Description of Afterlife?
- Thread starter ispy
- Start date
Miss the point much Bhavv
......the evidence doesn't need to be positive or even conclusive...it only needs to be relevant when assigning a value. I don't think you actually understand the conversation at hand Bhavv. Maybe someone else can explain it in terms you might understand. Anyway, as I said to M4rk, I have other things to do today. Have a good weekend.
Yet you have still provided zero valid scientific evidence, but carry on believing that science agrees with your position. I never once claimed it needs to be positive or conclusive, but merely that it needs to follow the scientific method of an aim, hypothesis, method, results, conclusion, but here's the thing, you havnt even provided any negative or inconclusive evidence that follows the basic scientific structure. None of your arguments or sources are taken from anything put through any kind of scientific test.
Last edited:
This just further illustrates you do not understand what I am saying to any degree. I have offered both positive and negative positions, Dannat and Penrose being negative positions to begin with, others being neutral positions, some being positive, if you looked up any of the references I gave you would realise that....the point I was trying to convey is that there are various alternative propositions to the standard ones often professed by religion and many have nothing to do with the supernatural or God, and offer an alternative view from the purely reductionist one.
As for my position, it is one of agnosticism on the subject of an afterlife, I am largely ambivalent about it, it doesn't impact the way in which I objectively live my life and I am of the opinion that it is something we will all discover eventually (or not depending on your point of view). As Science is also agnostic on the subject, you could say that my position is supported by science, although it would be more accurate to say that neither myself or Science has come to any conclusions regarding the afterlife or even whether there is a testable definition of such a concept.
I don't care about your position, merely the fact that you claim you have support from science when you absolutely don't. Why are you being so purposefully obtuse?
Your position is entirely based on mythology and theology only, everything you have said here has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Funny that your buddy rainmaker picked on me for talking about science in this thread yet you are the person here incorrectly referring to it as support for your theological ideas.
Your position is entirely based on mythology and theology only, everything you have said here has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Funny that your buddy rainmaker picked on me for talking about science in this thread yet you are the person here incorrectly referring to it as support for your theological ideas.
Last edited:
I haven't made that claim, you have.
My position is one of agnosticism, by definition it has no basis in any particular defined idea of an afterlife....the views I have referenced are not all supernatural in nature, in fact they are predominantly naturalistic and based on ideas derived from various scientific hypotheses such as Psychology and Physics. Rainmaker is approaching the subject from a different perspective and context than I....the point is Bhavv is that ideas of an afterlife do not necessarily have to be based on mythology, mysticism or theology, but also naturalism. The problem is one of your lack of understanding, not one of my misrepresenting anything.
You seem to want to make this about me rather than the actual topic itself and therefore it is futile attempting to discuss this with you any further.
Last edited:
I haven't made that claim, you have.
Oh right, so I purely imagined all your links and arguments based on several scientists working in the area of mind and cognition separation, and NDEs, as well as your referrences to neurology and cognitive science just a few posts up.
I would try to articulate how uncomfortable I am with your position however I think this Bertrand Russell quote does a far better job.
Good grief... These threads always end up the same way. Castiel does not have particular beliefs he is expounding. He doesn't have a dogma or doctrine. He has no holy book to propound or defend. He's simply trying, as are some others, to say "Look, here's what the world thinks. Science may say this, philosophy that, religion another. Let's compare and discuss their commonalities and differences."
Reply from bhavv et al. "OMGWTFROFLCOPTER it's not science God is false, death is death!"
Everyone else, "Um, yeah we're not saying otherwise we're just discussing various attitudes and opinions. What does everyone else think?"
bhavv et al.: "OMGWTFROFLCOPTER it's not science!!!eleven!"
Repeat ad nauseum. It's a shame because it's ~300 posts that could have been spent having a wonderful discussion and learning so much about the way people look at their world. Instead it's assassinate Castiel's character day, with a bit of blind rhetoric thrown in. It's ironic that the very people who profess to be anti-religion tend to be those who are most militantly fundamental in their beliefs.
Years ago an old Tibetan monk told me that we tend to hate people who display traits we secretly dislike about ourselves. I'm starting to think he had a point. Have a great weekend Castiel, I'll look forward to that email if you have chance.
Reply from bhavv et al. "OMGWTFROFLCOPTER it's not science God is false, death is death!"
Everyone else, "Um, yeah we're not saying otherwise we're just discussing various attitudes and opinions. What does everyone else think?"
bhavv et al.: "OMGWTFROFLCOPTER it's not science!!!eleven!"
Repeat ad nauseum. It's a shame because it's ~300 posts that could have been spent having a wonderful discussion and learning so much about the way people look at their world. Instead it's assassinate Castiel's character day, with a bit of blind rhetoric thrown in. It's ironic that the very people who profess to be anti-religion tend to be those who are most militantly fundamental in their beliefs.
Years ago an old Tibetan monk told me that we tend to hate people who display traits we secretly dislike about ourselves. I'm starting to think he had a point. Have a great weekend Castiel, I'll look forward to that email if you have chance.
Not really as the quote ignores the value that I attribute to each specific example based on its specific merits and the context in which it is used.
A better quote would be:
Clarence Darrow.
If you don't have particular beliefs and are truly agnostic, why would you be so bothered about wasting so much effort to defending concepts such as an afterlife?
Yet if someone like the OP of this thread claims that they are 100% sure that there is an afterlife, you will never argue against what should be an equally false statement to your agnosticism. Castiel's arguments on these topics regardless of his agnosticism are always biased towards the existence of such things as afterlife, yet he will never debate against people who believe that such things absolutely exist. This isn't agnosticism, this is just being antagonistic towards people who don't believe in such things.
Just because there is no evidence to prove or disprove an idea does not mean that such an idea automatically has a 50/50 chance of being true or false. This is the base fallacy in opinions on these topics based on a purely agnostic viewpoint. You think you are being clever and logical, yet completely overlooking the impact of possibility and probability of any such ideas, which are usually always extremely low to non existent.
Yet if someone like the OP of this thread claims that they are 100% sure that there is an afterlife, you will never argue against what should be an equally false statement to your agnosticism. Castiel's arguments on these topics regardless of his agnosticism are always biased towards the existence of such things as afterlife, yet he will never debate against people who believe that such things absolutely exist. This isn't agnosticism, this is just being antagonistic towards people who don't believe in such things.
Just because there is no evidence to prove or disprove an idea does not mean that such an idea automatically has a 50/50 chance of being true or false. This is the base fallacy in opinions on these topics based on a purely agnostic viewpoint. You think you are being clever and logical, yet completely overlooking the impact of possibility and probability of any such ideas, which are usually always extremely low to non existent.
Last edited:
You clearly have not read the Gog and Magog thread, Circumcision thread or any of the various other threads where I have argued against interpretations offered by people such as jmc007, kedge, e36adz, craterloads and several others who approach this and other subjects from a religious perspective.
I am not being antagonistic toward you or anyone, I simply disagree with you in the way that you express your opinions.
It's somewhat ironic that Castiel gets singled out. The OP has professed to be Muslim and has posted a lot of links to material from his faith regarding the afterlife. He (perhaps foolishly, given GD's mentality) asked that others of faith offered up their own ideologies for comparison. What followed was a downward spiral into irrelevance.
What you often fail to comprehend is that - especially given the nature of the OP - science isn't always the correct tool to use. Even where it is (as Castiel points out, it has a lot to offer if used correctly), that wouldn't be the manner in which you're attempting to use it. If you're going to badger anyone, why not the OP who professes a faith in Islam and an afterlife, or myself who feels that my personal experience overrides what science has learnt 'so far'... even if my own position is that science can be used to address those experiences?
Too many people seem to be of the opinion that if science hasn't found out about it yet then it's impossible. That's the worst kind of science and is in fact just another form of dogma. Just like the scientists who ridiculed the idea of TV, or the telephone, as being 'impossible' and 'absurd' and 'magical thinking, fantasy'... Science is about open-minded investigation. Anything outside of that isn't impossible, simply untestable. I don't get the lack of distinction, and unlike some am always wanting to learn more and add to my own position. That's why I like Castiel's posts so much. They always give me something else to chew on.
Indeed. I'll drop you a line later.
You see I'm not entirely sure you understand my point at all. Your quote marries my point of view perfectly, I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of either, at no point do I attest that I know anything. I simply assert that your need to give credence or value to fictional writings because it has been taught to our children through the ages as irrational.
We end up circling back to my original point, there's no reason to give the hypothesis that there maybe an afterlife any more weight then that of Fairies, sky monsters or indeed celestial teapots.
I'm disappointed you feel there has been a character assassination at all, however I fail to see your point unfortunately.
I also attempted to get the thread a little more on track on the last page with no success, people seemed to be far more interested in our ongoing little debate, I'll resubmit it below in case anyone wants to change the direction of the discussion.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Perhaps because the topic interests the person discussing it. To be agnostic towards something doesn't mean that you must not care about it in the slightest - it can mean that you simply express no position based on the evidence available as you do not find it conclusive either way, not that you have no interest in the evidence (whatever that evidence may be).
Moving it away from the personal for a second. It might just be for the sake of a more interesting debate or alternatively to prevent the effective dismissal through weight of numbers for people who present an alternative viewpoint. There are here, it seems, more people who do not believe in an afterlife (or perhaps they are just more vociferous in stating their position) so maybe it's a reasonable position to take to offer up other viewpoints. If there's already plenty of people stating that something is wrong (on a topic where any absolute standpoint involves an element of faith) then what is the harm in offering up other viewpoints - unless it's just weight of numbers that is expected to make the argument true?
Possibility and probability? How do you assign either of those concepts in any meaningful way to an idea which is currently (and may always be) untestable?
You're right that between two extremes the answer is not always in the middle but just because something is unlikely doesn't necessarily imply that it is impossible.
I'm afraid that I'd be offering another question to that - why the supposition that there aren't multiple afterlives possible? If an afterlife exists for humankind then what would prevent there being an afterlife for stars, for plants and for whatever else is in the universe? If you accept that one afterlife can exist then why couldn't there be multiple afterlives all co-existing or overlapping with each other?
The original premise of the OP was to compare established religious viewpoints, so this is still a huge digression - but I suppose that's somewhat inevitable.
My personal viewpoint is that nothing gives us the 'right' to claim an afterlife any more than something gives us the right to claim there's no afterlife. That's a strange position to begin from imho.
One's beliefs, experiences and ideologies either accommodate an afterlife, or don't. Or perhaps hasn't had time to form an opinion either way. Regardless I don't think 'rights' come into it?
To more directly answer your question, from my perspective (spiritually rather than scientifically speaking) stars are as much a part of the Godhead (the Great Spirit, God, All That Is) as we are. In fact at an ultimate level the appearance of stars, galaxies and even space and time are just projections of our own conscious stream. You could say that they're just our perspectives on an observation of various internal psychic/mental phenomena.
To put it into the simplest, broadest of terms, I'd say that 'God' is in all things and all things are of God. But I don't ascribe individualism to God in the way many monotheistic religious systems might. My view of the Godhead is more encompassing and perhaps pantheistic than that in a sense. From my perspective 'God' is not a personality in the limited physical perception of the word, but rather an all-encompassing multi-dimensional being who expressed its spirit into the existence of all things, which are likewise co-creators and partners in the experience of reality.
As such it's not an easy question to answer, but in essence while stars might not ultimately exist they do regardless come from and return to the same essence as you or I. That is, ultimate consciousness.
What you often fail to comprehend is that - especially given the nature of the OP - science isn't always the correct tool to use. Even where it is (as Castiel points out, it has a lot to offer if used correctly), that wouldn't be the manner in which you're attempting to use it. If you're going to badger anyone, why not the OP who professes a faith in Islam and an afterlife, or myself who feels that my personal experience overrides what science has learnt 'so far'... even if my own position is that science can be used to address those experiences?
Too many people seem to be of the opinion that if science hasn't found out about it yet then it's impossible. That's the worst kind of science and is in fact just another form of dogma. Just like the scientists who ridiculed the idea of TV, or the telephone, as being 'impossible' and 'absurd' and 'magical thinking, fantasy'... Science is about open-minded investigation. Anything outside of that isn't impossible, simply untestable. I don't get the lack of distinction, and unlike some am always wanting to learn more and add to my own position. That's why I like Castiel's posts so much. They always give me something else to chew on.
The idea of an afterlife is based entirely on theological beliefs since the stone age, similar to the earth being flat and the centre of the universe. Biology today understands the human brain very well, and how all of our thought processes work and are formed. To suggest that human thought processes can still exist after full brain death is 100% absurd, and is really not something that scientific inquiry would need to waste time dealing with. The idea is simply an impossibility to any organic life form that will one day die and cease to exist. Brain functions absolutely cannot carry on happening after the brain is fully dead, and rots away or is cremated because the organ responsible for creating our thoughts and consciousness has fully deceased. Again this is nowhere near the same thing as NDEs during which the brain is still physically alive and thus the means to create thought processes still exists.
Last edited:
You are making an assumption that I give credence to something. If we take you celestial teapot, we objectively know that it was a thought exercise specifically designed to illustrate a philosophical idea...therefore before we even begin to value the existence of such a defined object we already know to some degree of certainty that the celestial teapot is an invention....the concept of God however is somewhat different and with regard to the overarching concept we cannot definitively ascribe the lack of evidence as being proof that such a concept is objectively fictional, to do so, first we must first define it. For example, we can dismiss the "old man" personification far easier than the "Universal Spirit" when we are considering the philosophical implications of each definition.
The whole point of being agnostic is that you are not sure, it doesn't automatically follow that an agnostic ascribes 50/50 probabilities to each proposal they come across either. It does seem however that you, at least in the language that you use, do ascribe a definitive position of surety.
But you are right on one thing, this is getting circular, and I disagree with you that we should treat every hypothesis as ultimately reductive and therefore any hypotheses proposed is not worth discussion or consideration...if we had that kind of attitude we would still be painting hands in caves.
Originally Posted by m4rk84 said:
I would like to discuss this with you later, maybe you can expand on the proposition somewhat before then, to give us some meat with which to debate?
I am not making an assumption at all, you have said you give more value to that of fictional writings then hard evidence yourself your entire viewpoint is evidence of that. The concept of god is not different to the celestial teapot in any way shape or form, it is also an invention.
A hypothesis is worthy of discussion only on the merits of the evidence that supports it, this is how our species has discovered anything at all... I am increasingly bewildered by your statements...