran Member
No, I ignored your biased assessment of theist behavior and simply pointed out, instead, why both theists and atheists tend to focus on their own beliefs rather than on the actual intellectual proposition being presented to us all by theism.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
You dressed the idea up in more language than was necessary, but I assure you, you DID state pretty plainly that atheists are incorrect when stating that they "do not believe in god," and that YOU know better, claiming instead that they actively "reject god" (see the blue highlighted text in the quote below).
Granted, you also talked about theists being "wrong" about saying they "believe in God," but claim that they instead "accept God." This is you PRETENDING that you are being impartial by appearing to have a "chastisement" for both sides. However, you know damn well that NO theist is going to take exception to that framing of the situation because, no matter what, it ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - which theists all love to do anyway. My main point being that in casting atheists as "rejectors of god" you still assume god's existence! Much like the theist who says "I think everyone believes in God, some are just in denial."
Take a look now at the red parts below:
Note that you clearly assume that "God [affects] the human experience" - because you claim that if He didn't, then there would be no point in considering the nature of God's existence - which also assumes (with no credible basis whatsoever) that because some of us do consider the nature of God's existence, that this means He must "affect the human experience." Note that you do not specify that merely "the idea of god" affects the human experience, but that "god affects the human experience." This is grossly fallacious, circular reasoning - to posit that God must exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about Him, and that because we talk about Him then it means He must exist. The same could be said for ANYTHING. Some people genuinely talk over the existence of vampires. So, because there are people contemplating the existence of vampires, and therefore vampires "affect the human experience" it must mean that vampires themselves are what are affecting the human experience! Right?! I mean... this is YOUR logic I'm using here... so it must be correct!
And then the second item in red: "the validity of the ideal being proposed" - clearly claiming that the ideal of "god" is valid - and this in the context of acceptance or rejection of god. Meaning that anyone who rejects god (which is the ONLY thing you want to afford atheists [see blue quote] specifically to be able to parade out this agenda of yours) is rejecting something valid, implying that they are therefore in the wrong, and denying "the truth."
Last edited:
So true.
Still, Anatta, Impermanence and Interdependent Origination are no less core concepts of Buddhism for that.
I don't find D'Souza odious at all.
He is smart and articulate. He has an interesting background and perspective.
I don't always agree with him by any means. I think much of the attention he gets is due to having an unusually politically correct melanin level for someone so conservative. But the main reason people consider him odious is because he is so good at articulating politically incorrect views.
Tom