Poll: Do you believe in the afterlife?

[Jegsimmons]

I don't believe in any kind of afterlife, but I have said that if there was one, I would prefer Reincarnation.

into kiera knightly's panties?

(robot chicken reference)

 

[Jegsimmons]

SNIP-A-DOODLE DOO!!!!

Of course ive made a habit of non smokeing, and if i smoke i broke the habit and replaced it with another. either way it works for me. Healthy lungs, or go around makeing train noises while blowing smoke.

I don't believe in any kind of afterlife, but I have said that if there was one, I would prefer Reincarnation.

into kiera knightly's panties?

(robot chicken reference)

do you understand how references work?

Hold on let me take notes:

enlighten me.

 

[thom_cat_]

well, not quite. You can't imagine what the experience would be like because it would be a lack of experience. A lack of experience is incomprehensible. You can't picture what inexperience would be like because what you "picture" is a subset of something which is experiential.

Well, yeah, but I can still comprehend it. You can't picture it because you don't exist, there is nothing to picture. I can comprehend nothing, but I can't see it. Sure I can see black, but black is something. Black is just what we think "seeing nothing" looks like to us. But we wouldn't be seeing, we wouldn't be being!

Spoiler

Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?

The concept of the "soul" falls along the same lines as the afterlife. There's simply no solid evidence to support its existence.

I won't say there's absolutely no such thing, but evidence within the current scope of human understanding suggests that to be the case.

The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.

A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)

That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.

In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.

Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.

This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?

So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?

To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.

I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.

The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.

But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.

But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.

I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.

Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.

Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.

That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.

Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.

That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.

OK, let me say something slightly different here:

Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.

1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.

Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.

However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...

The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.

(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)

We have evidence of consciousness, we can measure brain function, we can observe other conscious beings, we can feel our own consciousness. We know a fair amount about consciousness, but the brain is really damn complicated.
We can destroy the brain, we can give it disease, we can use parasites, chemicals, even bullets to alter conscience. All affecting the brain. Consciousness is physical, or at least it needs the brain to be manifested. But, even then, the people with altered consciousnesses can express how this feels, after recovering, and it's not like their same consciousness continued and when they recovered they could just express it again. It had gone, it was altered. It is physical.

The way science works is that something needs to have evidence to be "believed in" but there are several definitions of belief, and believing in something because it has enough evidence to support it is one of them, whereas belief with a lack of evidence is another.

as for your:
"Statement 1: I believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 2: I don't believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 3: I don't have a belief about the afterlife."
Statement 1, unfounded, there is no evidence for one, and so there is no reason to follow that course.
Statement 2: There is no evidence to support the afterlife so I reject the idea that there is one.
Statement 3: There is no evidence to support the afterlife, giant invisible masturbating starfish, untouchable and invisible sky demons.. so I'm going to have "no belief" on such things. You can't have no belief, either you do... or you don't. If you're confused about which side you're on you still do not fit into this category, you're just undecided.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: click here to see prior comments for context

... And yes, not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one.

Atheism is not a religious belief... more a lack thereof.

Nope, that's Agnosti...cism. I'm not sure of the word. Agnosticism seems right, Google Chrome seems to think it's a correct spelling at least.

Atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god.

Theism means to believe in something. A-Theism is to NOT believe something. You are talking about Gnostic-Atheism.

That's a rather self-defeating definition though.

NOT believing something is logically equivalent to believing it's opposite.

So if theism means to believe in something. (rather than specifically meaning to believe in the existence of a god or gods), then A-theism, is a nonsensical statement.

the opposite of believing in something after all, is believing in nothing which is still defined by a belief, rather than the absence of one.

Still, what I think you mean to say here is that A-theism is meant in the same sense as a-moral (as opposed to immoral), and a-tonal, and such.

(Which is linguistically amusing when applied to some other common terms. Consider for instance, logical - something which follows logic. illogical - something which does not follow logic. but then... alogical (which I know is not a word, but bear with me) would mean something like... -> having no content to which logic applies.)

Still, if atheism is therefore the complete lack of theism, then nobody who actively asserts the non-existence of god has any business calling themselves an atheist.

I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.

If you and nobody else can explain or understand it, then how do you know about it?

You should be able to answer this one for yourself if you give it a moment's thought. I don't think the specific example given by who spartan231490 is meaningful, but you're asking a much broader question here.

is it possible to know something is true without being able to explain it to another person?

Try explaining to another person what it feels like to be you. For that matter, try something much simpler; explain what an apple tastes like without resorting to analogy with something else.
Or any other subjective experience really.
Explain what your favourite colour is. Explain why you like it better than other, similar colours. Or what it actually looks like to you, and if that's actually the same as what another is seeing or not.

Can you even describe a colour? I can't. I can describe a lot of things about colours, but not what it's actually like to see them.
It only works because the only time I communicate with anyone else about it, they apparently have can see broadly the same range of things I can. - Therefore I can use the objective qualities about what we are seeing to refer to things. But that says nothing whatsoever about what it's actually like, and if we are experiencing the same things.

If I could communicate with a bee for instance, which is capable of seeing ultraviolet light, would it be in any way possible for it to meaningfully describe what it sees?

With technology I can get a picture of the appropriate wavelengths of light. But that is something quite different.

So how can you realistically make the claim that if it can't be explained to another, then it can't be known about?

Quickly, your posts are overlong, and rather cumbersome to read. Just a comment, not a criticism.
Now then, for the first part, it's just semantics really, but atheism is simply not having faith in something merely because we are told to. The word used to represent it may be slightly incorrect or misleading, but that is what it means, at least to me.
Secondly, I can sum my argument up (something it seems you cannot do) with Albert Einstein's quote "If you cannot explain something simply, you do not understand it"

Yes, I will freely admit I find it very difficult to be concise. I've tried at times, but it never seems to work out.

OK, first part... Yes, it's semantics. Probably a bad habit of mine to stick my nose into other people's arguments in that sense. There's just something about watching two people both insisting they're right when clearly it's mostly a matter of how you define your terms.

Secondly... That's an interesting quote I have to say.
The obvious counter though is simply to say, you do not need to understand something to know it exists.
(And at the risk of ruining the brevity, it follows that: The inability to explain something is not proof that it isn't true.)

 

[Twilight_guy]

This belong in religion and politics since it is heavily tied to religion.

I believe in an afterlife because of my religion. I also don't think anyone can prove wither or not their is an afterlife as its not an issue of science.

You need to be open minded, don't believe in something because your religion tells you to. I'm not going to say "STOP YOUR RELIGIONZ" because it'll never work and because free thought should be cherished, but look at these kind of things critically. Also, how isn't it a matter of science?

Did I say that I was a sheep? Did I say I believe this because some guy in a robe told me too? I'm a big boy and old enough to make my own decisions and I have. I'm just so tired of people who come in and tell me I'm wrong for doing something that some organized religion says as if believe anything without doing an experiment on it first is somehow a self destructive act. It's far easier to just say "because of my religion" and let the hate wash over em then to go into a big discussions and inevitably have the same hate for having a religion regardless.

[vent] I hate the numerous staunch atheists around here who are worst then the worst storybook zealots I've ever heard of and its jaded me to topic like this. It's jaded the whole escapist and forced a religion and politics section to be created. Whats worse is whenever somehow comes into these threads yelling "science!" and saying religion is wrong they fail to see that many of scientific concepts they believe in they have never personally looked up data for or done experiments on, they believe based on faith to and are so blind to it. [/vent]

It's not really a matter of science because you can't test it. Murdering someone to test the afterlife is illegal and I think testing on dieing people is frowned on or at least not something science has done. As a matter of fact I haven't heard many scientific theories on the issues at all. It's just not something that lends itself to conducive study and its almost always something address by the more explanatory religion rather then the demonstrative science.

 

[CrystalShadow]

well, not quite. You can't imagine what the experience would be like because it would be a lack of experience. A lack of experience is incomprehensible. You can't picture what inexperience would be like because what you "picture" is a subset of something which is experiential.

Well, yeah, but I can still comprehend it. You can't picture it because you don't exist, there is nothing to picture. I can comprehend nothing, but I can't see it. Sure I can see black, but black is something. Black is just what we think "seeing nothing" looks like to us. But we wouldn't be seeing, we wouldn't be being!

Spoiler

Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?

The concept of the "soul" falls along the same lines as the afterlife. There's simply no solid evidence to support its existence.

I won't say there's absolutely no such thing, but evidence within the current scope of human understanding suggests that to be the case.

The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.

A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)

That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.

In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.

Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.

This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?

So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?

To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.

I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.

The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.

But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.

But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.

I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.

Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.

Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.

That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.

Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.

That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.

OK, let me say something slightly different here:

Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.

1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.

Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.

However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...

The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.

(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)

We have evidence of consciousness, we can measure brain function, we can observe other conscious beings, we can feel our own consciousness. We know a fair amount about consciousness, but the brain is really damn complicated.

OK... This popped up after I'd finished making a response to something else. But let's tackle that too.

I know there is evidence. That was part of my point. Most of it isn't objective evidence though. And much of this is speculation, no matter how much you try and use it to 'prove' a point. Maybe it won't involve quite so much speculation if it were understood better, but as it stands:

-Measurements of brain function - can correlate to certain phenomena, But that presents it's own problems.
-We can feel our own consciousness - Which I already pointed out. But this feeling is entirely subjective, and it's complete and utter speculation to attribute this feeling to anyone other than yourself.
- We know a fair amount about consciousness... Such as? This sounds incredibly optimistic considering the few scientific papers I've read on the subject. What we do know is mostly subjective in nature.

We can destroy the brain, we can give it disease, we can use parasites, chemicals, even bullets to alter conscience.

We can make many alterations, but we cannot destroy consciousness. Not in any way that can be viably tested for.
This should be obvious because the only way we really have of verifying consciousness is asking a person 'are you conscious?' - If they reply, we can assume they are. Otherwise, it's guesswork.

All affecting the brain. Consciousness is physical, or at least it needs the brain to be manifested. But, even then, the people with altered consciousnesses can express how this feels, after recovering, and it's not like their same consciousness continued and when they recovered they could just express it again. It had gone, it was altered. It is physical.

They can express how it feels... sometimes. I can tell probably give you a reasonable account of what it's like to be depressed. But only by relating it to something you yourself have probably experienced. (And even there I'm guessing you might have experienced it.)

This is a qualitative, and completely subjective description, which to me more or less describes what I'm experiencing, but may be interpreted by you into something that depends entirely on your own personal experience, which may not actually overlap with my experience at all.

More significantly, however, I cannot give you any meaningful account of what it's like to be 'unconscious'. Because the experience of being unconscious, is quite different to the observation of another person who I presume to be in that state.

To my personal experience, if I am ever unconscious, it manifests as a discontinuity in reality. That is, I experience it as if the world around me suddenly jumped to a state which cannot logically follow immediately after the previous state.

If I observe another person I presume to be unconscious (as a temporary state; Ie. Someone who is sleeping, rather than someone who is dead.), it appears to me as if they continue to exist the entire time, but are unaware of what happened to them while unconscious.

Anyway, if your 'evidence' in any way depends on your test subject describing to you what is going on, then I would consider it more or less useless. - There is simply no way of knowing what that means without inference to your own experience.

And this inference to personal experience undoubtedly explains why we ascribe consciousness to other humans, yet are reluctant to ascribe it to animals. Or plants. Or inanimate matter.

Is it entirely a product of the brain? Could be. But the actual experience of it feels quite different.
But fundamentally, there are so many qualities associated with perception and consciousness that simply don't have a meaningful explanation.

I can tell you how light behaves, how the eye works... I can make a reasonable guess as to what kinds of information processing the brain performs to allow you to see.

Yet, for all of that, I cannot find any reason why my experience of seeing is how it is.

I see colours, and shapes. Patterns of brightness. Yet this is very strange, and I can't find an explanation for it, nor even any hint of anyone that has a vague idea of how to find an explanation.

It's obvious that given what purpose vision serves, and the objectively measurable physical phenomena involved that my brain would need to organise the information in a certain way.

The key requirements being that I need to know what objects are around me, how they are moving, and where I am in relation to them.
I also need to know the boundaries of what constitutes one object, and what another.

Since for whatever reason I appear to have the ability to move along three independent axes which do not overlap in any way, it makes sense to model whatever sensory input I am getting that way as well.

The physics involved mean I am primarily detecting the amount of light reflecting off of a surface, and splitting this up into seperate wavelengths tells me additional information about the properties of a surface.

Yet the end result of this only tells me that the resulting model should involve the idea of distinct objects which move along 3 mathematically independent axes, some reference to what object or collection of objects can be considered 'me', and some measure of what the properties of the surface at any given point are.

That's all well and good, and it makes sense of several aspects of how I see the world. But it fails to say anything about the parts that have to most influence on the actual experience.

There is no reason why I should see colours the way I do. The only requirement being that I can make a distinction at all between various combinations of differing wavelengths of light.

Worse still, if I go out in the sun, I can feel infrared radiation. Physics tells me this is a wavelength of light. Yet my body is telling me this is a fundamentally different kind of experience to the wavelengths of visible light.
And there's no reason why this should be the case.
Furthermore, sound, while having different physical characteristics, is used by the brain for rather similar purposes to vision.
Much of the same logic applies.
I need the ability to discern the origin point of a sound, and the frequency characteristics. (Just as vision tells helps me determine the frequency characteristics of a light wave, and it's origin - roughly speaking anyway.)
Given the incredibly similar functional purpose between these two sensory inputs, that they have such a vastly different feel to them strikes me as incredibly odd.

I'd love there to be an answer to this, but I haven't seen anyone even so much as suggest a way to figure out questions like these.

So... let's do a quick thought experiment.

Find an apple, and describe what it looks like. I'm sure you can give me a fair description of it's shape, and colour, and it's size. (Using other senses you could also tell me how heavy it is, what it smells like, it's texture, it's temperature, and it's taste.)
Yet, can you describe to me, what 'red' is, in a way that tells me anything about what you are actually experiencing.
If I ask you to describe what something 'hot' feels like, can you do so without reference to temperature, or a comparison to what the feeling of 'cold' is like?
Can you in fact tell me anything at all about your experiences that aren't entirely dependent on me already knowing what it feels like? (Or at least knowing what something else which to you feels similar is like?)

That is what I'm getting at, because it's those aspects of consciousness that don't seem to bear any meaningful logical correlation to either information processing requirements, or physical structural considerations in the brain.

That is what I personally mean when I say consciousness isn't physical. I don't mean to say it can exist independently of the brain (or some alternate physical structure), but rather that what it is to be conscious doesn't seem to be meaningfully described by anything other than consciousness itself.
Ergo. Consciousness isn't a physical thing, any more than the information contained in a book is the physical book itself.

It is entirely defined by the physical object that contains it, yet it is not the object. It is, for a lack of a better way of describing it, an independent thing. It needs some physical object to be recorded upon, yet you can study this object forever and gain no understanding of it's content.

The way science works is that something needs to have evidence to be "believed in" but there are several definitions of belief, and believing in something because it has enough evidence to support it is one of them, whereas belief with a lack of evidence is another.

Science is a particular subset of evidence based systems. There are quite a few more than aren't science, yet still have some basis in evidence of one kind or another.

That you would classify the options as 'believed in because there is evidence', and 'believed in with lack of evidence.', when many belief systems, contain a mixture of both, is a little... Careless is about all I can think of to describe it.

Intellectually lazy might be another. But that's being a little unkind considering the nature of the forum we are discussing this matter in.

Point is, I find the perspective you're using flawed.
In particular, I find the assertion that if something has no evidence supporting it does not exist, to be blunt, idiotic.

Something which is contradicted by evidence is clearly wrong.
Something which is supported by evidence is probably (but not guaranteed) to be correct.

But something which is neither supported or contradicted by any evidence is neither true nor false until proven otherwise.

To say anything else is stupid.

as for your:
"Statement 1: I believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 2: I don't believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 3: I don't have a belief about the afterlife."
Statement 1, unfounded, there is no evidence for one, and so there is no reason to follow that course.
Statement 2: There is no evidence to support the afterlife so I reject the idea that there is one.
Statement 3: There is no evidence to support the afterlife, giant invisible masturbating starfish, untouchable and invisible sky demons.. so I'm going to have "no belief" on such things. You can't have no belief, either you do... or you don't. If you're confused about which side you're on you still do not fit into this category, you're just undecided.

Ah, and here we see it. Clear as day, in your response.

Let's see
Of your responses
Statement 1: "unfounded" - irrelevant, and for you to say so misses the point entirely. This isn't a statement about truth, this is a statement about belief. Saying there is no reason to follow that course is a close-minded attitude of someone who can't be bothered to look past their own belief system, nor question it's validity.

Statement 2: Again, injecting your personal beliefs, which are irrelevant to the point at hand, which is about what beliefs it is possible to hold. NOT which beliefs are valid (by whatever criteria you want to use to judge such things.)

Statement 3: That's pure, 100% unmitigated bullshit! There is always the option of saying "I don't know". Being undecided is a valid position to take, and is identical to having 'no position'.

Does Alpha Centauri have any planets around it? No idea. Ask me again when you can show me something that influences me either way.

I mean, seriously, you call it undecided? But what exactly does it mean to be undecided? It means you don't think you have enough information to make a decision about which option is correct!
So, you first claim it's impossible to take such a position, then say it isn't.


There is no valid position until there is at least some evidence. That you would think the default is "doesn't exist", rather than "unknown", explains a lot.
But as if that isn't bad enough, you then have the rather ridiculous notion that "unknown" is not even a valid answer to a question for which verifiable evidence basically doesn't exist.

Which is crazier?
Insisting you know the answer to something?
Or admitting that, in fact, you don't?

If you've got evidence, use it. If you don't, don't go around pretending your dogmatic nonsensical answers are any better than the dogmatic nonsensical answers given out by those with differing belief systems.


-------------

Oh wow. There's long, and there's long.

Anyway, mostly a rant about consciousness, and whether or not it can be meaningfully proven.
Whatever. I'm fed up with dealing with this kind of single-minded dogmatic reasoning for now.

If I could write this down any more concisely, I would have. So read it. Or don't. I'm too exhausted by it to care.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: click here to see prior comments for context

... And yes, not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one.

Atheism is not a religious belief... more a lack thereof.

Nope, that's Agnosti...cism. I'm not sure of the word. Agnosticism seems right, Google Chrome seems to think it's a correct spelling at least.

Atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god.

Theism means to believe in something. A-Theism is to NOT believe something. You are talking about Gnostic-Atheism.

That's a rather self-defeating definition though.

NOT believing something is logically equivalent to believing it's opposite.

So if theism means to believe in something. (rather than specifically meaning to believe in the existence of a god or gods), then A-theism, is a nonsensical statement.

the opposite of believing in something after all, is believing in nothing which is still defined by a belief, rather than the absence of one.

Still, what I think you mean to say here is that A-theism is meant in the same sense as a-moral (as opposed to immoral), and a-tonal, and such.

(Which is linguistically amusing when applied to some other common terms. Consider for instance, logical - something which follows logic. illogical - something which does not follow logic. but then... alogical (which I know is not a word, but bear with me) would mean something like... -> having no content to which logic applies.)

Still, if atheism is therefore the complete lack of theism, then nobody who actively asserts the non-existence of god has any business calling themselves an atheist.

I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.

If you and nobody else can explain or understand it, then how do you know about it?

You should be able to answer this one for yourself if you give it a moment's thought. I don't think the specific example given by who spartan231490 is meaningful, but you're asking a much broader question here.

is it possible to know something is true without being able to explain it to another person?

Try explaining to another person what it feels like to be you. For that matter, try something much simpler; explain what an apple tastes like without resorting to analogy with something else.
Or any other subjective experience really.
Explain what your favourite colour is. Explain why you like it better than other, similar colours. Or what it actually looks like to you, and if that's actually the same as what another is seeing or not.

Can you even describe a colour? I can't. I can describe a lot of things about colours, but not what it's actually like to see them.
It only works because the only time I communicate with anyone else about it, they apparently have can see broadly the same range of things I can. - Therefore I can use the objective qualities about what we are seeing to refer to things. But that says nothing whatsoever about what it's actually like, and if we are experiencing the same things.

If I could communicate with a bee for instance, which is capable of seeing ultraviolet light, would it be in any way possible for it to meaningfully describe what it sees?

With technology I can get a picture of the appropriate wavelengths of light. But that is something quite different.

So how can you realistically make the claim that if it can't be explained to another, then it can't be known about?

Quickly, your posts are overlong, and rather cumbersome to read. Just a comment, not a criticism.
Now then, for the first part, it's just semantics really, but atheism is simply not having faith in something merely because we are told to. The word used to represent it may be slightly incorrect or misleading, but that is what it means, at least to me.
Secondly, I can sum my argument up (something it seems you cannot do) with Albert Einstein's quote "If you cannot explain something simply, you do not understand it"

Yes, I will freely admit I find it very difficult to be concise. I've tried at times, but it never seems to work out.

OK, first part... Yes, it's semantics. Probably a bad habit of mine to stick my nose into other people's arguments in that sense. There's just something about watching two people both insisting they're right when clearly it's mostly a matter of how you define your terms.

Secondly... That's an interesting quote I have to say.
The obvious counter though is simply to say, you do not need to understand something to know it exists.
(And at the risk of ruining the brevity, it follows that: The inability to explain something is not proof that it isn't true.)

It's all right You did quite well here.
The thing is (second point) that many people cannot explain why lightning happens, or even it's nature. But they know that exists because they can see it, feel it. Eventually we were able to discover the cause of lightning, we understand it. With the afterlife, no such evidence to it's existance...well, exists. The only reason that people believe it exists is out of fear. Fear of nothingness, oblivion. We cannot explain or understand the afterlife as it is non-existant. Any attempts to try and understand this feeling that the afterlife exists are, in short, epic fails (see the bible).

Well, I would say there's a second reason. Fear is a good one, but personally things which cannot be explained drive me somewhat insane.

Case in point, the after-life is a strange question, but the 'before-life' is equally strange.

My problem is that the idea that there is an afterlife makes no sense, but the idea that there isn't makes no sense either.

I sometimes think I expect standards of evidence that are simply impossible. Which leads me to for instance question something like this: "We cannot explain or understand the afterlife as it is non-existant.", which to me is an unjustifiable statement, insofar as the complete lack of evidence for something to me, makes drawing conclusions of any kind unwarranted.

The evidence for the afterlife, such as it is, can be found in the evidence for existence itself. I have never not existed. You may well argue otherwise, but your argument is based on a fundamentally different quality of evidence to the assertion I'm making here.

My point is not about some objective measure of existence and non-existence, but rather the experience of it.

Non-existence isn't something I can experience, therefore I haven't. What I have experienced, is discontinuities in the supposed 'objective reality' I am part of.

It's called sleep.

If I go by this evidence, then yes, one possible conclusion I can reach is that I temporarily did not exist, but that the reality in which I find myself did.


But the other, equally probable (in that there is no way I can perform any test that will be able to tell my any more information about which concept is valid and which is not) interpretation of the available evidence is that my experience is continuous and unbroken, but that the 'reality' I seem to be experiencing contained a discontinuity equal to the effects of skipping the amount of time I was supposedly asleep.

This tells me precisely nothing whatsoever about the existence of an afterlife, but it does tell me that assuming any particular interpretation of the available evidence is the one and only correct one is not something I want to take for granted.

 

[thom_cat_]

snip

When a post doesn't even fit on a screen you know you've gone wrong.
CONDENSE YOUR IDEAS. GEEZ.

How we experience feelings and colour, and anything else does not matter. It's an interpretation of the brain. We KNOW this. There are people that can feel in colour, and taste sound. It's called Synesthesia.

If I'm understanding your essay correctly (I doubt it) I think your argument is that consciousness needs the brain to express itself or to be translated to reality by us. But I have countered this point by saying that people can alter their experiences via altering their brain, and their conscience changes. This must mean that the conscience is dependent on the brain, it does not continue to exist once the brain has been compromised. We can remove parts of people's conscience by giving them lobotomies and such; it can be altered with disease and when a person recovers they will not have had that same conscience the whole time. Maybe you're saying the brain is the recording device for conscience? Well then, what would conscience be without it? We are useless without memory, without awareness of our existence. I have more points, but I have 3 minutes before I have to go so I'll try to get your others.

"But something which is neither supported or contradicted by any evidence is neither true nor false until proven otherwise."
No. Innocent until proven guilty. We do not assume something is correct until we have evidence so we assume the negative. We assume invisible unicorns do not exist, we don't say that it's neither true or false, we say that they don't until evidence is provided.

"Which is crazier?
Insisting you know the answer to something?
Or admitting that, in fact, you don't?

If you've got evidence, use it. If you don't, don't go around pretending your dogmatic nonsensical answers are any better than the dogmatic nonsensical answers given out by those with differing belief systems."

I don't know, but we only have no evidence to say that the mind is not physical, and there is no reason to believe that it isn't. The person making the claim must provide the evidence. It's of burden of proof. It's all burden of proof.

As for "Science is a particular subset of evidence based systems. There are quite a few more than aren't science, yet still have some basis in evidence of one kind or another." science is the best and most reliable system. And the system that we use.
anyway, gtg!

 

[FamoFunk]

Nope.
Once you're dead, you're dead. I don't believe nothing happens to us, and that's it, life is over.

 

[loc978]

Spoiler: snipped it all, because... goddamn...

Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?

The concept of the "soul" falls along the same lines as the afterlife. There's simply no solid evidence to support its existence.

I won't say there's absolutely no such thing, but evidence within the current scope of human understanding suggests that to be the case.

The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.

A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)

That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.

In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.

Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.

This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?

So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?

To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.

I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.

The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.

But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.

But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.

I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.

Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.

Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.

That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.

Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.

That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.

OK, let me say something slightly different here:

Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.

1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.

Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.

However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...

The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.

(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)

Honestly, I found most of that to be talking in existentialist circles. I can't prove to you that I'm not just a robot in a world built around you for the purpose of a sick experiment carried out by an omnipotent being... but assuming that isn't the nature of the world is reasonable because you have objective proof to the contrary (or at least you would if you dissected me... I suppose that's actually a bad *beep* example).

About the only issue brought up that I can address without the condescension I have just displayed (so, to answer your question: yes, as far as I'm concerned, objective measurement is the only standard of evidence I accept) is that of the burden of proof.
People generally accept the idea of consciousness being a product of brain activity due to many studies of this subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience]. Individual consciousness is not an easy thing to explain, and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but what I've read on in makes a hell of a lot more sense than the spiritualist explanations I've received.

 

[Yopaz]

No, I do not. I think that all ideas of afterlife and reincarnation is just a method of coping with death and to not be as scared of it. It's also a way to make us act in a way to please the higher power in order to get the benefits of it. Going to heaven or achieving nirvana are all reasons to live a good life. It's also been a method for church officials to gain big loads of cash.
I believe in living a good life and being nice to people for the sake of a good life, not for a good afterlife.

 

[4RM3D]

*snip*

Wow! I went to bed, woke up, looked at this thread and it has exploded. You have written so much and quite -what is the correct term- abstract? high level? Anyhow, it will take some time for me to process everything you have said. It has been an interesting read so far.

There are probably a lot things I want to ask/say, but my mind has flooded. So, let me start with the things I can remember.

First of all about the example of describing colors. There has been a lot of research into human words and though no definite conclusion can be made, I can still infer from it that (thinking in) words is what's holding us back. Somethings just can not be scribed with (in?) words. An interesting technology would be if you could talk telepathically. Would you be able to convey emotions, images? That would be something.

Anyhow, an interesting example about the research into words.

Experiments have found that whether or not you can register a color depends on whether or not you have a name for it in your language. You can see the color, it just doesn't register in your mind.

One study compared some young children from England with kids from a tribe in Nambia. In the English language, young kids usually learn 11 basic colors (black, white, gray, red, green, blue, yellow, pink, orange, purple and brown) but in Himba it's only five. For instance, they lump red, orange and pink together and call it "serandu."

If you showed the Himba toddler a pink card and then later showed him a red one and ask if they're the same card, the kid would often mistakenly say yes -- because they're both "serandu." If you hold up a pink card and a red card next to each other, the English kid and Himba kid both would say they're different. But not when they see them one at a time.

And I think the above also works for describing consciousness.

And secondly (and lastly for now) about believing and not believing and mutually exclusivity.
One religion says there is one God, another religion says there are more Gods. They can't both be right? It's mutually exclusive. Same with some religions believing Jezus and God are the same person, while others believe Jezus was His son.

I just thought of that when reading your story. I wonder how that works? Because it doesn't seem to impact religious people.

EDIT: Oh and I just remembered something else. Who are you? What do you do for a living? Because you seem well educated and very knowledgeable about the subject. I am just curious.

 

[dvd_72]

It happens after you die lol, if it happened before we would describe that as a total failure of the immune system and you it wouldn't be long until you died under such circumstances anyway, so I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with that first question my friend =p

I'm saying any 'energy' you have, is the various physical and chemical processes that we all perform uncountable times a day, and when these processes stop, the raw materials of your body are consumed and ultimately recycled into the world(for the most part anyway).

The soul is a thing I personally take no stock in, it's got too many religious connotations for my liking, but what I think of when people talk of it is creativity and consciousness, and these are higher brain functions, unique to us. Now does our brain have some kind of capacity to experience death in some way that's unique to us? Well that's an impossible question, but interestingly(and I think you'll like this), it is believed that our brains, just before death, release large amounts of a drug called DMT, which is the most powerful hallucinogenic we know of. Personally, since the trip is one I'm going to be taking anyway, I must admit I'm morbidly curious to find out if that's true or not =p

I can agree that I could do without the regegious connotations of the word "soul", and you've grasped exactly what I mean when I reffer to it.

I would have to disagree that creativity and conciousness are simply higher brainfunctions. The first inkling of it being something more is how, in quantum mechanics, when a quantum system is observed by a concious entity its very state and nature are changed. This isn't as you may think, a result of the measuring device interfering with the system, but an actual inherent property of systems at a quantum level. (See youngs double slit experiment for a good example). Sadly, this is the only suggestion I know of that the conciousness is something more than electrical impulses in the brain, and hence it's an uncertain thing. I wont claim it as fact, and I will happily review my opinion if I hear more convincing evidence otherwise, but it's what I believe and is a comforting thought.

Now, that is an interesting fact. A powerfull hallucinogenic? I wonder if it's released when people have near death experiences too? And assuming the sould does exist and there is an afterlife for the purpouse of this question, could that mean that hallucenogenics are a way for us to break our conciousness away from our physical bodies for a time? Maybe loosen its connection? Who knows, but it sure is fun to think about. I must say that I to will be looking forward to this "trip" (in every sense of the word ) for curiosities sake.

 

[Merkavar]

i kind of think its a bit egotistic to think that we get an after life. live here for 40-100 years and then die and then life on for eternity? why not just skip the first part?