You say that because you are a moral realist, correct?. . .be good to your fellow humans, respect the planet . . .
And everyone who has agreed with Altfish in what I've quoted here do so because you are also moral realists?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You say that because you are a moral realist, correct?. . .be good to your fellow humans, respect the planet . . .
There is ample evidence that some people have and retain in memory complex, coherent experiences and are able to utilize logic even when their brains are non-functional. See the OPs here:
Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?
That's probably as close as you can come to making an argument for your beliefs. Right?NDEs are a joke.
That's probably as close as you can come to making an argument for your beliefs. Right?
I'd call myself a humanist.You say that because you are a moral realist, correct?
And everyone who has agreed with Altfish in what I've quoted here do so because you are also moral realists?
Your assumptions are wrong. Here's one link: Afterlife EvidenceAnd I am assuming if I asked you to share this evidence, that you will come up with some excuse why you can't or tell me I have to go find it myself.
Do you really believe in that, I suppose if your desperate and are afraid of death then I can understand your fear, poor thing.Your assumptions are wrong. Here's one link: Afterlife Evidence
Yes, it makes the most objective sense after my consideration of the evidence and argumentation from all sides..Do you really believe in that,
Oh psycho one, how condescending. I consider myself to have a sharp intellect with objective logical consideration as my calling card..I suppose if your desperate and are afraid of death then I cam understand your fear, poor thing.
Do you really, you fooled me.Yes, it makes the most objective sense after my consideration of the evidence and argumentation from all sides..
Oh psycho one, how condescending. I consider myself to have a sharp intellect with objective logical consideration as my calling card..
You are welcome to explain how that is supposed to relate to your advice to “be good”.I'd call myself a humanist.
Look what a hypocritical thing you've done here. You said to George-ananda: "And I am assuming if I asked you to share this evidence, that you will come up with some excuse why you can't or tell me I have to go find it myself." Then when the evidence is presented, you cut and run.I am not wasting any more of my time on NDEs.
I'd say Mr. Zammit really needs to update his arguments on NDEs, do you think? He doesn't cite anything published in the last 17 years, when some of the most important studies have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. The most unequivocal evidence of veridical perception in a clinical setting (with multiple independent corroborators) has been produced in more recent years, as well as the evidence demonstrating the occurrence of NDEs when the brain is in its most non-functional state. Parnia 2014 documents examples of both.
Apologies, but your link doesn't work for me, so I'm not sure what point you were making. If you are offended, I apologise again but you have no right not to be offended, it is called free speech.You are welcome to explain how that is supposed to relate to your advice to “be good”.
Obviously it doesn't make sense to exhort people to “be good” if there isn't any real distinction between being good and being bad. I assume that, like moral realists, you agree that there is a moral difference between the act of raping a 3-year-old child and that act of teaching her the alphabet. I assume that by exhorting people to “be good,” you were not including the former act.
By the way, at least according to this manifesto, humanism's “ethical values” do not seem to include consideration of what's best for either the planet or other animals at all. Frankly, I find that sort of speciesist or anthropocentric ethics offensive and regressive.
Sorry about that. It doesn't for me either; I don't know why. Here's the URL: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/Apologies, but your link doesn't work for me
Nothing you've said offends me.If you are offended, I apologise again but you have no right not to be offended, it is called free speech.
Its very first principle again excludes all moral consideration for the planet and for other animals. Again, this anthropocentric ethics is what I find offensive and regressive.But to answer you points in general, can I refer you to the Amsterdam Declaration...
IHEU | The Amsterdam Declaration
Obviously it doesn't make sense to exhort people to “be good” if there isn't any real distinction between being good and being bad. I assume that, like moral realists, you agree that there is a moral difference between the act of raping a 3-year-old child and that act of teaching her the alphabet. I assume that by exhorting people to “be good,” you were not including the former act.
Where on earth did you get that idea? I said nothing "an imaginary being". I am pointing out the moral realism that you are expressing here--your assumption and acknowledgement that there is a real difference between "good" acts and "bad" acts. I.e., the difference between good and bad is not something that humans have made up, or something that is arbitrary according to the dictates of different societies.I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this paragraph?? Are you trying to say that you can only have morals if you believe in an imaginary being?
Actually Mr. Zammit may be redeemed and George-ananda found at fault. What I linked to was something he did before 2006. He has an up to the week website (he publishes a weekly afterlife newsletter). I did not link to his currently active website: Afterlife EvidenceI'd say Mr. Zammit really needs to update his arguments on NDEs, do you think? He doesn't cite anything published in the last 17 years, when some of the most important studies have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. The most unequivocal evidence of veridical perception in a clinical setting (with multiple independent corroborators) has been produced in more recent years, as well as the evidence demonstrating the occurrence of NDEs when the brain is in its most non-functional state. Parnia 2014 documents examples of both.
Dr. Rudy's account and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo's confirmation provides another example of veridical perception when the patient had been declared dead after flat-lining for more than 20 minutes.
Do you think anyone might be surprised?Do you really, you fooled me.
I'm always surprised.Do you think anyone might be surprised?
Look what a hypocritical thing you've done here. You said to George-ananda: "And I am assuming if I asked you to share this evidence, that you will come up with some excuse why you can't or tell me I have to go find it myself." Then when the evidence is presented, you cut and run.
So, you hold tenaciously to beliefs that you can't deduce from the evidence. What is that but bad religion?