Afterlife?

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I've got nothing against Frank and was very happy to see him return to this site. I'll choose my interactions with him more carefully going forward. That's simple enough.

That happens a lot when I debate or discuss with atheists on the Internet. Atheists seem more comfortable in discussions with theists than with agnostics.

If at some point you can come up with a reasonable P1 and P2 to support a C of: Therefore there are no gods...please do present them. I've never seen any that even come close.

Same thing goes for a C of: Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I've never seen any that even come close for that one either, but I would love to see any you may want to offer.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

they are a temporary brain state not experienced by everyone who approaches death and recovers.

I don't think this is necessarily correct. Enough people experience it that it has to be more than just an isolated fluke.

It could be that the people who can't recall a NDE were not close enough to death to trigger one, or maybe they just don't remember the experience because they were unconscious.

What I find intriguing is that when people have these experiences as the result of taking psychedelic drugs, they also lose their fear of death afterwards just like people who have NDEs.

Somehow a lot of people, when they die, enter a state where they lose their fear of death. That may well be merciful if they are about to cease to exist. But I have trouble seeing how raw uncaring natural selection would ever result in such mercy.

0 Replies

In case there was any confusion, I’m happy to have Frank here too.
The rest of you heathens don’t even think the question is worth considering, for more than a drive-by post or two. WTF would I do without Frank?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I've never seen any that even come close for that one either, but I would love to see any you may want to offer.

Sorry; I don't do syllogisms. I don't live my life in a world of deductive logic. It's useful at times – times which I try to avoid.

I was thinking about this:

Quote:

In my opinion, not only is the question "Are there any gods?" worth discussing...it is, once again in my opinion, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION any of us can be asking of each other.

I don't see this happening, though. Most people are happy with what they think they know and can't be bothered.

Quote:

One cannot use reason, logic, math, or science to conclude:

There is at least one god;
There are no gods;
It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none;
It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Humanity has to learn that.

I think there are more important things for humanity to concern itself with. Things where reason, logic, math, or science can help us arrive at conclusions. Like how to allocate non-renewable resources. How to act pro-actively to deal with anticipated problems. How to identify and correct the unintended consequences of social policies. How to fund solutions to all these things.

Basically, I don't think humanity's problems will ever be solved by thoughtfully considering, let alone attempting to answer, one Big Idea. Material conditions have a way of interfering. As Emerson said, "Things are in the saddle and ride mankind."

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Material conditions have a way of interfering. As Emerson said, "Things are in the saddle and ride mankind."

J.C. Said the same thing!

0 Replies

Quote:

Most people are happy with what they think they know and can't be bothered.

That last bit is true, but are most people happy? I’m not seeing it the same.

Curiously, Most people, even the poorest, would not trade lives with anyone else. But that is not the same thing as being satisfied or happy.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

...but are most people happy? I’m not seeing it the same.

Oh, I agree. But people can carry a range of emotions. "I'm worried about paying my taxes, I'm angry at my neighbor, I'm sad my kitten died, I'm happy I attend the Westboro Baptist Church." I think everyone likes to think that something makes them happy.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

I think everyone likes to think that something makes them happy.

Or maybe 'will'. I think the minimum requirement to continue living is something to look forward to.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not know if any gods exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

You are an atheist.

2 Replies

@ascribbler,

Counterintuitive song choice, but maybe.

0 Replies

@ascribbler,

ascribbler wrote:

Quote:
I do not know if any gods exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

You are an atheist.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPip27zO9-o[/youtube]

No...I am not an atheist.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

So... Magic. huh..

Exactly how much simpler was it? And if that simple, why can’t we make one?

Religion is about magic. A discussion of chemical reactions is science. Half a billion years in all of the world's oceans must involve an astronomical number of random chemical reactions. What's your basis for saying a self-replicating molecule couldn't form by chance over a long period of time in a sample with a nearly uncountable number of reactions occurring? A molecule could be built in stages in numerous separate random reactions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

What one can say, however, is that it's foolish to believe in things without a shred of evidence that they're true. So, once, again, give me even one particle of evidence that an afterlife exists.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

What one can say, however, is that it's foolish to believe in things without a shred of evidence that they're true.

Thus the folly of "believing that there is no afterlife" in the absence of any evidence that there is no afterlife.

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, once, again, give me even one particle of evidence that an afterlife exists.

Why do you keep asking me to back up arguments that I am not making?

My obligation is to back up my own arguments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
What one can say, however, is that it's foolish to believe in things without a shred of evidence that they're true.

Thus the folly of "believing that there is no afterlife" in the absence of any evidence that there is no afterlife.

Brandon9000 wrote:
So, once, again, give me even one particle of evidence that an afterlife exists.

Why do you keep asking me to back up arguments that I am not making?

My obligation is to back up my own arguments.

When I see a machine break, whether it's a person or a toaster, it appears that a disruption in its structure has made it unable to function further. I look at it and see that it is in fact no longer functioning. From this evidence, I conclude, it broke and is longer functioning. I merely believe that the evidence of my eyes is true.

To believe that the some essence of the machine has gone to another place and continues to function on some level there would require evidence.

If you affirmatively believe that people who die go to an afterlife, then you need to present evidence. It would be unwarranted to believe this in the absence of evidence that it's true.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

When I see a machine break, whether it's a person or a toaster, it appears that a disruption in its structure has made it unable to function further. I look at it and see that it is in fact no longer functioning. From this evidence, I conclude, it broke and is longer functioning. I merely believe that the evidence of my eyes is true.

Agreed.

Brandon9000 wrote:

To believe that the some essence of the machine has gone to another place and continues to function on some level there would require evidence.

So also to believe that some essence did not go to some other place.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you affirmatively believe that people who die go to an afterlife, then you need to present evidence. It would be unwarranted to believe this in the absence of evidence that it's true.

If.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
When I see a machine break, whether it's a person or a toaster, it appears that a disruption in its structure has made it unable to function further. I look at it and see that it is in fact no longer functioning. From this evidence, I conclude, it broke and is longer functioning. I merely believe that the evidence of my eyes is true.

Agreed.

Brandon9000 wrote:
To believe that the some essence of the machine has gone to another place and continues to function on some level there would require evidence.

So also to believe that some essence did not go to some other place....

But that's not what I believe. I don't declare absolutely that it did not go to another place. I believe that all I know for sure is what I see - the machine broke and, therefore no longer runs. In the absence of further information, that is all I believe about it. To believe that it went someplace else in the absence of evidence would be foolish. There might be 71 aliens form Altair 4 circling the Earth right now in a geosynchronous orbit, but to affirmatively believe that there are with no evidence would be foolish. Lots of things might be true.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

But that's not what I believe. I don't declare absolutely that it did not go to another place.

Then we are in complete agreement.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes Frank you are an agnostic atheist because you do not believe in god(s).

2 Replies

@ascribbler,

Do you mean a negative nihilist which is someone who tries to take a neutral view but then adopts a bias which is based upon a lack of definitive information?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know