Description of Afterlife?

[Rainmaker]

Meh your entire line of thinking seems to only serve to belittle rational and logical thinkers and brand them as not 'thinking outside the box' the same train of thought has proved dangerous throughout the ages causing an endless amount of war and blood shed...

I haven't belittled anyone my friend. I was told that unlike the scientific posters (whatever they are) that my thinking was different and I had trouble distinguishing reality from fiction. Not sure how that's me belittling others? Quantum theorists devise all manner of multiverses, parallel realities and time warps to account for what they might think of as our current existence. Nobody could accuse those of thinking inside the box and yet I don't see Hawking causing any wars?

I don't have any religion, and I embrace any and all viewpoints - I just like discussing them. If I had any god it would be love, and I certainly don't believe in a deity on a cloud, a judge, or an almighty. I'm not sure how saying 'don't limit your ideas until you know for sure' is dangerous or has led to bloodshed and war in the past? Quite the opposite it's generally those who think their way is the only way who start the wars.

EDIT: If you mistook me for a religious person and were trying to lead us down the 'religion causes war' path, then you were very much mistaken. As it is this thread has (as is usual, and as was the reason for me leaving OcUK to begin with) descended into meaninglessness. I honestly have things I could be doing and this thread is just merry-go-rounding to nowhere. Catch you later.

 

[bhavv]

I do wish you'd stop editing your posts after posting them, as it makes it very difficult to backtrack just to see what you've snuck onto the ends of your posts once they've been replied to. It may make it appear you've added more substance than your opponent can reply to but it makes for a wearisome conversation, especially from a mobile.

I wish I didnt too, but I always have more stuff to add and I dont want to end up posting 3-5 one liner posts in a row. A lot of times I say something as a quick response, but then feel like adding more reasoning to it or changing the grammar to make it clearer to understand.

People arent mistaking you or castiel for religious people, but when you discuss religious topics in favor of religious ideas, people are going to debate with you in the same way they would debate a theist.

 

[Rainmaker]

I wish I didnt too, but I always have more stuff to add and I dont want to end up posting 3-5 one liner posts in a row. A lot of times I say something as a quick response, but then feel like adding more reasoning to it or changing the grammar to make it clearer to understand.

People arent mistaking you or castiel for religious people, but when you discuss religious topics in favor of religious ideas, people are going to debate with you in the same way they would debate a theist.

As I said I'm withdrawing from this thread as it's leading nowhere except losing me a Saturday afternoon with my family. However, I did want to add that it's all well and good to say nobody's mistaking Castiel or I as religious - but then to slide in insults about my ways of thinking or how 'you' at least don't have trouble distinguishing reality is ad hominem, counter productive and then some.

As it happens I would have to class myself as theist from your perspective, but I certainly have no organised religion and form my opinions from my own experiences and from philosophy and theology. I have no pretence that they are absolute fact and change my opinions readily. Which is more than can be said for many others in this thread unfortunately.

I do however have no doubt that science will one day 'catch up' and that blind adherence to old 'facts' is as dangerous as any religious viewpoint. It's exactly why mainstream science ridiculed the inventors of the phone and TV, until they were proven wrong. People will learn nothing whilst they cling to the idea they what they already know 'must' be right and that nothing could change that.

Have a nice weekend, all.

 

[m4rk84]

As I said I'm withdrawing from this thread as it's leading nowhere except losing me a Saturday afternoon with my family. However, I did want to add that it's all well and good to say nobody's mistaking Castiel or I as religious - but then to slide in insults about my ways of thinking or how 'you' at least don't have trouble distinguishing reality is ad hominem, counter productive and then some.

As it happens I would have to class myself as theist from your perspective, but I certainly have no organised religion and form my opinions from my own experiences and from philosophy and theology. I have no pretence that they are absolute fact and change my opinions readily. Which is more than can be said for many others in this thread unfortunately.

I do however have no doubt that science will one day 'catch up' and that blind adherence to old 'facts' is as dangerous as any religious viewpoint. It's exactly why mainstream science ridiculed the inventors of the phone and TV, until they were proven wrong. People will learn nothing whilst they cling to the idea they what they already know 'must' be right and that nothing could change that.

Have a nice weekend, all.

Wow, I'm not sure how to argue with someone that proudly proclaims there can be such a thing as 'old facts' or that science in some way has some strange thing to catch up too...

 

[bhavv]

Still with the phone and TV analogies because you know, physical objects invented and built by man is on the exact same wavelength as belief in life after death from 4000 BC .

I don't understand what science has to catch up to, its pretty much the most advanced area of intelligence humans have ever possessed. If anything, other areas of thought like theology and philosophy have long been obsolete, as many debates on this forum keep on showing me.

'But you have no evidence that something isn't real so therefore it could be!', is the no 1 most laughable rebuttal that anyone can write to people that refuse to believe baseless myths.

Also rainmaker, you don't need to be a thiest to hold such beliefs, you could simply be a deist.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Ok so which point do we take as our snapshot to take to our starry afterlife?

I mean surely your reasoning here suggests that you believe that all matter in any possible combination and form has a right to it's own version of an afterlife, does this mean the continuously dying skin cells all over my body also have a right to their own afterlife, is there a skin cell heaven?

When you go further towards the molecular level still does the change of form of water changing to steam count as death as much as it's form arguably changes as much or more so then death? Is there a water afterlife?

How can we possibly define the point at which a 'snapshot' of our current form is taken to an afterlife if we can't clearly define a point of death for all existing matter. The point is there is no definable death for matter.

My reasoning doesn't suggest I believe anything here. You asked why humans had any more "right" to an afterlife than stars do - I'm pointing out that if your starting premise is that there is an afterlife (and it must be if you can state there is a right to one) then the supposition that there could be multiple afterlives for anything that has ever been "alive" is not really anything more of a logical leap.

Everything could have an afterlife, nothing could have an afterlife or only selected states of being have an afterlife. All those options may be valid and yet I have absolutely no need to take a position on any of them, I can be agnostic to all of them and it wouldn't impact on my life at all.

 

[bhavv]

I bet you my soul, potential afterlife consciousness, ghost or whatever else I may turn into after I die that there is no afterlife . I pledge any potential afterlife of my consciousness to your service / amusement / torture / destruction / pleasure? (ewww), whatever you want to do it if I am wrong on my opinion of there being no afterlife.

If there is an after life, you just bagged the deal of the century. If there isn't then I get absolutely nothing

 

[m4rk84]

My reasoning doesn't suggest I believe anything here. You asked why humans had any more "right" to an afterlife than stars do - I'm pointing out that if your starting premise is that there is an afterlife (and it must be if you can state there is a right to one) then the supposition that there could be multiple afterlives for anything that has ever been "alive" is not really anything more of a logical leap.

Everything could have an afterlife, nothing could have an afterlife or only selected states of being have an afterlife. All those options may be valid and yet I have absolutely no need to take a position on any of them, I can be agnostic to all of them and it wouldn't impact on my life at all.

Perhaps I shouldn't have claimed to know your beliefs, apologies. However I did answer your question, you appear to have completely disregarded any of mine.

It's a common error to leap from the premise that the question of an afterlife is unanswerable to the conclusion that it's existence or non-existence are equally probable.

 

[wannabedamned]

 

[semi-pro waster]

I bet you my soul, potential afterlife consciousness, ghost or whatever else I may turn into after I die that there is no afterlife . I pledge any potential afterlife of my consciousness to your service / amusement / torture / destruction / pleasure? (ewww), whatever you want to do it if I am wrong on my opinion of there being no afterlife.

If there is an after life, you just bagged the deal of the century. If there isn't then I get absolutely nothing

Very kind of you but I feel I'll have to decline as I've a) got no designs on your soul/whatever may or may not be and b) you've already bartered it to two or possibly three people if Nitefly comes through with a Kit Kat finger. What use is a quarter soul to anyone? And that's assuming you don't keep offering it up to all and sundry - if you do I've got no idea what a one hundredth of a soul is worth but it can't be as much as a full soul unless there are special properties to mean that division doesn't reduce the value...

Perhaps I shouldn't have claimed to know your beliefs, apologies. However I did answer your question, you appear to have completely disregarded any of mine.

It's a common error to leap from the premise that the question of an afterlife is unanswerable to the conclusion that it's existence or non-existence are equally probable.

I'm afraid they are questions that I simply can't answer because I don't hold any position on them - I can give you a variety of possible options with some reasoning if you wish but they're no more my belief on the subject than saying nothing is.

In terms of probability - how do you assign a level of probability to something that is (or would presently appear to be) entirely untestable? I'd also point out that I've not said all are equally probable, simply that they may all be valid.

 

[bhavv]

Darn it, I need to find more people who I can sell my soul to without mentioning previous trades made with it.

 

[Morbius]

'But you have no evidence that something isn't real so therefore it could be!', is the no 1 most laughable rebuttal that anyone can write to people that refuse to believe baseless myths.

The statement "you can't prove that there is no afterlife" is correct. The implication "therefore an afterlife must exist" is the laughable bit.

Someone claiming that X is true has the burden of proof. The null hypothesis would be that X is not true, but we could never accept the null hypothesis. We can only reject or fail to reject a null hypothesis. Not having evidence for X being true implies that either X is false OR X is true and we simply haven't come across the evidence yet. You can never have 100% certainty that the null hypothesis is correct.

Equally, claiming "There is no afterlife" is a positive claim and requires evidence to support it. Without evidence, we have to reject the claim. It just so happens that the claim "There is an afterlife" is equally lacking in evidence and also needs to be rejected.

 

[bhavv]

Ok. I am 99.99999999999% sure that there is no afterlife.

 

[ethan]

Fear not people. Bhavv is clearly blinded by his beliefs and downright refusal to consider any alternatives to them. He is like one of the men from Indostan in this poem which goes on to describe that there are many parts to observation - an entire experiment, or "elephant" or phenomena that, cannot be examined in one area or methodology alone

The Blind Men and the Elephant

by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third apprached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake."
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis Clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree."
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope."

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long.
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong.

Edit: Incidently this is accepted in science classes all through highschool, and many, many lab write-ups without issue.

 

[bhavv]

Ethan I dont understand how you can apply that poem to the topic of this thread or my opinions.

Firstly, being blind is going to severely hamper a persons ability to discover and learn things, making it difficult for them to clearly understand everything about an object such as an elephant. I wouldnt even know or understand 10% of the things I do if I was born blind.

Secondly, there has been absolutely no form of observation of the afterlife, through any of our senses. Without observation of any phenomenon / idea, what reason do I have to believe that there could be any truth to a myth which based entirely on faith alone?

 

[Nitefly]

Ethan I dont understand how you can apply that poem to the topic of this thread or my opinions.

Firstly, being blind is going to severely hamper a persons ability to discover and learn things, making it difficult for them to clearly understand everything about an object such as an elephant. I wouldnt even know or understand 10% of the things I do if I was born blind.

lol

 

[bhavv]

Heres an interesting article:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

Over 2/3 of 'greater scientists' no longer believed in human immortality in 1998, Im very sure that even fewer would believe in it today as well.

 

[ethan]

That's because you don't understand metaphor. Take for example your comment illustrated below.

Firstly, being blind is going to severely hamper a persons ability to discover an learn things, making it difficult for them to clearly understand everything about an object such as an elephant.

Without observation of any phenomenon, what reason do I have to believe that there could be any truth to a myth which based entirely on faith alone?

What you really mean is no direct observation by yourself or at least that is what it translates too going by the reswt of your comments in this thread.

Secondly, there has been absolutely no form of observation of the afterlife

Of course there has in terms of scientific investigation of it. Your just to belligerent to examine or refference it impartially. I'm beginning to think I'm talking to a 15 year old?

 

[bhavv]

Of course there has in terms of scientific investigation of it. Your just to belligerent to examine or refference it impartially.

No there hasnt, you dont understand what scientific investigation is. Less than 7.5% of leading physicists and biologists believed in immortality in 1998, tell me why that is then if there is so much scientific investigation supporting the idea

I've asked enough times in this thread for anyone to provide just one proper scientific paper, preferably from a journal which simply follows the scientific method to show if there is any scientific investigation on the topic. So far no one has been able to do that, and having tried looking myself for something like this, I found nothing too.

That's because you don't understand metaphor.

No I dont, Im not a poet.

 

[ethan]

No there hasnt, you dont understand what scientific investigation is. Less than 7.5% of leading physicists and biologists believed in immortality in 1998, tell me why that is then if there is so much scientific investigation supporting the idea

By the way I have a phd in the Philosophy of Science so I understand what the scientific method is a lot more than you do. You knowing so much about it I find myself asking why it is you don't mention/consider peer (review) pressure? Concerning the "leading physicists and biologists" question, well, that would depend on how you asked the question or conducted the survey. The latest survey I came across indicated that 20% of atheists were spiritual and that they found being spiritual was qualitatively more different to being religious. They modified the spirituality to be consistent with the idea of their science. Meanwhile, on the fringe:

Every qualified scientist who does the same as Sir Oliver Lodge, connects survival after death with subatomic physics, is immediately censored in Great Britain!

The work of Michael Faraday, the great scientist on the back of our 20 pound notes, connecting survival after death with subatomic physics, has also been censored:

"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature."
The public do not know that the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, Professor Charles Richet, carried out the same repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions, proving survival after death, as Sir William Crookes FRS; Richet made this statement:

"There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact."
The Scottish pioneer of television, John Logie Baird, tells in his memoirs how one of his colleagues carried out an experiment where he took the fingerprints of a recently deceased person who materialised. These prints were identical to the ones on the dead physical body. This proof would have been good enough to hang somebody in Britain years ago.

Incidently a three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. At least until it is drummed out of them.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-05-humans-predisposed-gods-afterlife.html#jCp