Afterlife?

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Are you saying that death is a fable?

No. I'm saying the atheist position of "non-existence after death" is a fable.

hightor wrote:

Billions of people have been born and have died — are you denying that?

No.

hightor wrote:

It's not really a fable since it reflects what we actually know of biology, that consciousness is supported by the physical body and disappears when the organism ceases to exist.

Biology says nothing about whether anything happens after death.

hightor wrote:

What would be the evolutionary function of an afterlife?

Who knows.

Who says it has to have an evolutionary function?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I see your point with regard to your disagreement with that guy...BUT...

You see the point of disagreeing with agnosticism? I bet you can't defend such disagreement.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

that it violates everything we know about biology,

What about biology does an afterlife violate?

hightor wrote:

when the only defense for a fantastic claim is recourse to myth and legend I feel justified in questioning the premises and motivations of those promoting the story.

That's why I question the premises and motivations of atheism.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

1) How does it "violate" everything we know about biology?

The processes which we know as "life" are sustained by a physical organism and cease when that organism stops functioning as its components weaken and die or are destroyed.

Frank Apisa wrote:

2) Do you suspect "everything we (humans) know about biology" is ALL THERE IS TO KNOW about biology? Do you suppose it impossible (or improbably) that there is much more left to know about biology than we already know?

It's certainly possible, even likely, that there is much left to know, especially on the nano level. But transcendent incorporeal existence isn't really a matter of biology.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do you assert that an "afterlife" would serve no useful evolutionary purpose?

Evolution is a terrestrial phenomenon propelled by natural selection. I don't see how an "afterlife" would function in this process. Of course you can counter with the "how do you know that natural selection doesn't continue in some spiritual plane of existence of which we are unaware?" — I don't, and obviously hardcore agnosticism always has the final word. But, for me, the concept is so far-fetched as to be useless and I have no difficulty accepting the likelihood my extinction and that of every other living thing.

someone else wrote:

Biology says nothing about whether anything happens after death.

True, but it says a lot about what is needed to support life, and those conditions cease at death.

somebody wrote:

Who says it has to have an evolutionary function?

Many religious people accept the evolutionary process as the workings of a deity. So a religious person might assume that "as on earth, so shall it be in heaven".

somebody wrote:

That's why I question the premises and motivations of atheism.

I never mentioned "atheism" nor is it the motivation for my disbelief in life after death.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Isn’t the basis for survival, first survival of the individual then survival of the species?

It could be argued that belief in an afterlife would encourage self sacrifice for the greater good, like the pilot who stays on board the stricken plane to guide it away from a town instead of bailing out and saving themselves.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I never mentioned "atheism" nor is it the motivation for my disbelief in life after death.

So that I am a bit closer to understanding you position on this issue...

...when you say "...my disbelief in life after death" are you actually saying:

..."I lack a "belief" in life after death" or are you saying, "I have a "belief" that there is no life after death?"

They are quite different stances...and I just want to understand your position.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It could be argued that belief in an afterlife would encourage self sacrifice for the greater good...

So, in a way, you don't really need an afterlife, just gullible people who will modify their behavior because they believe in one.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I just don't believe it, Frank. Knowledge and belief are two different things.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I chose my words very carefully, but you decided to question my word choice instead of the point raised.

You stated that an afterlife would have no evolutionary advantages. I pointed out how it could.

Would you describe the aforementioned pilot who stays flying the plane instead of bailing out as gullible?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I don’t really want to argue with you about this, but I was a bit put off by your use of the gullible. I’ve met many people of faith who I wouldn’t class as gullible. They had a set of experiences that shaped that belief, it’s not just what has been preached at them.

It’s all subjective, you don’t know what anyone else has experienced and how that would have shaped you.

As long as people aren’t preaching hate, or trying to ram it down my throat, I don’t care what they believe.

I think those idiots who give money to the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and take the Bible literally are gullible, not people who have a particular belief system.

The most popular man of the cloth in the Media over here is the Rev Richard Cole. He’s very popular, appearing on panel shows and the like.

He’s the polar opposite of an evangelical preacher, he’s gay and used to be in The Communards. He had quite the time of it before he became a vicar.

0 Replies

I really like the band Gong.

Although a completely different line up from the original, they’ve all done their time together and are a great live act.

I’ve seen them three times.

They’ve done live sets on the radio, and when interviewed by Andy Kershaw they said their message, the theme of all their songs and concerts is that everything is happening right now. There is no time, there is only now, and everything that has happened or will happen is happening right now.

They say it a lot in concert.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

that is the philosophy of my Jewish ancestry

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I chose my words very carefully, but you decided to question my word choice instead of the point raised.

Not consciously, izzie. It's just an unusual example of evolution at work and hard for me to get my head around.

Quote:

I pointed out how it could.

But how would knowledge of this wonderful blessing be made generally available? Through stories? In which case it wouldn't have to be true.

Normally evolution by natural selection is more likely to work at the level of an individual's genes, with better genetically-equipped individuals having an advantage in the struggle for survival. The self-sacrificing pilot's genes would be lost unless he had already successfully reproduced. The situation you describe is interesting because it wouldn't require individuals to prevail through struggle against adversity. So I'd hesitate to think of it as connected to "evolution". It also raises the problem of when — and how — this knowledge would be imparted to the human community as a whole.

Quote:

Would you describe the aforementioned pilot who stays flying the plane instead of bailing out as gullible?

If the pilot was only doing it because he thought it would guarantee him an afterlife I'd say, yes, he was gullible. If he did it out of genuine, instinctual altruism then I'd say he was admirable. And people do make those sorts of choices, whether or not they believe.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I just don't believe it, Frank. Knowledge and belief are two different things.

I KNOW knowledge and belief are two different things, Hightor. I speak to that issue regularly and often here. I have done so for the almost two decades the forum has been in existance...to the consternation of many regulars.

In any case, as to my question:

You may be saying, "An afterlife is not one of the things I 'believe.'"

OR you might be saying that you "believe" there is no afterlife.

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I am just attempting to figure out if you are actually indicating the former...or the latter.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

But how would knowledge of this wonderful blessing be made generally available? Through stories? In which case it wouldn't have to be true.

Stories might help, but yes they would have to be true, at least in the point being made.

But the only way to prove it would be to offer your life as a living experiment. 'Generally available' is not the same as ‘ unconditional'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Im aware of Platonic teachings about the nous is where rebirth and afterlife began. Christianity was quick to adopt such a belief since the key of its very existence is a Resurrection of its principle.

My Jewish ancestry is actually silent on an afterlife so its more a thing of Paul's invention displayed in the communications of the corinthians )One of several books of a Bible that wre actually retained in the vulgate) by "Jerome the Diminutive"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

A priest said the universe is expanding before Hubble did.

But Does that make it untrue?
The truth of any matter depends on the matter, not the sayer, or when it was said.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Fr Lemaitrie has someevisence of Big Bang (and he wasnt just a "priest" he was aPhd Mathemetician,Phd Physicist, and "cosmetologist" before he took his final orders ).

All Im sayin i that none of this BS has evidence to support it. Its a cult of personalities that really does use the concept of "Who's saying it" to prove the belief. I find that even less than circular reasoning, dont you?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

It's not like atheism has any evidence to support it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You deny all the anastamosing "tales" that one relion "borrows" from another earlier one with inclusions of new and better changes of liturgical structure and identities"

As far as atheism not hany evidence, so what? its not necessarily the "Loyal opposition " to a belief system, Its basically not neeing such a belief system at all.

So lets say that none of them have strong evidence (although Id question the lack thereof of the non religious POV), wheres that leave the whole formal liturgy and story lines of religions.

At least the Jews recognize them as tales...

I live among Amish, an Anabaptist series of sets whose origins are like Monty Python.
One sect separated from another while, on the boat to Amerixa, one church leader disabused the other based on what Christ did about washing the feet of his apostles before the "LAst Supper". Wow, now theres a piece of church evolution that resulted in one sect living apart in order to satisfy its ordnung.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know