NationStates Jolt Archive

I don’t ever recall seeing a thread polling atheists as to whether they believed in life after death or not, so here it is.

Please explain your choice and why you made that choice.

Thanks and please keep the flames down. :)

I see no reason to think so, as there is not any evidence for one.

Nope. No scientific evidence, no deal.

If there is, I don't know about it, and I'll reconsider my position. But to me at least, it seems rather black and white.

I don't know as I haven't died just yet. However, I imagine I'll experience the billions of years after I die just as I experienced the billions of years before I was born: not at all.

I don't believe so, but I won't really know until I die, will I?

There is no reliable evidence to make me believe there might be.

It has to be pretty good. Nobody ever comes back and complains. :p

Depends on what you consider afterlife. Since the energy our body carries will be moved on to other things, I guess you could consider that an afterlife.

I don't know as I haven't died just yet.

I don't believe so, but I won't really know until I die, will I?
Slam dunk.

However, as I said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13329439&postcount=25), even if you do believe in the afterlife, any existence after death will be, necessarily, completely different to our current existence; outside this corporeal world. A big part of our current existence, part of what makes us 'us', is the fact that we exist in our corporeal world.

Therefore, 'we' won't, and can't exist past our own lives. If something does survive (a doctrine I don't personally believe in) then it will not be truly 'us', it will be non-corporeal and not wholly human.

Click Stand;13329629']Depends on what you consider afterlife. Since the energy our body carries will be moved on to other things, I guess you could consider that an afterlife.
A mean a conscious after life.

Click Stand;13329629']Depends on what you consider afterlife. Since the energy our body carries will be moved on to other things, I guess you could consider that an afterlife.
"We are stardust..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNdQxgB3Vkg&feature=related)

It has to be pretty good. Nobody ever comes back and complains. :p

Zombies have been complaining about the intellectual elitism in the afterlife for decades now.

no i dont believe in any form of the supernatural.

Depends on what is meant by "life after death".

If one means things go on living after one dies, then almost certainly yes (almost because I haven't experienced that yet).

If one means a soul or some sort of consciousness that continues "living" after brain death, I haven't an understanding of how that might work, so, while I don't necessarily disbelieve it in a positive sense, I don't believe in that concept.

The only sense in which I believe in "life after death" is in a stone causing ripples when thrown into the pond effect. That is, what we do while alive influences everything around us, and these influences, however small, may continue on after our existence has been extinguished.

Perhaps for the bacteria or wild animals feasting on a carcass, or for the family and descendants they leave... -- otherwise, no, not for the decedent.

Zombies have been complaining about the intellectual elitism in the afterlife for decades now.

Is that what their brain-eating is? A form of protest?

Is that what their brain-eating is? A form of protest?
Civil disobedience.

No, they're trying to up their IQ and get back in. They were kicked out, you see. That's why they always appear in redneck towns in the back arse of nowhere before they spread to the cities.

Or malls. *nod*

Perhaps for the bacteria or wild animals feasting on a carcass, or for the family and descendants they leave... -- otherwise, no, not for the decedent.
I didn't know that you were an atheist. I thought you were a theist?

Is that what their brain-eating is? A form of protest?

No, they're trying to up their IQ and get back in. They were kicked out, you see. That's why they always appear in redneck towns in the back arse of nowhere before they spread to the cities.

Civil disobedience.

Is Brain-eating 'civil'?

I guess that depends whose brains. :p

No, they're trying to up their IQ and get back in. They were kicked out, you see. That's why they always appear in redneck towns in the back arse of nowhere before they spread to the cities.
That's also the reason they have to spread to cities - there aren't enough IQ points to go around in hick towns.

EDIT: Oh, and no life after death. I thought this was rather implicit in the naming of the two...

I don't believe so, but I won't really know until I die, will I?
Obviously no one knows until they die. I was going for whether atheists believed in life after death or not.

Is there a life after death? My answer is: Who cares? As already stated, if there even is "something" after death, it is nothing of which we have any empirical evidence so it's useless to hypothesize about it.

Rather than focusing on an afterlife, I'm more concerned with making this one as good as possible. I figure that if there is an afterlife, it'll take care of itself, and if not, I enjoyed this life while I had it. Either way, it makes no difference as to how I will conduct myself in the present. So it isn't important.

The trend seems to be that we don't.
That was always my gut feeling on the issue, that is until it was raised in another thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13325786&postcount=1059).

Obviously no one knows until they die. I was going for whether atheists believed in life after death or not.

The trend seems to be that we don't.

Is there a life after death? My answer is: Who cares? As already stated, if there even is "something" after death, it is nothing of which we have any empirical evidence so it's useless to hypothesize about it.

Rather than focusing on an afterlife, I'm more concerned with making this one as good as possible. I figure that if there is an afterlife, it'll take care of itself, and if not, I enjoyed this life while I had it. Either way, it makes no difference as to how I will conduct myself in the present. So it isn't important.
Many theists would believe otherwise, re: bolded part.

Many theists would believe otherwise, re: bolded part.

A few atheists might also. Now I'm not quite qualified to answer as I do believe in God, but if I were an atheist, I think I would still like to believe that karma catches up with everyone; either in this life or the next. *nod*

A few atheists might also. Now I'm not quite qualified to answer as I do believe in God, but if I were an atheist, I think I would still like to believe that karma catches up with everyone; either in this life or the next. *nod*
It depends on whether it is good karma or the bad karma that catches up with the individual.

Edit: so far 4 atheists have indicated some form of after life. It would be nice if they explained those choices.

I don't believe so, but I won't really know until I die, will I?

GTFO, agnostic.

...but if I were an atheist, I think I would still like to believe that karma catches up with everyone; either in this life or the next. *nod*

It depends on whether it is good karma or the bad karma that catches up with the individual.
As I understand it, there's no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' karma; that's a Western bastardisation of a Dharmic concept. Karma simply is. I believe the concept is analogous to cause-and-effect. There's no judicially process going on.

On a larger note, more addressed to LG: it would be nice if bad people were punished and good people rewarded, but to me that's all it is; a nice idea. Same with everlasting life.

GTFO, agnostic.
Agnostics>you.

I didn't know that you were an atheist. I thought you were a theist?

I am, but seriously, if one professes neither to believe in a God nor in an afterlife, then what other answer is there?

Agnostics>you.

But I have vast amounts of alcohol.

Well some atheists believe their is no god but still think it would be good if their was, I don't. I think having a creator God would be a horrible blow to the dignity of the human race and our innate resourcefulness and solidarity.

I am, but seriously, if one professes neither to believe in a God nor in an afterlife, then what other answer is there?
Okay....clear as mud now!! :)

Well some atheists believe their is no god but still think it would be good if their was, I don't. I think having a creator God would be a horrible blow to the dignity of the human race and our innate resourcefulness and solidarity.
Is ego that important in your life?

Well some atheists believe their is no god but still think it would be good if their was, I don't. I think having a creator God would be a horrible blow to the dignity of the human race and our innate resourcefulness and solidarity.
You don't think that punishments for bad people, rewards for good people, life after death and everlasting love are good?

Agnostics>you.

Atheists <3 you

I'm Buddhist (specifically Zen), so I reject God and believe in reincarnation. Nirvana (the ultimate goal of a Buddhist) is the end of reincarnation - what it is no one really knows because it is beyond human understanding.

A Buddha (a person who has reached enlightenment) knows what Nirvana is only when he/she experiences it (after he/she dies enlightened).

You don't think that punishments for bad people, rewards for good people, life after death and everlasting love are good?
For a naive person who can be fooled by any common hucksterism maybe it is, I think that someone who can recognize and love the traits of humanity on a purely material basis has much more courage that the person who blindly drops to his knees without rational discourse or logical evidence.

I'm an atehist, and I say kind of sdort of, after all, the human body is pretty much a giant wet battery, and energy can't be destroyed, so it has to go somewhere.

Is ego that important in your life?
Not individual ego no, I am nothing without other humans, I cannot hope to procreate and thus pass knowledge on past my lifetime without another human, I cannot communicate without a common language developed by my forefathers, or the cities and continuity of humanity. The human race has so much to be proud of, the way we have bonded together in a common good to ensure our continuity, to have a common language and a common forum, we indeed should thank yourselves (and not God) for human solidarity. I think that believing in a God is thoroughly undignified and destroys the work and the greatness of humanity, we evolved to become the dominant race of this planet and built all this. The most horrible thing we can do is write it all off by bowing the knee to some nonexistent entity.

'man is master of everything and decides everything'

How does that matter??

I'm an atehist, and I say kind of sdort of, after all, the human body is pretty much a giant wet battery, and energy can't be destroyed, so it has to go somewhere.

He meant conscious existence, not just the continuity of your energy.

For a naive person who can be fooled by any common hucksterism maybe it is, I think that someone who can recognize and love the traits of humanity on a purely material basis has much more courage that the person who blindly drops to his knees without rational discourse or logical evidence.
The question of a god or gods' existence or not isn't the question at hand (and in any case I'm in the same camp as you; I don't believe in a deity), there's plenty threads on that subject

The question was whether you think guaranteed justice and everlasting life were good things.

Do you?

The question of a god or gods' existence or not isn't the question at hand (and in any case I'm in the same camp as you; I don't believe in a deity), there's plenty threads on that subject

The question was whether you think guaranteed justice and everlasting life were good things.

Do you?

Assuming a god or gods would be interested in dealing out justice and everlasting life

Assuming a god or gods would be interested in dealing out justice and everlasting life
Obviously. That's assumed in the question.

I find it hard to believe anyone would reject the first, though I see some problems with the second.

The question of a god or gods' existence or not isn't the question at hand (and in any case I'm in the same camp as you; I don't believe in a deity), there's plenty threads on that subject

The question was whether you think guaranteed justice and everlasting life were good things.

Do you?

Everlasting life, definitely not. I can't think of a worst thing to give the impression that this life is meaningless and cheap.

That's a contradiction in terms, isn't it? My answer is No...dead is dead.

Furthermore, as an atheist I realize the way I behave and the way I treat others during my lifetime is extremely important...there is no forgiveness, this is it and I better make the best of it.

My favorite slogan: Unitarians are good for nothing!

Obviously. That's assumed in the question.

I find it hard to believe anyone would reject the first, though I see some problems with the second.

Guaranteed justice dealt out by a god or gods wouldn't be my ideal. I much prefer a world where justice can only be dealt out by mankind in this lifetime even if that means it is not always guaranteed.

At least then what is considered justice is changable

Guaranteed justice dealt out by a god or gods wouldn't be my ideal. I much prefer a world where justice can only be dealt out by mankind in this lifetime even if that means it is not always guaranteed.
One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other, and there will always be some injustice that does not get corrected during our lifetimes.

But I agree justice via humanity is far more appealing.

At least then what is considered justice is changable
I don't follow...

The question of a god or gods' existence or not isn't the question at hand (and in any case I'm in the same camp as you; I don't believe in a deity), there's plenty threads on that subject

The question was whether you think guaranteed justice and everlasting life were good things.

Do you?guaranteed justice would be good, everlasting life not so much

There is no life after death. We as conscious entities are biological organisms. When our mental functions cease to work and our brains die, there is no "us" to carry on to some mythical afterlife, as that is all we are. Of course we will decompose, and those particles will likely end up in other things, but the same can be said for my skin cells when they are eaten by mites. Any attempt at clinging on to an afterlife story is escapist.

I don't follow...

It might take me a little bit to try and word it correctly so i'm not confusing things (and possibly myself) so i'm going to go to bed instead. I will try and get it sorted out tomorrow instead though.

I didn't know that you were an atheist. I thought you were a theist?

Ditto here. I thought she believed in God too. :confused:

If you're talking about the 'justice' of the Judeo-Christian God I don't think so...

If you're talking about the 'justice' of the Judeo-Christian God I don't think so...
No, I was talking about a hypothetical, genuinely just god or gods.

A bit of a stretch, I realise. But then, they are meant to be omnipotent, omnibeneficent, etc.

Well I'm not gonna know until I die...

There is no life after death. We as conscious entities are biological organisms. When our mental functions cease to work and our brains die, there is no "us" to carry on to some mythical afterlife, as that is all we are. Of course we will decompose, and those particles will likely end up in other things, but the same can be said for my skin cells when they are eaten by mites. Any attempt at clinging on to an afterlife story is escapist.

then explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBZGSacj7y0

:)

no i dont believe in any form of the supernatural.

If it existed then it wouldn't be supernatural, now would it?

Of course there isn't. Why would there be?

If it existed then it wouldn't be supernatural, now would it?
Obviously, it depends on your definition of 'supernatural', but unless you're positing some sort of afterlife within the natural world around us, and some way for the human mind-body to remain in the universe after death, I think an afterlife would be necessarily supernatural, i.e. outside of nature.

I don’t ever recall seeing a thread polling atheists as to whether they believed in life after death or not, so here it is.

Please explain your choice and why you made that choice.

Thanks and please keep the flames down. :)

I think the poll will yeild some inetresting results - but not necessarily be all that accurate.

Example - I am an atheist, and have no beliefs about an afterlife. I neither believe there IS one, nor believe that there is NOT one. I can conjure images of what one might be, conceptually.. but I certainly don't have faith that such is the case.

I'm an atheist, and I don't rule out the possibility of an 'afterlife'. That's a missing option. :)


Other point - 'life after death' carries with it a slightly different connotation to 'afterlife', I think... it implies some recognisable continuation of our 'selves', whereas an 'afterlife' might just be a continuation of 'us' in some form. That last one, is actually the closest I conceive to an 'afterlife'.

GTFO, agnostic.
I would, but I can't know for sure that there's an exit.
You don't think that punishments for bad people, rewards for good people, life after death and everlasting love are good?

Only as much as I think unicorns and fairies are good.

No data backs up the idea of an afterlife, so I'd say no. However I cannot say that for certain.

I think the poll will yeild some inetresting results - but not necessarily be all that accurate.

Example - I am an atheist, and have no beliefs about an afterlife. I neither believe there IS one, nor believe that there is NOT one. I can conjure images of what one might be, conceptually.. but I certainly don't have faith that such is the case.

I'm an atheist, and I don't rule out the possibility of an 'afterlife'. That's a missing option. :)


Other point - 'life after death' carries with it a slightly different connotation to 'afterlife', I think... it implies some recognisable continuation of our 'selves', whereas an 'afterlife' might just be a continuation of 'us' in some form. That last one, is actually the closest I conceive to an 'afterlife'.
Then probably you might be interested in the Atheist's Wager (http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/04/22/atheists-wager.htm)?

Obviously, it depends on your definition of 'supernatural', but unless you're positing some sort of afterlife within the natural world around us, and some way for the human mind-body to remain in the universe after death, I think an afterlife would be necessarily supernatural, i.e. outside of nature.

If there were an afterlife there would have to be a natural mechanism to explain it.

As there's no evidence for an afterlife or for a mechanism that could explain afterlife then existence of afterlife is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Most likely no. After all, we're just a bunch of chemicals and electrical signals...

Click Stand;13329629']Depends on what you consider afterlife. Since the energy our body carries will be moved on to other things, I guess you could consider that an afterlife.

That's essentially how I see it as well.

Will we be reformed somehow as ourselves? No. I have no belief in that.

Then probably you might be interested in the Atheist's Wager (http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/04/22/atheists-wager.htm)?

Seen that kind of logic before: If there is a god, and he is just and/or loving, I'll be rewarded for my good life anyhow... seems perfectly reasonable.

Of course, from my point of view - pure pragmatism - living a good life is (supposed to be) it's own reward, avec or sans, god.

I place my faith in what I know to be true. Which is exactly nothing. I once dreamed I was a dinasour, but how do I know that this is not a dream and that I am a dinasaour.OK I got that from the poet that dreamed he was a butterfly but you get the piont.You can after all live out an entire live in the span of seconds in a dream as time is relevent.

I do not believe in an afterlife, but I acknowledge the possibilty of one. Personally though I'd rather not spend my current life betting on the existence of another one, and just enjoy what I've got. The whole afterlife reward thing just reminds me too much of the fable with the dog and the bone.

Ditto here. I thought she believed in God too. :confused:
She does.....she was referring to the atheists.

Seen that kind of logic before: If there is a god, and he is just and/or loving, I'll be rewarded for my good life anyhow... seems perfectly reasonable.
Yes it does seem reasonable. Where it probably falls apart for the atheist is if said god dolls out punishment for a bad life.

Of course, from my point of view - pure pragmatism - living a good life is (supposed to be) it's own reward, avec or sans, god.
Absolutely. What baffles me is the number of people who punish themselves, and their loved??? ones on a daily basis, yet balk at the concept of being punished in the afterlife.

Yes it does seem reasonable. Where it probably falls apart for the atheist is if said god dolls out punishment for a bad life.
.

Now see, here's the problem. Hell and other similar beliefs in various religions seem, to me, to be nothing more than a way to control people, to make them afraid and to keep them doing exactly what the authorities want them to do. It's ridiculous.

Furthermore, why would a deity seek to punish us eternally for anything we do in the span of seventy years or so on one tiny little planet to some ultimately insignificant little creatures that the rest of the universe has no idea even exists?

Yes it does seem reasonable. Where it probably falls apart for the atheist is if said god dolls out punishment for a bad life.


I'm not sure it does fall apart there - that rather hinges on what 'bad life' means.

I find it hard to conceptualise a just or loving god that would punish someone for lack of faith. If that's all it takes to count as a 'bad life', I'd be checking the small print in that gods prospectus even if I were a believer - sounds a little too capricious and wanton.

But then - as an atheist, you don't have to worry too much about the vengefulness of god or gods.. since you're not likely to set much store in them anyhow. It's not as much of a gamble as Pascal.


Absolutely. What baffles me is the number of people who punish themselves, and their loved??? ones on a daily basis, yet balk at the concept of being punished in the afterlife.

Agreed. Of course, I'm equally perplexed by those who believe in, and can't wait for an infinite afterlife... but constantly complain about boredom, and how much things drag...

I don’t ever recall seeing a thread polling atheists as to whether they believed in life after death or not, so here it is.

Please explain your choice and why you made that choice.

Thanks and please keep the flames down. :)

To be honest, I just don't give a shit... And I haven't for quite a few years now. It's pretty simple, really.

I grew up.

Maybe there is a parallel universe where I am already dead (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0) and another where technology progressed so much that death isn't an issue anymore.

To be honest, I just don't give a shit... And I haven't for quite a few years now. It's pretty simple, really.

I grew up.

So... is that a 'believe' or a 'don't believe'... or something else?

Maybe there is a parallel universe where I am already dead (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0) and another where technology progressed so much that death isn't an issue anymore.

Sounds like a script from a first season episode of Red Dwarf...

I'm not sure it does fall apart there - that rather hinges on what 'bad life' means.
I guess everyone would have their own personal definition as to what constitutes a "bad life". To me, it is basically living a life that incorporates a generous helping of the 7 deadly sins.

I find it hard to conceptualise a just or loving god that would punish someone for lack of faith. If that's all it takes to count as a 'bad life', I'd be checking the small print in that gods prospectus even if I were a believer - sounds a little too capricious and wanton.
I tend to agree with you there. I believe my God is a loving one, although at one time I thought He was a punishing God. I believe that everyone who has tried their best to make this world a better one will be glad that they did so.

But then - as an atheist, you don't have to worry too much about the vengefulness of god or gods.. since you're not likely to set much store in them anyhow. It's not as much of a gamble as Pascal.
Any wager is a gamble? :D

Agreed. Of course, I'm equally perplexed by those who believe in, and can't wait for an infinite afterlife... but constantly complain about boredom, and how much things drag...
That and those Christians that are smug about their expected reward, as if it is a guarantee.

Sounds like a script from a first season episode of Red Dwarf...

That's because it IS a script from a first season episode of Red Dwarf.

I guess everyone would have their own personal definition as to what constitutes a "bad life". To me, it is basically living a life that incorporates a generous helping of the 7 deadly sins.


You think? I'd say the seven deadly sins (in and of themselves) were relatively unimportant - and more important would be how you affect other people.


Any wager is a gamble? :D


It's all about how you weigh your odds, though.. and how you gamble. The common-or-garden hedge variety of Pascal kind of requires you to put all your eggs in one basket. To an extent that you're going to be pretty nobbed if it turns out that Pascal was backing a loser.


That and those Christians that are smug about their expected reward, as if it is a guarantee.

On a similar note - people who are like my mother-in-law, and believe heaven wouldn't be heaven, if there were no sinners screaming in hell...

Ask her:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/4a/180px-Death.jpg

So... is that a 'believe' or a 'don't believe'... or something else?

It's called "I just don't give a shit", and that's that.

Ask her:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/4a/180px-Death.jpg

Who is that?

It's called "I just don't give a shit", and that's that.

Hmm. Sore head, bear? I was genuinely curious - I can understand the 'approach' being 'I don't give a shit'... but I don't see that as an answer to the question (which, I believe, is the subject of the thread) of whether or not you believe in 'something after'.

My own personal philosophy is to 'not give a shit' about it - I won't know til ltoo late, either way, and I'm going to live my life this way, regardless. But - the separate issue is that I don't 'believe' in an afterlife, anyway.

It seems curious to approach a thread that has a central question as it's premise, and refuse to address the question.

Hmm. Sore head, bear? I was genuinely curious - I can understand the 'approach' being 'I don't give a shit'... but I don't see that as an answer to the question (which, I believe, is the subject of the thread) of whether or not you believe in 'something after'.

My own personal philosophy is to 'not give a shit' about it - I won't know til ltoo late, either way, and I'm going to live my life this way, regardless. But - the separate issue is that I don't 'believe' in an afterlife, anyway.

It seems curious to approach a thread that has a central question as it's premise, and refuse to address the question.

Hardly sore, I just don't care enough about the issue either way.

On a similar note - people who are like my mother-in-law, and believe heaven wouldn't be heaven, if there were no sinners screaming in hell...

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but she has a point.

Now, before any of you people point out that I went insane, especially as an occultist that I am, hear me out.

You don't define Heaven without defining a worse place. If there was only "Heaven" it'd not be Heaven, it'd be "afterlife" - and the minds of some people can't have an afterlife that they don't know. So they choose to believe they will go to "a" Heaven, and, in order for that Heaven to exist, a contrasting Hell must exist as well. Add to that a need for a notion of "justice" in an universe that does not tell us its expectations, and the person feels compelled to WISH Hell upon those that do not follow the restraints du jour. THAT is why some people believe, nay, HOPE, there is a Hell: Because without it there would be no Heaven! THAT is why some people wish it upon unbelievers: Because they want to "reap their rewards" - and a reward isn't a reward if others get it without effort!

And the funniest, worst, best and most disturbing part is, it's not an issue of being a prick or even being a perverse human being that wishes upon their peers endless pain. It's about two notions: Contrast and reward. It's about the fact that people, MANY people, hope there is a contrast so they can define Heaven, and that these same people hope THEY reap their "due reward" for doing what they believe to be right. And for it to be a reward, those that did NOT perform the actions - from as simple as "an ye harm none do what thou wilt" to as idiotic as "blow yourself up to kill the infidel" - cannot ALSO reap it.

I found it. At last, I found it! I understand!

Now see, here's the problem. Hell and other similar beliefs in various religions seem, to me, to be nothing more than a way to control people, to make them afraid and to keep them doing exactly what the authorities want them to do. It's ridiculous.
It depends on how one looks at it? If one creates their own hell on earth, why should they expect better elsewhere? To me, hell is optional.

Furthermore, why would a deity seek to punish us eternally for anything we do in the span of seventy years or so on one tiny little planet to some ultimately insignificant little creatures that the rest of the universe has no idea even exists?
I think you got it all wrong. I believe that God doesn't want to punish anyone.

That, my friend, is Death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death:_The_High_Cost_of_Living
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death:_The_Time_of_Your_Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_At_Death%27s_Door

Related to/connected to Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" franchise. Delicious, and well worth the time.

(You may know Neil Gaiman as the creative mind behind the movies "Stardust" and "Mirrormask").

And she's a cutie too. She's nice, gentle, a Goth and an Endless One. Everything an occultist would want! :D

Who is that?

That, my friend, is Death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death:_The_High_Cost_of_Living
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death:_The_Time_of_Your_Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_At_Death%27s_Door

Related to/connected to Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" franchise. Delicious, and well worth the time.

(You may know Neil Gaiman as the creative mind behind the movies "Stardust" and "Mirrormask").

Hardly sore, I just don't care enough about the issue either way.

Yes - but that's not an answer to the question....

That, my friend, is Death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death:_The_High_Cost_of_Living
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death:_The_Time_of_Your_Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_At_Death%27s_Door

Related to/connected to Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" franchise. Delicious, and well worth the time.

(You may know Neil Gaiman as the creative mind behind the movies "Stardust" and "Mirrormask").

Intriguing...thank you.

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but she has a point.

Now, before any of you people point out that I went insane, especially as an occultist that I am, hear me out.

You don't define Heaven without defining a worse place. If there was only "Heaven" it'd not be Heaven, it'd be "afterlife" - and the minds of some people can't have an afterlife that they don't know. So they choose to believe they will go to "a" Heaven, and, in order for that Heaven to exist, a contrasting Hell must exist as well. Add to that a need for a notion of "justice" in an universe that does not tell us its expectations, and the person feels compelled to WISH Hell upon those that do not follow the restraints du jour. THAT is why some people believe, nay, HOPE, there is a Hell: Because without it there would be no Heaven! THAT is why some people wish it upon unbelievers: Because they want to "reap their rewards" - and a reward isn't a reward if others get it without effort!

And the funniest, worst, best and most disturbing part is, it's not an issue of being a prick or even being a perverse human being that wishes upon their peers endless pain. It's about two notions: Contrast and reward. It's about the fact that people, MANY people, hope there is a contrast so they can define Heaven, and that these same people hope THEY reap their "due reward" for doing what they believe to be right. And for it to be a reward, those that did NOT perform the actions - from as simple as "an ye harm none do what thou wilt" to as idiotic as "blow yourself up to kill the infidel" - cannot ALSO reap it.

I found it. At last, I found it! I understand!

But that whole premise is illogical.

If 'heaven' is perfect... perfect happiness, or perfect whatever... presence of God? Then THIS world is it's contrast, surely?

It's like, the presence of god isn't enough? You won't appreciate your eternity of serenity unless there is crisping flesh just within earshot?

But that whole premise is illogical.

If 'heaven' is perfect... perfect happiness, or perfect whatever... presence of God? Then THIS world is it's contrast, surely?

It's like, the presence of god isn't enough? You won't appreciate your eternity of serenity unless there is crisping flesh just within earshot?

It's not about schadenfreude. It's not even about a coherent line of thought. Sure, in a perfect world of eternal bliss, there would be no need for contrast, but do you really expect our incoherent minds to realize that much? I always wondered why otherwise decent human beings would wish Hell upon other, harmless ones. Now I know...

Yes - but that's not an answer to the question....

Does it have to be? And for that matter, did I say I was an atheist, or anything else? After ten years of thinking on the issue, I just don't care... Can't complete non-participation be an option?

I guess not, but hey, here's to trying.

And she's a cutie too. She's nice, gentle, a Goth and an Endless One. Everything an occultist would want! :D

Yeah. *sigh* ... and she looks like Tori Amos.... *sigh*

It's not about schadenfreude. It's not even about a coherent line of thought. Sure, in a perfect world of eternal bliss, there would be no need for contrast, but do you really expect our incoherent minds to realize that much? I always wondered why otherwise decent human beings would wish Hell upon other, harmless ones. Now I know...

My incoherent mind has no trouble with it... and if I ever wish punishment upon someone, I suspect it'll be for a crime far beyond their religion or lack of it.

Perhaps we should re-run this poll with an option for "I neither believe nor disbelieve", or perhaps two such options: "I don't know, but would like to know (if it is possible to know)" and "I don't know, and really don't care."

Does it have to be? And for that matter, did I say I was an atheist, or anything else? After ten years of thinking on the issue, I just don't care... Can't complete non-participation be an option?

I guess not, but hey, here's to trying.

Again, I come back to the 'curious'. If not an Atheist... and if no answer to the 'belief' question... what is the appeal of the thread? Spam?

I guess the apathy response is kind of like agnosticism... it might modify your belief or disbelief in some way, but it isn't an alternative to them.

At least - that's how it seems to me?

My incoherent mind has no trouble with it... and if I ever wish punishment upon someone, I suspect it'll be for a crime far beyond their religion or lack of it.

True. And neither does MY incoherent mind. But, see, big groups with large numbers of leaders have the intelligence of the dumbest leader. And most religions were founded by people without much in their minds in the logics department, a fact made worse by the coming of the Middle Ages...

Again, I come back to the 'curious'. If not an Atheist... and if no answer to the 'belief' question... what is the appeal of the thread? Spam?

I guess the apathy response is kind of like agnosticism... it might modify your belief or disbelief in some way, but it isn't an alternative to them.

At least - that's how it seems to me?

I used to be a staunch atheist. But that was two years ago. I decided last year that whatever the case may actually be, I just don't care... And if that final end may not be so final, and my right to exist freely would be in jeopardy, the party (or parties) at fault would find it rather difficult to deal with me. Chalk it up to a very strong individualist streak I built up back in 2006. I'm alive right now. And right now, I focus 100% on life, not the opposite.

As you can see, I have an opinion on the matter, but the important thing is that I simply don't have the patience for something I can't experience. I just don't care.

Yeah. *sigh* ... and she looks like Tori Amos.... *sigh*

Aren't you a little old for a teenager?

Aren't you a little old for a teenager?

Yes. But... which teenager am I too old for? :D

You mean mooning over Tori? I've been doing that for years... probably since I was a teenager, actually...

True. And neither does MY incoherent mind. But, see, big groups with large numbers of leaders have the intelligence of the dumbest leader. And most religions were founded by people without much in their minds in the logics department, a fact made worse by the coming of the Middle Ages...

What's that line? "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers".. something like that?

I don't know what to believe... I love what jesus teached, but how can I support the teaching of someone who would condem me to hell for being anything but protestant?

Yes. But... which teenager am I too old for? :D

You mean mooning over Tori? I've been doing that for years... probably since I was a teenager, actually...

Eh, I'm just teasing. Fictional characters don't count anyway.

You think? I'd say the seven deadly sins (in and of themselves) were relatively unimportant - and more important would be how you affect other people.
I believe that if the 7 deadly sins innundate ones life, the chances of one having a positive affect on other people is slim to none.

It's all about how you weigh your odds, though.. and how you gamble. The common-or-garden hedge variety of Pascal kind of requires you to put all your eggs in one basket. To an extent that you're going to be pretty nobbed if it turns out that Pascal was backing a loser.
Not really. If Pascal was backing a loser, then it would be impossible to be "nobbed"?

I find it somewhat intriguing that 20% of atheists in this poll envisage some form of life after death scenario.

What reasoning do they have for such a selection?

No. There isnt.

:) Tori is far from fictional. *le sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jftFhb0xnU

Oooooh. That Tori. Sorry...I got mixed up there for a moment.

Eh, I'm just teasing. Fictional characters don't count anyway.

:) Tori is far from fictional. *le sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jftFhb0xnU

I believe that if the 7 deadly sins innundate ones life, the chances of one having a positive affect on other people is slim to none.


Well, anything done to excess is bad. If you prayed 24/7, your positive impact on others would be questionable, also, right?


Not really. If Pascal was backing a loser, then it would be impossible to be "nobbed"?

Not really. What if Pascal was wrong... but some other religion was right? And everyone that followed Pascal's logic to christianity ends up as 'soul-food' for the bloodgods, or something?

I find it somewhat intriguing that 20% of atheists in this poll envisage some form of life after death scenario.

What reasoning do they have for such a selection?

Life after death isn't contingent on belief in a god...?

Some versions might suggest a certain religious connection, but the concept itself isn't implicitly linked to believing in god(s).

Life after death isn't contingent on belief in a god...?
For many religions yes it is. I do believe that humans are far more complex than just being a life form here on earth. I am in no hurry to find out the answer though. :)

Some versions might suggest a certain religious connection, but the concept itself isn't implicitly linked to believing in god(s).
True, but that is why I included it in the poll.

Well, anything done to excess is bad.
True that!!

If you prayed 24/7, your positive impact on others would be questionable, also, right?
If all my prayers were based on selfish desires, then yes I would agree. However, if they were based on others needs then I do believe in positive outcomes. Is it perfect? Of course not, but some of the results I have seen are impressive indeed.

Not really. What if Pascal was wrong... but some other religion was right? And everyone that followed Pascal's logic to christianity ends up as 'soul-food' for the bloodgods, or something?
Pascal's Wager was designed to assist atheists in finding God. In the scenario that you described above, the atheist would be no worse off than if he/she had no belief in God.

Pascal's Wager was designed to assist atheists in finding God. In the scenario that you described above, the atheist would be no worse off than if he/she had no belief in God.

The atheist would if the real God disliked people adhering to the wrong faith much, much more than a simple nonbeliever.

Not to mention that believing is an investment. Why Pascals wager claims you have to do "nothing" I cannot fathom.

I used to be a staunch atheist. But that was two years ago. I decided last year that whatever the case may actually be, I just don't care... And if that final end may not be so final, and my right to exist freely would be in jeopardy, the party (or parties) at fault would find it rather difficult to deal with me. Chalk it up to a very strong individualist streak I built up back in 2006. I'm alive right now. And right now, I focus 100% on life, not the opposite.

As you can see, I have an opinion on the matter, but the important thing is that I simply don't have the patience for something I can't experience. I just don't care.

Welcome to apatheism.

When it comes to an afterlife, that presupposes belief in a 'soul' of some sort. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the mind is anything more than the electrochemical reactions in the lump of tissue we call a brain. Upon death, those signals degrade and the neurons fire no more - thus we (in terms of our sense of 'self') cease to exist. I cannot even conceive of a mechanism by which someone's consciousness could continue past death.

I don't see why not. I'd prefer to defer finding out for as long as physically possible, but even so I can see that survival of some form is entirely plausible and could be considerably beneficial to the species as a whole (especially in a collective mind/conscience sense...the ability to use the accrued experience of the species seems to be pretty useful).

Who knows, though? I've got at least a good 70 years left biologically, let alone technologically, and if something kills me off before that, it's obviously not going to be something that will provide a considerable amount of time with which to ponder my postmortem existence.

The atheist would if the real God disliked people adhering to the wrong faith much, much more than a simple nonbeliever.
Certainly an interesting slant, but more like splitting hairs. Which real God are you alluding to?

Not to mention that believing is an investment. Why Pascals wager claims you have to do "nothing" I cannot fathom.
Actually PW states that you "must wager". Arguably, the "investment" might be the best investment that one could possibly make?

Certainly an interesting slant, but more like splitting hairs. Which real God are you alluding to?

There exists an impressive amount of different religions on this planet. Many are incompatible with eachother. Many describe their god or gods as jealous.
Pascals wager implicitly assumes you will magically pick the right religion from the heap of millions.

Actually PW states that you "must wager". Arguably, the "investment" might be the best investment that one could possibly make?

Possibly. It is just that the odds are "slightly" less than the 50-50 he describes - and he forgets to mention some details. Like the whole "don't pick the wrong god or else you're really screwed" thing. He also severely downplays the influence of adhering to a religion has on ones life by calling it "nothing".

Personally I would rather go to something like purgatory for being a nonbeliever than be tormented for all eternity for picking the wrong faith.

There exists an impressive amount of different religions on this planet. Many are incompatible with eachother. Many describe their god or gods as jealous.
Pascals wager implicitly assumes you will magically pick the right religion from the heap of millions.
I still believe that you are building a mountain out of a molehill here. At any rate, I don't want to get bogged down on all the possible permutations.

Possibly. It is just that the odds are "slightly" less than the 50-50 he describes - and he forgets to mention some details. Like the whole "don't pick the wrong god or else you're really screwed" thing.
At any rate, it all comes down to self will and making choices.

Personally I would rather go to something like purgatory for being a nonbeliever than be tormented for all eternity for picking the wrong faith.
Kind of a crap shoot huh?

No.
But according to the principle of energy conservation we are "reincarnated" in a way: our energy goes on to be something else.

No.
But according to the principle of energy conservation we are "reincarnated" in a way: our energy goes on to be something else.wtf?

I don’t ever recall seeing a thread polling atheists as to whether they believed in life after death or not, so here it is.

Please explain your choice and why you made that choice.

Thanks and please keep the flames down. :)

I wouldn't say I believe that there's no life after death... rather, I strongly suspect there is none, as I have no credible evidence to the contrary.

wtf?

Pretty simple : Our bodies will decompose, and both the stored energy as well as our components will be re-used in one way or another.
It's a fancy way of saying we'll keep the worms well-fed and warm.

as an educated individual i find it hard to believe in life after death. Thats my opinion

I'm Buddhist (specifically Zen), so I reject God and believe in reincarnation. Nirvana (the ultimate goal of a Buddhist) is the end of reincarnation - what it is no one really knows because it is beyond human understanding.

A Buddha (a person who has reached enlightenment) knows what Nirvana is only when he/she experiences it (after he/she dies enlightened).

i thought you said you were hindu.

If it existed then it wouldn't be supernatural, now would it?

well now that depends on how it exists eh? if you can show a scientific mechanism for reincarnation, ghosts, resurrection of the dead, or life in heaven after death id love to hear about it and see how it can be scientifically tested. otherwise its supernatural and no, i dont believe in it.

pseudo scientific things like "ectoplasm" which cannot face scientific tests are just so much bunk. they are not science.

Intriguing...thank you.

Neil Gaiman is a "must give him a chance" author (i dont believe in "must read"). if you try something by him you will probably love it. he is some kind of freaking genius. i cant recommend him highly enough.

I'm Buddhist (specifically Zen), so I reject God and believe in reincarnation. Nirvana (the ultimate goal of a Buddhist) is the end of reincarnation - what it is no one really knows because it is beyond human understanding.

A Buddha (a person who has reached enlightenment) knows what Nirvana is only when he/she experiences it (after he/she dies enlightened).

i thought you said you were hindu.
Perhaps Jayate is not sure of what religion he is?

If I wanted to be the President of the United States of America, it'd be impossible. Why? Because I'm Hindu and the Christian majority would see me as a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper" (what an oxymoron).

I'm a convert from Islam.

At the risk of my life, I'd go to Arabia and re-establish Hinduism there (getting rid of the Arabian religion). I'd probably kill Muhammad while I'm at it since he'd be my enemy. Basically, I'd be the Hindu Muhammad. Imagine how different the world would be.
Pick one.....any one? Perhaps he is a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper"? :D

Perhaps Jayate is not sure of what religion he is?






Pick one.....any one? Perhaps he is a "Polytheistic Devil Worshiper"? :D

he may have converted to buddhism after saying he was a hindu...?

he may have converted to buddhism after saying he was a hindu...?
Perhaps after converting from Islam?

I don’t ever recall seeing a thread polling atheists as to whether they believed in life after death or not, so here it is.

Please explain your choice and why you made that choice.

Thanks and please keep the flames down. :)

I voted that I believe in reincarnation, although that isn't really true, I have no idea whether there is life after death, but I like the idea of reincarnation.

The poll needs an option for "I have no idea what will happen." I don't believe that I'll continue to exist after my body stops working, but I've been wrong before.

I voted that I believe in reincarnation, although that isn't really true, I have no idea whether there is life after death, but I like the idea of reincarnation.

i dont like the idea of reincarnation.

i hate the idea that i came to this life not with a blank slate but carrying some other assholes baggage with me that now *I* have to make up for.

i dont like the idea of reincarnation.why? you could come back and kill those who killed you... ;)

I find it somewhat intriguing that 20% of atheists in this poll envisage some form of life after death scenario.

What reasoning do they have for such a selection?

I my case, It's simply a matter of (as I stated im my first response) I like the idea.

why? you could come back and kill those who killed you... ;)

hmmmm

#1 why would someone have killed me?

#2 why would those people still be alive? would they still be alive when i am old enough to kill them?

#3 how would i know anything about them?

#4 why would i risk another round of crappy reincarnation by committing what can only be considered murder?

Certainly an interesting slant, but more like splitting hairs. Which real God are you alluding to?

The god which is real (assuming there is one?) i.e. not necessarily god as defined by any religion (it isn't a given that any of them are right).

#1 why would someone have killed me?NSG

#2 why would those people still be alive? would they still be alive when i am old enough to kill them?

#3 how would i know anything about them?

#4 why would i risk another round of crappy reincarnation by committing what can only be considered murder?oh, please ;)

NSG

oh, please ;)

lol

oh

yeah

that is why i have been such a firm supporter of you, ub. i figure youre going to get killed way before i will so you are my "bellwether". when you go, im getting a bullet proof vest.

well, there was no life before insemination, so I don't see why there should be life after death.

Pascal's Wager was designed to assist atheists in finding God. In the scenario that you described above, the atheist would be no worse off than if he/she had no belief in God.

Not necessarily true - if (for example) some Aztec religion turned out to be the 'true' one, both atheists AND christians might be asking for a world of hurt in their next life, no?

I don't know as I haven't died just yet. However, I imagine I'll experience the billions of years after I die just as I experienced the billions of years before I was born: not at all.

Precisely;)

This is one of the better explanations I have witnessed on this position. Kudos!!!

Neil Gaiman is a "must give him a chance" author (i dont believe in "must read"). if you try something by him you will probably love it. he is some kind of freaking genius. i cant recommend him highly enough.

Same here. I'm kind of an 'evangelist for Gaiman'. Oh, and Firefly. :D

I don’t ever recall seeing a thread polling atheists as to whether they believed in life after death or not

Life after death is an oxymoron.

Death = end of life, state of non-life.

Of course, the atoms that will make up my body at the time of my death will eventually leave the corpse and some of them will have some part in some other living being (this already happens to many atoms that leave my body right now, of course). This is quite different from me being alive, anyway.

Atheists.....is there life after death?

Neurological activity ceases. The "self" ends. Worm food, fertilizer, end-of-story.

I don't believe so, but I won't really know until I die, will I?

Or you won't know... either way :p

Not necessarily true - if (for example) some Aztec religion turned out to be the 'true' one, both atheists AND christians might be asking for a world of hurt in their next life, no?

If Quetzacoatl actually exists, I wouldn't want to be Cortez right now.

Or you won't know... either way :p

Hah, yes, I don't suppose I'll know anything if there is no afterlife.

For an atheist I'm pretty optmistic. I believe in spirits and I believe in reincarnation.I sure hope there's an afterlife because I'd hate to lose my personality to a big dark void.:DBut that's why I like life cuz it's one big mystery!

This is my 40th post,woo-hoo ya baby!

I believe in spirits and I believe in reincarnation.I sure hope there's an afterlife because I'd hate to lose my personality to a big dark void.:D

If you believe in reincarnation, your personality may not be lost to the void but you certainly are.

I've thought about this for years, and I really think there is an afterlife, but have no idea what it is. It could be reincarnation, or alternate life, or just floating around in the nothingness.

As a self-conscious organism, I am living my life progressively, one moment at a time. If I was nothing more than electrified meat, without a soul or prospect of afterlife, I would not be self conscious, because there would be no soul to be self-conscious. Therefore I must have some kind of immortal element in my body, something more than meat, something that holds my awareness.

But I don't think that my "soul" or whatever is subject to a God. I believe it's subject to some basic laws of nature and science, but not an intelligent deity.

As a self-conscious organism, I am living my life progressively, one moment at a time. If I was nothing more than electrified meat, without a soul or prospect of afterlife, I would not be self conscious, because there would be no soul to be self-conscious.
If your soul is self conscious then you are not a self-conscious organism, you are a self conscious soul within an organism. Also, what evidence is there that sentience requires a soul, other than your say so?
Therefore I must have some kind of immortal element in my body, something more than meat, something that holds my awareness.
Assuming the soul you mention above exists, why must it be immortal?

But I don't think that my "soul" or whatever is subject to a God. I believe it's subject to some basic laws of nature and science, but not an intelligent deity.

Which begs the question, why hasn't science found any evidence for this soul, or whatever?

I feel the same way about deities.Even if it turned out there was a god I wouldn't follow it cuz I don't like the idea of somebody trying to tell me how to live.That's part of the reason why christians kinda annoy me.

If your soul is self conscious then you are not a self-conscious organism, you are a self conscious soul within an organism. Also, what evidence is there that sentience requires a soul, other than your say so?

Assuming the soul you mention above exists, why must it be immortal?



Which begs the question, why hasn't science found any evidence for this soul, or whatever?

See this is exactly what I'm talkin' about.Optimism man.I too,generally,believe science is right,but science must be used to prove stuff.Scientists mostly ignore this subject instead of exploring it.I think a sprit is all of the collective personality and memories of a being.Your personality is unique and can't be copied.

No, I don't believe in an afterlife. I think that once you're dead, that's the end of your existance.

No, I don't believe in an afterlife. I think that once you're dead, that's the end of your existance.

What would you say if one day it was discovered that there was indeed an afterlife?

What would you say if one day it was discovered that there was indeed an afterlife?
Once you’re dead?

Because I don’t see how there could be a connection between our physical existence, bound by space-time (or at least our understanding of space-time), and a non-physical existence ‘outside’ of space-time.

That’s one of my biggest problems with the concept of an afterlife; it contains, I think, the premise that there’s a difference between mind and body. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any form of afterlife that doesn’t involve some sort of separation of mind and body. Can anyone?

As I believe mind and body are pretty much one and the same, the concept of an afterlife seems personally hard to swallow.

Hard to swallow,yes.but you must remember the universe or multiverse (which ever you prefer)has many secrets we humans no nothing.

What would you say if one day it was discovered that there was indeed an afterlife?

"Well bugger me!", probably.

I didn't like the poll responses. I am an atheist, but I would have said, "I don't know if there is life after death." How should I know? There could be life in some other dimension, life in reincarnation, life but not as we know it, or just nothing. There could even be some other option I know absolutely nothing about.

I am an atheist because I can't accept the existence of a deity as fact, not because I've ruled it out. So while I'm pretty sure the afterlife is not going to be like Dante's Inferno, I can't really be sure of anything else.

I didn't like the poll responses. I am an atheist, but I would have said, "I don't know if there is life after death." How should I know? There could be life in some other dimension, life in reincarnation, life but not as we know it, or just nothing. There could even be some other option I know absolutely nothing about.

I am an atheist because I can't accept the existence of a deity as fact, not because I've ruled it out. So while I'm pretty sure the afterlife is not going to be like Dante's Inferno, I can't really be sure of anything else.
I believe that the poll options are straightforward. Either you believe that there is life after death or that there is none.

The poll needs an option for "I have no idea what will happen." I don't believe that I'll continue to exist after my body stops working, but I've been wrong before.
See my post above ^, errr previous post.

See my post above ^, errr previous post.

There you more or less state that people must believe something on this issue. That is nonsense. "I do not know" is a perfectly valid answer, and non-moronic people are quite able to leave it at that.

"Either you believe that there is life after death or that there is none."
That is just not true. Some people neither believe that there is, nor believe that there is not.
I do not believe that Cameroon has a larger population than Paraguay; I do not believe that Paraguay has a larger population than Cameroon; I do not believe that the two nations have exactly equal populations; rather, I DO NOT KNOW anything about the population figures. The difference, of course, is that I could look those figures up if I cared to (it is more difficult, to say the least, to get reliable info about the afterlife). I have not looked up the figures, because: I do not care.

Which begs the question, why hasn't science found any evidence for this soul, or whatever?

Well, for starters...where do you start? "Soul" is such a broad concept that it would be impossible to begin looking without a solid, testable definition of the idea.

Secondly, the truth is, almost all of the current tools, technologies, and knowledge in neuroscience are very new, virtually an infant compared with other scientific fields. This means the majority of knowledge and theory emerging only in the past two decades (and of that the lion's share in the past decade or so). It also means there is a lot more stumbling and a lot more mistakes left to be made before the basic processes are accurately described by scientific models. This is nonetheless heartening, of course, because it shows just how fast knowledge of ourselves is progressing, but it also shows there is a long way to go...we'll get there, but there's still a long road to travel.

We would need to understand how consciousness works before we could honestly begin looking for a soul, and that's still a fairly long way from where we currently stand.

I believe that the poll options are straightforward. Either you believe that there is life after death or that there is none.

And that's the problem with your options. 'Belief' isn't the only option, one way OR the other.

Either you believe that there is life after death or that there is none.

It is possible to not believe anything one way or the other, I can't usually though because I have a gut feeling one way or the other. But it's possible.

I've thought about this for years, and I really think there is an afterlife, but have no idea what it is. It could be reincarnation, or alternate life, or just floating around in the nothingness.

As a self-conscious organism, I am living my life progressively, one moment at a time. If I was nothing more than electrified meat, without a soul or prospect of afterlife, I would not be self conscious, because there would be no soul to be self-conscious. Therefore I must have some kind of immortal element in my body, something more than meat, something that holds my awareness.

But I don't think that my "soul" or whatever is subject to a God. I believe it's subject to some basic laws of nature and science, but not an intelligent deity.

Consciousness is nothing more than an active, functioning brain when you get down to it. There is no "ghost in the machine" that steers it all, it's simple biology.

See this is exactly what I'm talkin' about.Optimism man.I too,generally,believe science is right,but science must be used to prove stuff.Scientists mostly ignore this subject instead of exploring it.I think a sprit is all of the collective personality and memories of a being.Your personality is unique and can't be copied.

I think you'll find the subject has been explored for a long time, and is still being explored, with some absolutely fascinating recent findings, mostly thanks to MRI and the progress being made in decoding the human genome.
Personality, it would seem, is for a large part inherited (ever wondered why character traits keep recurring within a family?) and part learned (peer-pressure seems to play more of a role than parenting, though). It certainly cannot be copied, since it's a unique combination of genes and experiences, but it's nevertheless nothing supernatural or even immortal.

As an Athiest, how can I say? The moment I try to conceptualise what life may be like after death, I become just like all the other believers in superstition. The fact is, this Universe is more complex and unknown than our ability to understand it. Similarly what happens after death (if anything) would be equally complex and unknowable.

As an aside, the above itself is a refutation of any sort of superstitious nonsense, how arrogant can any person be; to try and "Pigeon Hole" that which they clearly have no knowledge and understanding of, other than by desperate superstitious beliefs?

And that's the problem with your options. 'Belief' isn't the only option, one way OR the other.
The poll was all about what one believes, not about whether one was unsure of what they believe. The poll was designed as a yes or no affair only.

The poll was all about what one believes, not about whether one was unsure of what they believe. The poll was designed as a yes or no affair only.

I think the concern is, its possible to be aware of an idea without having a belief either way. So certainty in a belief doesn't come in to play, because one has no belief either way.

For instance, I could ask my dad whether a particular star has a planet or not, and he would be reasonable to say "I don't know either way".

If I say "No, you must believe that it has one, or believe that it does not have one.", that isn't really allowing him an honest answer.

Its your poll and you can design it how you want, of course. But its like asking people "Will you stop robbing banks?" and then making it a yes or no affair only. It doesn't really let people give a true answer.

But, given the choices, I'd say no, but had there been a broader range of responses permitted, I'd say "I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were something and/or someone on the 'other side' ."

I don't know as I haven't died just yet. However, I imagine I'll experience the billions of years after I die just as I experienced the billions of years before I was born: not at all.

Yep. Since you're dead, you don't have any senses or perception of time.

I think when you die, you might assume another person's point of view, and you will have no memory of your previous self. It'll be instantaneous, because there's NO TIME INVOLVED!

Yep. Since you're dead, you don't have any senses or perception of time.

I think when you die, you might assume another person's point of view, and you will have no memory of your previous self. It'll be instantaneous, because there's NO TIME INVOLVED!

There's this table top RPG called "All Flesh Must Be Eaten", and one of the themes is, reincarnation is real, but the gods that handle it go to war and leave the system unattended, so people start inhabiting whatever body is nearest...including dead ones. Interesting take on the whole Zombie idea.

I don't know as I haven't died just yet. However, I imagine I'll experience the billions of years after I die just as I experienced the billions of years before I was born: not at all.
How could you "experience" before you were born? Your birth created a consciousness that you experience now, death will transfer that to absolute blankness. Personally I don't wanna find out what that transition is like.

Which brings me to MY idea; I believe life after death can only be achieved through technology. We have to look more closely into consciousness so we can find out how to translate it and mimick it so as to be able to transfer consciousness from the human brain to something else (like a robot for example) before death. Of course this probably wouldn't be even close to feasible within my lifetime, but it doesn't have to be; I remember at MUN orientation I was talking to a biochem faculty member about cryonics and he said it'd probably be feasible within my lifetime. If I had myself frozen to be revived in the future and then contributed in some way to the "artificial afterlife" idea before being frozen, I could warp, in a sense (since according to my dad when someone temporarily loses consciousness, for that person it's as if they regain consciousness immediately afterwards) to the point in time in which human consciousness could be transferred. And IF that NEVER happens, I'll probably be revived at the point they know for sure it wouldn't happen, so I'll probably be quite a ways in the future by then, and I'll at least get to see what it's like then, even if I don't get an artificial afterlife...

And CanuckHeaven, you say "atheists" as if lacking belief in a deity implies a certain view on the idea of an afterlife, but they're separate views. Richard Dawkins has said this is all we have, and quite clearly I would disagree with him on that.

How could you "experience" before you were born? Your birth created a consciousness that you experience now, death will transfer that to absolute blankness. Personally I don't wanna find out what that transition is like.

Which brings me to MY idea; I believe life after death can only be achieved through technology. We have to look more closely into consciousness so we can find out how to translate it and mimick it so as to be able to transfer consciousness from the human brain to something else (like a robot for example) before death. Of course this probably wouldn't be even close to feasible within my lifetime, but it doesn't have to be; I remember at MUN orientation I was talking to a biochem faculty member about cryonics and he said it'd probably be feasible within my lifetime. If I had myself frozen to be revived in the future and then contributed in some way to the "artificial afterlife" idea before being frozen, I could warp, in a sense (since according to my dad when someone temporarily loses consciousness, for that person it's as if they regain consciousness immediately afterwards) to the point in time in which human consciousness could be transferred. And IF that NEVER happens, I'll probably be revived at the point they know for sure it wouldn't happen, so I'll probably be quite a ways in the future by then, and I'll at least get to see what it's like then, even if I don't get an artificial afterlife...

And CanuckHeaven, you say "atheists" as if lacking belief in a deity implies a certain view on the idea of an afterlife, but they're separate views. Richard Dawkins has said this is all we have, and quite clearly I would disagree with him on that.

My worry on the upload-your-brain-to-a-machine deal is, what if transferring the information does result in a self-aware mind on/in the machine, but that thing is only based on you, it isn't you? (I'm speculating here, I admit).

So, the robot/android/30mTallRobotCentaurWithChestMountedFusionCanon thing can pass a Turing test, and it knows everything you knew, but the consciousness that died when you died isn't the same as what wakes up in the machine?

For example, suppose you can upload your mind into a machine while still alive (as opposed to transferring the brain itself, neural tissue, which is then preserved somehow). But you're still alive, too. You and the machine are too different minds that now have different experiences and existences going forward. Then, you get hit by a UPS robotruck whose MS operating system locked up because DirectX17 had a bug. The machine lives on, you don't.

I'm going to be up all night worrying about this now.

Its your poll and you can design it how you want, of course.
Thank you.....that is exactly what I did. :)

And CanuckHeaven, you say "atheists" as if lacking belief in a deity implies a certain view on the idea of an afterlife, but they're separate views. Richard Dawkins has said this is all we have, and quite clearly I would disagree with him on that.
It was the varying beliefs of atheists that were the catalyst for this poll. More on that later.

Thank you.....that is exactly what I did. :)

Like the other fellas pointed out, though, it is completely possible to have no belief either way (and having no belief either way, there wouldn't be an issue of certainty of either belief).

For example, I could ask what you think of the book my sister is reading. Do you believe it is a good book or a bad book?

If I say you are forced to either believe its good or believe its bad, and you ain't allowed to hold off until you know what the book is, you aren't really given any choice for a fair answer.

Its like asking a doctor to prescribe without seeing the patient or knowing anything about them, but forcing him/her to prescribe anyway.

Like the other fellas pointed out, though, it is completely possible to have no belief either way (and having no belief either way, there wouldn't be an issue of certainty of either belief).

For example, I could ask what you think of the book my sister is reading. Do you believe it is a good book or a bad book?

If I say you are forced to either believe its good or believe its bad, and you ain't allowed to hold off until you know what the book is, you aren't really given any choice for a fair answer.

Its like asking a doctor to prescribe without seeing the patient or knowing anything about them, but forcing him/her to prescribe anyway.
Thank you for the analogies dear sir, but you are flogging a dead horse.

1. I cannot change the options of the poll.

2. I wouldn't change the options of the poll if I could.

Like the other fellas pointed out, though, it is completely possible to have no belief either way

It's also possible to not vote on a poll.

Thank you for the analogies dear sir, but you are flogging a dead horse.

1. I cannot change the options of the poll.

2. I wouldn't change the options of the poll if I could.


Are you mad at me or something? I was just making conversation, and the analogies are fairly apt.

You don't have to change your poll options, I was just making a point. If the points been made, so be it, but please don't be upset over it.

It's also possible to not vote on a poll.

Yes, I know, I excercised that option of not voting.

But the idea was put forward that a person either believed there was or wasn't, I was just suggesting that those weren't the only options.

Did I hit some kind of nerve or something?

EDIT: Anyway, I'm sorry if I stepped on anybodies toes, I'm gonna hit the sack.

@CanuckHeaven: I'm sorry if I dumped too much on your poll, man (or woman), its got people talking, so that's a good thing. Ride safe.

Are you mad at me or something? I was just making conversation, and the analogies are fairly apt.

You don't have to change your poll options, I was just making a point. If the points been made, so be it, but please don't be upset over it.
I understand that you are already renting space in Straughn's head, :D and I currently have no vacancies, so you have no need to worry about me. Thanks for your concern though. :)

I understand that you are already renting space in Straughn's head, :D and I currently have no vacancies, so you have no need to worry about me. Thanks for your concern though. :)

Dude won't take rent. I'm a trespasser...or squatter, since he's asleep, heh.

My worry on the upload-your-brain-to-a-machine deal is, what if transferring the information does result in a self-aware mind on/in the machine, but that thing is only based on you, it isn't you? (I'm speculating here, I admit).

Rather than do that, it would make far more sense to replace the brain itself, gradually, using artificial components. This way, there is no break in the conscious experience of the person, resolving that question, and the person will be capable of all of the same things as an uploaded person without the philosophical quandaries.

Plus, it's easier...

The poll was all about what one believes, not about whether one was unsure of what they believe. The poll was designed as a yes or no affair only.

And there's the problem - you can get some statistical responses, but they are going to be a fudge job at best.

I've abstained, even though it was you and I talking that probably spawned the thread. I have abstained because the questions fail to match the topic, and because they fail to realisitcally accomodate me.

And, if they don't accomodate me, they probably don't accomodate some other people too - and your nice little 'yes' or 'no' actually becomes people trying to work out how to fit their answer into your binary system.

Obviously. That's assumed in the question.

I find it hard to believe anyone would reject the first, though I see some problems with the second.

But what is justice? what is right and what is wrong? You assume that such things have universal answers, which they don't.

My worry on the upload-your-brain-to-a-machine deal is, what if transferring the information does result in a self-aware mind on/in the machine, but that thing is only based on you, it isn't you? (I'm speculating here, I admit).

So, the robot/android/30mTallRobotCentaurWithChestMountedFusionCanon thing can pass a Turing test, and it knows everything you knew, but the consciousness that died when you died isn't the same as what wakes up in the machine?
Again, I think the focus should be to try to transfer (as opposed to copy or whatever you're saying would be the case) the consciousness itself so as to make it as if the person whose consciousness was transferred didn't die.

And there's the problem - you can get some statistical responses, but they are going to be a fudge job at best.

I've abstained, even though it was you and I talking that probably spawned the thread. I have abstained because the questions fail to match the topic, and because they fail to realisitcally accomodate me.

And, if they don't accomodate me, they probably don't accomodate some other people too - and your nice little 'yes' or 'no' actually becomes people trying to work out how to fit their answer into your binary system.
Again, I appreciate your concern, but I was not seeking an agnostic kind of response to an atheist specific question.

Atheists on this board are very adamant when it comes to their non belief in a diety. They are also very outspoken in regards to all things supernatural, and I believed that it would be a slam dunk in regards to this question. It would appear that 20% of the atheists on this board actually believe in the supernatural aspects of some form of life after death.

A maybe answer would not be so defining.

Am I the only one who is struck by the irony of the thread title?


I was not struck.
However, I was lightly caressed.

If that makes you feel any better.

Am I the only one who is struck by the irony of the thread title?



I'll believe in "life after death" when I am dead and still living.

I understand that you are already renting space in Straughn's head, :D
The irritating part is .... they're a kicker AND screamer, even though they go through the whole "buried cross-armed in the casket" routine every time they siesta. :mad:

But what is justice? what is right and what is wrong? You assume that such things have universal answers, which they don’t.
I’m assuming they do for the purpose of a thought experiment, a musing. I’m not believing them to be true, or even believing that a god or god’s exist.

All I’m saying is that the idea that, sometimes, it’d be nice to know that bad people/behaviour got punished and good people/behaviour got rewarded (if there was a supreme power and if this supreme power could deal out an objective, universal justice).

As they say, life ain’t fair, and I suppose one enticing aspect of religion is justice.

Again, I think the focus should be to try to transfer (as opposed to copy or whatever you're saying would be the case) the consciousness itself so as to make it as if the person whose consciousness was transferred didn't die.

Right, I see that as the goal, I was just worried that the transfer would be similar to transferring data (which is really just copying and then maybe deleting the old stuff). But if the consciousness can be transferred as something other than information, that'd be cool.

One of the other posters pointed out you could do llke a modular replacemet of the biological to the technical, a piece at a time, so there would be an unbroken stream of self-awareness. That seems like it might work.

Right, I see that as the goal, I was just worried that the transfer would be similar to transferring data (which is really just copying and then maybe deleting the old stuff). But if the consciousness can be transferred as something other than information, that'd be cool.

One of the other posters pointed out you could do llke a modular replacemet of the biological to the technical, a piece at a time, so there would be an unbroken stream of self-awareness. That seems like it might work.
I think that having just a cerebral extension to life would be rather unappealing.

Again, I appreciate your concern, but I was not seeking an agnostic kind of response to an atheist specific question.

Atheists on this board are very adamant when it comes to their non belief in a diety. They are also very outspoken in regards to all things supernatural, and I believed that it would be a slam dunk in regards to this question. It would appear that 20% of the atheists on this board actually believe in the supernatural aspects of some form of life after death.

A maybe answer would not be so defining.

I'm an atheist. I'm 'on this board'. I don't believe in a diety. I'm not sure I'm all that outspoken 'in regards to all things supernatural', either. I don't think you're realistically representing 'atheists', collectively. I'm not sure if this makes your whole thread an enormous strawman fallacy.

That has nothing to do with 'life after death', except in the terms where 'life after death' is entirely contingent on some kind of deity.

And that's the problem - you say you don't want an 'agnostic' response... but atheism (with regard to theism) doesn't automatically entail that one will have an equivalent position on an afterlife.

And - you haven't even applied the same rules to 'an afterlife' as we have in terms of theism - your options are 'believe in an after' or 'believe in NO afterlife'... you simply skip the straightforward 'don't believe' option...

Perhaps that's what you meant by not wanting an 'agnostic' response? It isn't... it's equivalent to an 'atheist response'. Your poll just ins't representative.

Your statistics say one thing - but if you read the thread, a (fairly consderable) number of people have clearly stated that they don't fit into either of your options.

You say it ""would not be so defining"... but your definition is worthless if it isn't representative. Yay for defining polls that mean nothing!

Terry Pratchett once wrote that whatever you believe happens to you when you die, is actually what happens. I kinda like that idea so am moving away from my atheist view of nothing to a land flowing with vodka - just in case.

Terry Pratchett once wrote that whatever you believe happens to you when you die, is actually what happens. I kinda like that idea so am moving away from my atheist view of nothing to a land flowing with vodka - just in case.

Terry Pratchett isn't the only person to have espoused a view that our 'eternity' is shaped by our own conception of it, although he is as good a prophet of that view as you are likely to find. :D

There is no 'atheist view of nothing'. Many atheists reject the idea of an afterlife - especially one that is contingent on some religion - but it isn't intrinsic to atheism. Usually - an 'afterlife' is not allowed for for the same reason that 'god(s)' is/are not allowed for - it's just not logical to accept something there's no evidence for.

But, it seems very few atheists would actually go so far as to say there definitely is NO god, most seem content with 'I don't believe in god or gods'. But there are atheists that accept the possibility of ghosts (which would be a form of afterlife, maybe?), or other inexplicable phenomena - they might not come out and say "I believe"... but they might not go so far as to say "It cannot exist" either.

I think that having just a cerebral extension to life would be rather unappealing.

I'm sure NVidia or somebody would make a reasonable cyberwang for dudes and USB/Firewire compatible cooch for the ladies.

Or a hub for Colorado City Breakaway Mormons.

I'm sorry, that wasn't cool.

Your poll doesn't allow for athiests who hold neither opinion.

I'm an athiest because I think it's irrational to hold religious beliefs. As such, it would also be irrational to hold beliefs regarding the afterlife.

Afterlife would need a sort of religious belief..while reincarnation has a lot more factors, although i do not believe in it

Passing on memories, cloning etc...

I don't believe in any sort of afterlife. I can't proof there is no afterlife, but I don't see any evidence for one either.
I have a problem with the concept of the soul. Who gets one? Is it only humans, only "intelligent life"? Where do you draw that line?
When is the soul created/implanted or whatever, conception? Are there loads of aborted / miscarried baby souls floating around who never got to read any holy book? Do they get a free pass to a good afterlife?
Is the soul separate from the brain? Suppose you have an accident or disease and become brain damaged. Does your soul remain in some pure state ready to be released when you finally kick the bucket? Does the soul run the brain or does the brain run the soul? How can whatever deity hold the soul responsible for the shortcomings of a human body?

Your poll doesn't allow for athiests who hold neither opinion.
Okay then, what poll option would you write for yourself and what would your answer be?

I'm an athiest because I think it's irrational to hold religious beliefs.
Fair enough.

As such, it would also be irrational to hold beliefs regarding the afterlife.
How so?

How so?
The two are quite similar. Both involve beliefs regarding something we can't see or measure. No reasonable person could have an opinion one way or the other.

Afterlife would need a sort of religious belief..

Not true.

What about some kind of gaia principle, where our individual consciousnesses return to the world? Existence continued as part of a greater consciousness?

Not true.

What about some kind of gaia principle, where our individual consciousnesses return to the world? Existence continued as part of a greater consciousness?
How is that not a religious belief?

Not true.

What about some kind of gaia principle, where our individual consciousnesses return to the world? Existence continued as part of a greater consciousness?

Seems religious to me ;)

How is that not a religious belief?

Seems religious to me ;)

Spiritual, more like. Besides, who says atheists can't be religious?

How is that not a religious belief?

Because there is no 'religion' involved. Honestly, it's not that hard.

Because there is no 'religion' involved. Honestly, it's not that hard.
There's no organised religion involved, but a Gaia belief follows the form of a religious belief.

Religious beliefs are beliefs in a supernatural metaphysical truth.

Do you see a difference?

Spiritual, more like. Besides, who says atheists can't be religious?
Atheists can be religious; I never claimed otherwise.

But the source of my athiesm (reason) precludes religious belief.

There should be an option for

"Pending proof or experience"

I don't make guesses about it, so I'll figure out after I'm dead.

There is no 'atheist view of nothing'.
So atheists have nothing to say about "nothing"? :D

Many atheists reject the idea of an afterlife - especially one that is contingent on some religion - but it isn't intrinsic to atheism.
This is why I posted the poll and so far, about 20% of atheists on this board do have a belief in some form of life after death. Which of course I find interesting and tweaks my desire to do some more research on this subject.

Usually - an 'afterlife' is not allowed for for the same reason that 'god(s)' is/are not allowed for - it's just not logical to accept something there's no evidence for.
It is illogical for atheists to believe that there is life after death? Yet, you stated that you could not vote in my poll because the options were limited?

But, it seems very few atheists would actually go so far as to say there definitely is NO god, most seem content with 'I don't believe in god or gods'.
Conversely then, most atheists would concede that there may be a God?

But there are atheists that accept the possibility of ghosts (which would be a form of afterlife, maybe?), or other inexplicable phenomena - they might not come out and say "I believe"... but they might not go so far as to say "It cannot exist" either.
If an atheist "accepts the possibility of ghosts", then they do "believe" that they may exist, even though they don't want to say it.

There's no organised religion involved, but a Gaia belief follows the form of a religious belief.

Religious beliefs are beliefs in a supernatural metaphysical truth.

Do you see a difference?

I'm not entirely sure how you get to 'there' from 'here'. Where is the supernature? Where is the metaphysics? Where, even, is the 'truth'?

I think you have implanted what you want to see, over the top of anything I might have actually written. (Like your Gaia, from my gaia).

It is illogical for atheists to believe that there is life after death? Yet, you stated that you could not vote in my poll because the options were limited?


There seems to be some conflict there? Logic might not be the only regulator, no? Even something that appears illogical to the human mind could exist, could it not?

I don't believe there is life after death. But that isn't one of your options - so, yes, your options are too limited.


Conversely then, most atheists would concede that there may be a God?


Most do.


If an atheist "accepts the possibility of ghosts", then they do "believe" that they may exist, even though they don't want to say it.

"Believing maybe"? I'm not sure what that would even mean.

Accepting the possibility that a thing could be, is certainly not equivalent to believing 'it is'.

I believe in life after death due to the relativity of consciousness. Probably no one understands this and if I try to explain it people get a headache so I won't bother.

So atheists have nothing to say
Conversely then, most atheists would concede that there may be a God?



Then they aren't atheists, they're agnostics.

I believe in life after death due to the relativity of consciousness. Probably no one understands this and if I try to explain it people get a headache so I won't bother.

You should bother ... you should also include the concept of the relativity of sub- and un-consciousness.

Then they aren't atheists, they're agnostics.

Not at all.

An atheist doesn't have to DENY the existence of god - only lack belief in one/any.

I don't believe in any gods, but I am entirely willing to concede that I could just be wrong.

Then they aren't atheists, they're agnostics.

No. Its like saying all Democrats, Republicans, or Liberals or Conseravtives all believe the exact same thing. No gray, just black or white.

Thats just not the case.

Atheists run hard and softline, like everyone else.

An atheist can be anywhere between "I dont believe there is a god, but I could be wrong..."
To "there isnt any such fucking thing as god. period."

Agnostics, just dont have enough information to make a judgement call.

Not at all.

An atheist doesn't have to DENY the existence of god - only lack belief in one/any.

I don't believe in any gods, but I am entirely willing to concede that I could just be wrong.

example of softline atheism.

For a hardliner, see United Beren's sig.

An atheist can be anywhere between "I dont believe there is a god, but I could be wrong..."
In other words....agnostic.

To "there isnt any such fucking thing as god. period."
Illogical atheistic statement.

Agnostics, just dont have enough information to make a judgement call.
What information does an atheist have that separates them from agnostics?

I don't believe there is life after death. But that isn't one of your options - so, yes, your options are too limited.
How is that (bolded) different from this?:

"I am an atheist and believe that there is no life after death"

In other words....agnostic.

Illogical atheistic statement.

What information does an atheist have that separates them from agnostics?
An agnostic is one who believes it is not possible for us to know whether or not God exists.

This is quite different from a person who simply hasn't made up their mind yet, or who isn't sure at the moment, or who hasn't really thought about the question.

Agnosticism is a very clear and simple belief, but it's one of the most misunderstood.

Atheists don't have any more information than agnostics do, nor do theists. That's why the distinction is so important. NOBODY can know whether or not God exists, but some theists and some atheists assert that they have such knowledge.


Also, in regards to your assertion that "there isnt any such fucking thing as god. period." is an "illogical atheistic statement," you're going to first have to define god before you get to make that claim. Personally, I think it's quite logical to assert that "god" is essentially a meaningless term, because it means whatever the fuck the individual in question wants it to. In my opinion, "god" is a word humans use when they feel like it, to mean whatever they feel like, and I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any kind that there is ANY objectively real entity, force, or object upon which the term "god" is directly based. God is 100% subjective, in my opinion, and objectively speaking I think it's quite logical and reasonable to assert that there's no such thing as god.

How is that (bolded) different from this?:

"I am an atheist and believe that there is no life after death"
Because lacking belief in something is not the same as actively disbelieving.

I lack belief in little green men, because I've yet to see any evidence that they exist. However, I also freely admit that it's entirely possible there are little green men somewhere in the universe.

I don't believe in the factual existence of every single thing that might possibly exist. Neither do you. You can't, frankly, and none of us can. We select from the infinite possibilities and believe in only a tiny, tiny fraction. The only difference is the criterion upon which you select those things you will believe in.

How is that (bolded) different from this?:

"I am an atheist and believe that there is no life after death"The difference is sophistry. The same kind religious people with an axe to grind use, when they proclaim atheism a religion.

The difference is sophistry.
A kind word for bullshit!! :D

A kind word for bullshit!! :DI tend to think of it this way: sophistry can be unintensional. Bullshit can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I don't believe there is life after death. But that isn't one of your options - so, yes, your options are too limited.

How is that (bolded) different from this?:

"I am an atheist and believe that there is no life after death"

"I don't believe there are planets around Alpha Centauri" is entirely different from "I do believe that there are no planets around Alpha Centauri". I DON'T KNOW! Why is it so difficult for you to understand that many people have no beliefs in either direction?

An agnostic is one who believes it is not possible for us to know whether or not God exists.

This is quite different from a person who simply hasn't made up their mind yet, or who isn't sure at the moment, or who hasn't really thought about the question.

Agnosticism is a very clear and simple belief, but it's one of the most misunderstood.

Atheists don't have any more information than agnostics do, nor do theists. That's why the distinction is so important. NOBODY can know whether or not God exists, but some theists and some atheists assert that they have such knowledge.


Also, in regards to your assertion that "there isnt any such fucking thing as god. period." is an "illogical atheistic statement," you're going to first have to define god before you get to make that claim. Personally, I think it's quite logical to assert that "god" is essentially a meaningless term, because it means whatever the fuck the individual in question wants it to. In my opinion, "god" is a word humans use when they feel like it, to mean whatever they feel like, and I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any kind that there is ANY objectively real entity, force, or object upon which the term "god" is directly based. God is 100% subjective, in my opinion, and objectively speaking I think it's quite logical and reasonable to assert that there's no such thing as god.

There's an infinite number of things we can't prove don't exist. We can't prove The Justice League of America, Zeus, Santa Claus, Altjira, Khali, Bugs Bunny, Jehovah, etc doesn't exist. I do not take seriously the existence of any of the previously mentioned characters . I would say that if you hold the opinion that any of these may exist but can't prove otherwise, then you're an agnostic. If you're certain that some of these don't exist, then you're an atheist as far as those particular entities are concerned.

I'm not entirely sure how you get to 'there' from 'here'. Where is the supernature? Where is the metaphysics? Where, even, is the 'truth'?
The supernatural metaphysics would be the consciousnesses returning to the earth, that you described.

As for the truth, if you believe something to be true, you're believing in the existence of a truth to that effect. The only way around that is if you think belief in something doesn't actually constitute a belief that something is true.

The difference is sophistry. The same kind religious people with an axe to grind use, when they proclaim atheism a religion.
That's not sophistry at all; that's an important distinction.

The two would only be equivalent in cases where there was an excluded middle - where you had to believe either that there is life after death or that there is not. But that's not true. You could hold neither position (indeed, any reasonable person would).

There's an infinite number of things we can't prove don't exist. We can't prove The Justice League of America, Zeus, Santa Claus, Altjira, Khali, Bugs Bunny, Jehovah, etc doesn't exist. I do not take seriously the existence of any of the previously mentioned characters . I would say that if you hold the opinion that any of these may exist but can't prove otherwise, then you're an agnostic. If you're certain that some of these don't exist, then you're an atheist as far as those particular entities are concerned.
That is exactly my take on all that.

Also, in regards to your assertion that "there isnt any such fucking thing as god. period." is an "illogical atheistic statement," you're going to first have to define god before you get to make that claim. Personally, I think it's quite logical to assert that "god" is essentially a meaningless term, because it means whatever the fuck the individual in question wants it to.

The academian part of my brain connects this with something...something...Logical Positivists, maybe?
The actual philosophy isn't important, but that is a point I think people often ignore. Many people who are atheists are really saying, "I don't believe in the popular conception of God in my society," because, as you say, what God is is unclear.
A History of God by Karen Armstrong talks some about this, the way God has changed throughout history (and with that, the way lack of belief in him has changed). I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems good, and so I'll preemptively recommend it.

Also, in regards to your assertion that "there isnt any such fucking thing as god. period." is an "illogical atheistic statement," you're going to first have to define god before you get to make that claim. Personally, I think it's quite logical to assert that "god" is essentially a meaningless term, because it means whatever the fuck the individual in question wants it to. In my opinion, "god" is a word humans use when they feel like it, to mean whatever they feel like, and I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any kind that there is ANY objectively real entity, force, or object upon which the term "god" is directly based. God is 100% subjective, in my opinion, and objectively speaking I think it's quite logical and reasonable to assert that there's no such thing as god.
It is one thing to claim that you believe that there is/are no God(s), and quite another to proclaim that there is/are no God(s). Although you have every right to make such a proclamation, I don't see where you are qualified to do so.

In other words....agnostic.


No.

Agnosticism is simply about whether one can KNOW if there is a god or gods.

You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist - it's a modifier on the question of belief in god(s), maybe - it isn't an alternative.


Illogical atheistic statement.


Most atheists would agree with you.


What information does an atheist have that separates them from agnostics?

Why are they separate.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I admit, I think it's probably impossible to ever KNOW for sure, either way - I really doubt we'll ever have some kind of science that will enable us to measure 'god', and I'm not expecting a verifiable arrival of gods.

That makes me agnostic.

The fact that I'm an atheist, is additional to that, not in place of it.

How is that (bolded) different from this?:

"I am an atheist and believe that there is no life after death"

'I don't believe there is life after death'. versus 'I believe there is no life after death'.

'I believe there is no life after death' is a statement of belief. It is a belief that there is a lack of life, beyond the grave.

'I don't believe there is life after death' is not a statement of belief - exactly the opposite, in fact - it disclaims belief. It sets no implicit alternative, it is mere non-acceptance of the 'belief' premise.

The difference is sophistry. The same kind religious people with an axe to grind use, when they proclaim atheism a religion.

No - the difference is not sophistry.

If I believe something, I hold it to be true.

If I believe there is an absence of a thing (like god), it means I hold it to be true that there is no god.

If I have an absence of belief regarding a thing (like god), it means I do NOT hold a position to be true... I neither claim there to be NO god, nor accept a god. It's the default setting - it's what you have when the concept of god is unrecognised. It's what is left when there is no faith for or against 'gods'.

The supernatural metaphysics would be the consciousnesses returning to the earth, that you described.


Thought is electrical. Memory is chemical. Without stretching to unknown concepts, our 'thought' and 'memory' do return to the earth.

Nothing beyond nature. Nothing beyond physical.

Whether or not our consciousness can be transmitted like that, I don't know... hence I offered a possible scenario that might work, I didn't claim it as a belief. But, it is a route that COULD be considered a mechanism for 'life after death', and your protestations of supernature and metaphysics are demonstrably just pink fish.

There's an infinite number of things we can't prove don't exist. We can't prove The Justice League of America, Zeus, Santa Claus, Altjira, Khali, Bugs Bunny, Jehovah, etc doesn't exist.

You cannot prove a negative. So yeah.

There are some things we can essentially prove were fictional inventions. Mainly because a lot of us were alive to witness their invention. But there are other things we can't prove or disprove. We cannot know about their factual existence.


I do not take seriously the existence of any of the previously mentioned characters . I would say that if you hold the opinion that any of these may exist but can't prove otherwise, then you're an agnostic.

No, that would be equivalent to theism.


If you're certain that some of these don't exist, then you're an atheist as far as those particular entities are concerned.
True. For instance, I am not agnostic on the subject of Bugs Bunny's factual reality. I know, as much as I can know anything, that Bugs Bunny is a fictional character. I am not agnostic in regards to Bugs, I am simply "atheist."

However, when it comes to God I am both agnostic and atheist. I believe it is impossible for me to know whether or not there is a God, and this leads me to conclude that I should lack belief in God/gods.

It is one thing to claim that you believe that there is/are no God(s), and quite another to proclaim that there is/are no God(s).

Sure. Kind of like how it's one thing to claim that I don't believe Bugs Bunny is real, and another to claim that Bugs Bunny isn't real.

Let me put it this way: I acknowledge that I don't know whether or not there is/are a God/gods. But when it comes to the existence of the particular God images that the majority of humans worship, I am as certain of their fictional nature as I am of Bugs Bunny's.


Although you have every right to make such a proclamation, I don't see where you are qualified to do so.
I'm as qualified as anybody else. On the subject of God/gods in general, since NOBODY can know the real answer, we are all qualified.

Why are they separate.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I admit, I think it's probably impossible to ever KNOW for sure, either way - I really doubt we'll ever have some kind of science that will enable us to measure 'god', and I'm not expecting a verifiable arrival of gods.

That makes me agnostic.

The fact that I'm an atheist, is additional to that, not in place of it.
And I am the reverse of GnI, since agnosticism came first for me.

I first came to the conclusion that I could not know whether or not any God/gods exist/s.

Then I reasoned that, since I can't even know if it exists in the first place, I also can't possibly know what qualities it might have.

Then I concluded that since I can't even know what God is, if it even exists, then (from an external point of view) there's no reason for me to pick a God-image to worship. I have no information to use in selecting the correct image. It would be like me walking into an advanced Chinese language class and taking the final exam...I'd just be guessing and picking answers at random. Even if I somehow got a few answers right by chance it wouldn't really matter. It's not like the teacher would applaud me for having randomly guessed an answer. Nor should she.

My final conclusion was that, for me, God-belief is pointless from an internal point of view. By this I mean that I don't feel any desire to believe in God. Even with everything I've said above, there could still be a good reason for a person to embrace God-belief. Maybe it makes them happier than anything else in the world. That's a pretty good reason to believe in something. But that's not the case for me.

I'm as qualified as anybody else.
I really don't think so.

On the subject of God/gods in general, since NOBODY can know the real answer, we are all qualified.
That is an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part.

That is an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part.

Who knows the real answer then ?

There are some things we can essentially prove were fictional inventions. Mainly because a lot of us were alive to witness their invention. But there are other things we can't prove or disprove. We cannot know about their factual existence.
I suppose when everyone is dead who knew Mel Blanc personally then we'll no longer be able to assume Bugs Bunny doesn't exist. It's also possible that Mel Blanc really created a cartoon representation of an intelligent wabbit he'd actually met in real life. Who's to say? Just as likely as a god existing, maybe more so.



Originally Posted by Shlarg
I do not take seriously the existence of any of the previously mentioned characters . I would say that if you hold the opinion that any of these may exist but can't prove otherwise, then you're an agnostic.

No, that would be equivalent to theism.
Er....oops. I should've said "....if you hold the opinion that any of these may "NOT" exist but can't prove otherwise, then you're an agnostic"


"Kill da wabbit!" Elmer Fudd
"The Wabbit is dead." Shlarg