The diagram at http://i.imgur.com/LBo0WK3.png is useful. DD thinks atheism should go inside the circle and theism outside it.

The creation of God and punishment for sin in an afterlife is a construct to both explain the world and to keep society in order, presuming innate evil in man.

There are scientific explanations for the existence of the world, and shared morals, that do not invoke such constructs or presumptions.

AJPhillips

"Get yourself a life"

My meaning of that statement is not insulting, it is what a person appears to be from my perspective, who like yourself, rags every possibility of advanced theory by condemning it as simply untrue until irrefutable evidence appears. To my mind that identifies a lazy regressive thinker.

The theory of eternal consciousness: forgetting Christian texts, which you obviously consider yourself superior to, in your refusal to apply any part of their teaching to your self, inclusive of dismissing their moral guide lines as debunked by the high priests of Liberalism; the new God for the age apparently,

I think I have presented more evidence toward promoting the possibility of conscious life after death than you have presented against it. So far your evidence against the possibility, rests in refuting any claim for it.
What is your evidence it doesn't exist when there are quite clear pointers towards the possibility?

And further, I don't think the experience of life after death is always a good one either.
In fact, one poster to these pages described his experience as looking into the bowels of hell. He was traumatised.

Those pointers are from the very people who have been clinically dead, then resuscitated some time after: In modern parlance, they've been there and done that.

This is not the experience achieved by LSD tripping. Nor can they be entirely replicated in research, by stimulating the areas of the brain which appear to be responsible.

I'll leave you dancing with the fairies then AJP. I think the weight of evidence comes down on the side of distinct possibility

Dear Luciferase,

«There are scientific explanations for the existence of the world»

What about the existence of existence?

«There are scientific explanations for the existence of the world»

Even if the world can be explained through science, explanations on their own are useless - science can tell you all about your prison but it cannot teach you how to become free of it.

At no point have I ever demanded irrefutable evidence, diver dan.

<<… what a person appears to be from my perspective, who like yourself, rags every possibility of advanced theory by condemning it as simply untrue until irrefutable evidence appears.>>

This is the fallacious appeal to absolute certainty that I mention occasionally. Every time the issue of evidence is raised, we have someone bozo pipe up and throw in a red herring regarding absolutely certainty (or, in your case, “irrefutable evidence”). It is a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

<<To my mind that identifies a lazy regressive thinker.>>

No, it’s a healthy scepticism, and I would challenge you to point to a single problem with it. There is nothing “lazy” about filtering the information one receives to eliminate fallacious thinking and account for biases such as confirmation bias. It is a constant effort attempting to override evolved and instinctual factors that distort our perception of reality. Laziness is believing whatever makes you feel comfortable.

<<The theory of eternal consciousness: …>>

I would say “hypothesis”. A theory is well established.

<<… forgetting Christian texts, which you obviously consider yourself superior to …>>

You’re damn right I consider myself superior to Christian texts. They endorse slavery, incite homophobia, promote divisiveness, and tell the story of a god who has to continuously fix his own failures.

<<I think I have presented more evidence toward promoting the possibility of conscious life after death than you have presented against it.>>

Wow. First, you acknowledge that you have no evidence for life after death. Then you claim there is a “rising tide” of evidence (without mentioning what any of it is). Now you claim that you have actually presented this alleged evidence.

No, diver dan, you haven’t. There is no evidence.

<<So far your evidence against the possibility, rests in refuting any claim for it.>>

Well, yes, that, by definition, would be evidence against it. You make it sound like there’s some sort of failing there.

Continued…

…Continued

<<What is your evidence it doesn't exist when there are quite clear pointers towards the possibility?>>

We already discussed it. It involved brain injury and split-brain personality.

Now, how about listing these so-called pointers towards the possibility of life after death?

<<And further, I don't think the experience of life after death is always a good one either.>>

I agree with you there. When you think about it, eternal life would actually be torture.

<<In fact, one poster to these pages described his experience as looking into the bowels of hell. He was traumatised.>>

Who was that, and how did you rule out neurological factors?

<<Those pointers are from the very people who have been clinically dead, then resuscitated some time after: In modern parlance, they've been there and done that.>>

Again, how did you rule out the rational, neurological factors?

<<Nor can [near-death experiences] be entirely replicated in research, by stimulating the areas of the brain which appear to be responsible.>>

Actually, they can:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/scientists-simulate-near-death-experience-in-the-brain

<<I think the weight of evidence comes down on the side of distinct possibility>>

Then, again, please tell me what this evidence is. Because your belief, no matter how strong, is not evidence of anything.