Poll: Poll: Do you believe in an afterlife?

[Spook187]

Well if it is true,that's me knackered,god waiting for me with a credit card bill and saying why didn't you pay your council tax on time,tut tut,to hell with you and join Kwerk

 

[crinkleshoes]

Despite the discussions, I'm quite happy about the ratio displayed in the poll.

I like browsing OCUK because it's populated with mostly intelligent people and feel the voting poll reflects that

 

[crinkleshoes]

Well if it is true,that's me knackered,god waiting for me with a credit card bill and saying why didn't you pay your council tax on time,tut tut,to hell with you and join Kwerk

Haha

I'd like to think if there were such a being, their intelligence and knowledge would be all encompassing.

This old testament idea of a vengeful god is ludicrous... Such a being would never make time for such childish emotions.

Such a being would also not care about worship, only the actions during your life should such be "entrance criteria".

In reality, if any of this were true (almost sounds like an oxymoron of a sentence)... There would be no entry criteria at all, every one would get their own personalised environment so even those deemed "evil" could have their slice of happiness etc.

Especially after all... One mans evil is another's freedom fighter.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I don't see how they can be linked together?

Of course everyone is free to make their own choice, doesn't mean they're not mentally handicapped.

I stand by my statement that anyone who believes in any way a continued conciousness in the way were currently experience it. Heaven/Hell... These people deserve to be laughed at.

Mentally handicapped just because they believe something different from you? That's a bit egocentric if nothing else.

Science has shown how the brain behaves as it dies... Mis-firing all over the place, explaining near death experiences. It has also shown how it dies in bits... So to sustain a solid conciousness is not physically possible.

We emit photons as we decompose, so a part of us continues on as light. This could certainly not be considered a conciousness, nor could it truly be considered an after"life" as it's not live-able... It's purely after life, which is the post-death time none of us get to experience.

You're making assumptions here based on what we "know" as the physical rules that govern the universe - what if there are mechanisms at work that don't follow the known rules?

Believe in whatever you want but it would be nice to show the courtesy to allow others to do the same.

And yet you still dispute that a theory is more reasonable than imagination?

Theories may be perfectly reasonable but that doesn't always mean they are correct. If you believe there is such a thing as absolute truth (and not just relative truth based on the observers position) then it might be that none of what we have thought up to explain the world around us are true in an absolute sense. The question then becomes - does this really matter? It does only if you are relying on the explanation to provide the truth rather than using it as a tool which has predictive accuracy for the world around us based on observations.

 

[Castiel]

And yet you still dispute that a theory is more reasonable than imagination?

I have never disputed anything of the kind......I dispute your Position that your theory is innately superior to anyone else's and that anyone who doesn't hold a similar position to you is a moron or that Science has proven one position over another.

Afterlife theory and any philosophy and subjective experiences that support such a theory are simply another theory to be considered.

I suppose that Dr Melvin Morse and Dr Kenneth Ring among others are all morons by your definition of the term.

The truth is that Scientists and Sceptics (of which I am one) cannot decide themselves, either what NDEs are, or whether they and other phenomena prove or disprove an afterlife of some description.

Agree with their conclusions or not, you cannot definively say either way and because you can't, you also cannot judge those that express an opinion either way. Ultimately we are all in the same boat, we do not know.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Mentally handicapped just because they believe something different from you? That's a bit egocentric if nothing else.



You're making assumptions here based on what we "know" as the physical rules that govern the universe - what if there are mechanisms at work that don't follow the known rules?

Believe in whatever you want but it would be nice to show the courtesy to allow others to do the same.

I do and only offer my opinions when they are warranted,much as discussions like this... I do not force my opinions on others, only tell them why theirs are stupid... If they're opinion isn't swayed... Good for them! I genuinely wish I could be like that, I would live a happier life.

The only point to our existence is to pro-create / continue the species... Nothing more & the majority of this specifies I vehemently detest.

This realisation leads you in to a very deep depression, which I would be glad to be free of... Sadly I cannot without a head injury.

You do appear to be trying to quash my opinions with your statement above in the same way you seem to interpret I am doing to others... I am not, but still have right to express my opinions with whatever fervour I choose.

If I choose to "believe" certain people with certain opinions are morons, that's up to me... In real life I will actively avoid them as I don't even wish to have a verbal exchange sometimes if I can avoid it.

Theories may be perfectly reasonable but that doesn't always mean they are correct. If you believe there is such a thing as absolute truth (and not just relative truth based on the observers position) then it might be that none of what we have thought up to explain the world around us are true in an absolute sense. The question then becomes - does this really matter? It does only if you are relying on the explanation to provide the truth rather than using it as a tool which has predictive accuracy for the world around us based on observations.

And thats exactly what I was illuding to above... I know the current standard model of physics is wrong, I just haven't figured out an improvement to it yet. It's still a much more appropriate approximation than a story tale.

It does matter, because it leaves life with no real meaning.

 

[crinkleshoes]

I have never disputed anything of the kind......I dispute your Position that your theory is innately superior to anyone else's and that anyone who doesn't hold a similar position to you is a moron or that Science has proven one position over another.

Afterlife theory and any philosophy and subjective experiences that support such a theory are simply another theory to be considered.

I suppose that Dr Melvin Morse and Dr Kenneth Ring among others are all morons by your definition of the term.

The truth is that Scientists and Sceptics (of which I am one) cannot decide themselves, either what NDEs are, or whether they and other phenomena prove or disprove an afterlife of some description.

Agree with their conclusions or not, you cannot definively say either way and because you can't, you also cannot judge those that express an opinion either way. Ultimately we are all in the same boat, we do not know.

I have never stated proven... More accurate/reasonable is my choice of words and they have notably different connotations.

Heck, the standard model isn't "proven".

I have my ideas of what it could be like (expressed above), despite my ideas... I find it interesting to contemplate.

 

[Nitefly]

Genuinely amused here that someone could think they are intellectually superior over a question of absolutely no practical significance.

You might as well be picking your favourite colour.

 

[Castiel]

I have never stated proven... More accurate/reasonable is my choice of words and they have notably different connotations.

Heck, the standard model isn't "proven".

Which contradicts your 'moron' statement and your stated reasons for making it.

However, as any discussion is largely subjective it is difficult to attribute accuracy or veracity to any given theory or opinon on such a subject......

I have my ideas of what it could be like (expressed above), despite my ideas... I find it interesting to contemplate.

Which is entirely reasonable, and equally applies those who either have their own ideas or disagree with yours.

It certainly doesn't make them morons.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Which contradicts your 'moron' statement and your stated reasons for making it.

However, as any discussion is largely subjective it is difficult to attribute accuracy or veracity to any given theory or opinon on such a subject......

No it doesn't... how you reach a conclusion is far more important than the conclusion that's drawn, with regard to intelligence.

To reach a conclusion that a story book designed to control the masses and prey on their fear (yes, I'm referring to organised religion again)... is moronic.

To reach a reasoned conclusion is not.

Which is entirely reasonable, and equally applies those who either have their own ideas or disagree with yours.

It certainly doesn't make them morons.

Do you think I'm calling you a moron or something? Is that why you're being so defensive? I wouldn't be replying if I couldn't be bothered...

To reach the conclusion that what any organised religion (aka cult - they all are, despite what their "profits" preeched) is pilfering is accurate... is moronic, these people deserve ridicule. Despite that I believe I know the reasoning behind their belief - fear of death and of the unknown.

To research and/or structure your own beliefs is not... whatever they may be.

I once had a fantastic lengthy conversation with a bishop at a dinner party... but then even he questioned both his own faith & the organisation he was a part of.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I do and only offer my opinions when they are warranted,much as discussions like this... I do not force my opinions on others, only tell them why theirs are stupid... If they're opinion isn't swayed... Good for them! I genuinely wish I could be like that, I would live a happier life.

You're calling people mentally handicapped, stupid or implying that they must have received head injuries to explain their beliefs - I'm not convinced that isn't effectively forcing your opinion onto them through condemnation e.g. if they want your approval they'll drop their daft beliefs.

The only point to our existence is to pro-create / continue the species... Nothing more & the majority of this specifies I vehemently detest.

This realisation leads you in to a very deep depression, which I would be glad to be free of... Sadly I cannot without a head injury.

I think there's a certainty in your statement that isn't necessarily provable so it's a position of faith - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but it's worthwhile recognising it for what it is.

You do appear to be trying to quash my opinions with your statement above in the same way you seem to interpret I am doing to others... I am not, but still have right to express my opinions with whatever fervour I choose.

If I choose to "believe" certain people with certain opinions are morons, that's up to me... In real life I will actively avoid them as I don't even wish to have a verbal exchange sometimes if I can avoid it.

Of course you can believe anything you want to, I'm not quashing your opinions or anything even approaching it. I am simply questioning your certainty regarding how the world operates and what mechanisms we use or should use to explain it.

And thats exactly what I was illuding to above... I know the current standard model of physics is wrong, I just haven't figured out an improvement to it yet. It's still a much more appropriate approximation than a story tale.

It does matter, because it leaves life with no real meaning.

Surely it depends what you want from it - science is fantastically useful, without it we couldn't even be having this debate (ok, there are probably better examples but still...) however it is not designed to give absolute truth should such a thing even exist. Science does have limitations and a certain "realm" within which it can be said to be the best tool available, beyond that is an extrapolation with all the dangers implicit in that.

 

[Freefaller]

I think you'll find I made an argument then topped it off with an insult, standard procedure for the Internet. I gather it's the same to assume that no one would consider you a man of honour in the real life.

The offending word has been removed from my post so you can dismount that horse of yours.

EDIT: this is not an insult, just thinking out loud.

After years of moderating this forum I still find it a force of habit to pick up on people breaking the rules. If you don't like it, leave. I'm sure you call people all sorts of things to their faces, however, on here, and around us, you don't. Simple really.

You haven't seen me ride my horse, don't push me.

 

[Sefirosu]

Genuinely amused here that someone could think they are intellectually superior over a question of absolutely no practical significance.

You might as well be picking your favourite colour.

If there's a hell then there's nothing of more practical importance.

 

[crinkleshoes]

You're calling people mentally handicapped, stupid or implying that they must have received head injuries to explain their beliefs - I'm not convinced that isn't effectively forcing your opinion onto them.

They have the option to ignore me & I'm not preeching on a street corner etc

I was stating that I would need to suffer a head injury to believe...

I think there's a certainty in your statement that isn't necessarily provable so it's a position of faith - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but it's worthwhile recognising it for what it is.

Oh yes, I'm long gone & it would be nothing short of physical proof or a head injury that would sway my "belief".

However, I believe I have followed a more reasonable approach to reach my conclusion.

I, genuinely, would like to have the capability to believe.

It's still not a "certainty" though - that would be a 100% belief with no doubt & there is still doubt present.

Surely it depends what you want from it - science is fantastically useful, without it we couldn't even be having this debate (ok, there are probably better examples but still...) however it is not designed to give absolute truth should such a thing even exist. Science does have limitations and a certain "realm" within which it can be said to be the best tool available, beyond that is an extrapolation with all the dangers implicit in that.

That suggests that such a thing as infinity exists.

It does not, in fact - it effectively breaks mathematics. But then I also think we're going to need a new version of maths to express the way the universe truly behaves. I was once very interested in dark matter & dark energy - turns out these are just silly pseudonyms for forces we don't yet comprehend. I have my own ideas... they're just too convoluted to express in the appropriate context.

There are finite limits & so there will, eventually, be a way to measure everything. Whether this species can develop that far, is an entirely different question and something I don't hold out much hope for.

 

[Gerard]

Would be nice but i really think when the lights go out, thats it

 

[Castiel]

No it doesn't... how you reach a conclusion is far more important than the conclusion that's drawn, with regard to intelligence.

To reach a conclusion that a story book designed to control the masses and prey on their fear (yes, I'm referring to organised religion again)... is moronic.

To reach a reasoned conclusion is not.

Yet how can you attribute any given conclusion as not being reasoned is the problem.....you called everyone who holds a positive opinion on an afterlife as being a moron......you are making assumptions on how they have reached those conclusions.

You have expressed your position as certainty while dismissing other opposing positions as moronic because of that certainty....one which you have suggested is supported by science.....which it has been demonstrated it doesn't.

In fact given your recent statements to SPW, you adhere to a faith position comparable to any expressed in this thread, the only difference are your initial assumptions.

Do you think I'm calling you a moron or something? Is that why you're being so defensive? I wouldn't be replying if I couldn't be bothered...

Am I being defensive, I would think it is the other way around to be honest....My position isn't being questioned, yours is.

I am simply disagreeing with your attitude and statements......I hold no more belief in an afterlife as any sceptic so any accusation you imply with regard my position on an afterlife is unfounded.

To reach the conclusion that what any organised religion (aka cult - they all are, despite what their "profits" preeched) is pilfering is accurate... is moronic, these people deserve ridicule. Despite that I believe I know the reasoning behind their belief - fear of death and of the unknown.

You are aware that we are not actually discussing organised religion....

To research and/or structure your own beliefs is not... whatever they may be.

Contradictory. You are merely repeating what I, and others have said to you and attempting to extricate yourself from your original statements. You have clearly stated that people who hold a positive opinion on an afterlife are mentally handicapped, stupid and so on.....

I once had a fantastic lengthy conversation with a bishop at a dinner party... but then even he questioned both his own faith & the organisation he was a part of.

I doubt anything you said had anything to do with that....in my experience people question their faith and the church or belief structure they belong to on a regular basis......it is a natural thing for anyone to do.

 

[crinkleshoes]

You're twisting my words again - yey

 

[Castiel]

You're twisting my words again - yey

Explain how?

Whenever I hear this I generally find the reason for the accusation is that the accuser has run out of valid arguments to support their position....A fall back position of attack the poster rather than counter the post.

An easy way out, so to speak.

That suggests that such a thing as infinity exists.

It does not, in fact - it effectively breaks mathematics.

Infinity breaks mathematics?

I'm not a mathematician so maybe you provide the mathematical proofs and the evidence that support this statement as I was under the impression that infinity was a mathematical concept widely applicable to mathematics and theoretical physics in particular.

 

[mushroomsoup]

Yes, I've been there twice . With the proper degree of preperation, knowlage, abstinense and meditation you you don't necessarily need to be dead to go there. When your body dies that the 'being' (not the self) part of you just joins to everything else that 'is'. Its all to do with grammar and consiousness really. All religions basically boil down to it once you get past all the unfortunately human social structures that inevitable grow around them and corrupt them into something unrecognisable.

 

[The Halk]

If people have faith (belief without reason) in an afterlife then by common sense you're not going to argue them out of that belief, because you can't use reason to get someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.

It's the same as the pointless arguments that people have with Dawkins etc. There is exactly a 0% chance of someone with faith changing their opinion. The only benefit in those types of debates are for the debate itself - for example the fun of a smackdown against some religious troll who comes across as laughably stupid, or an atheist (who by definition is a faith based position) who comes across as a bitter idiot.