Do you believe in life after death?

[cupocity303]

Oh and props to the TS for topic originality. Looking forward to the next one in 6 months time.

[Dr Rumack]

"It is a most unreasonable fancy that we should exist forever." - David Hume, smart dude.

[Danny Gunz]

Do you believe in life after love?

[miron_lang]

The most logical answer is

We dont know for sure.


but each has their own belief system Theist would say Yes and Atheist would say NO.

Atheist would like to be louder and will throw some insults because they are fewer in number so they need to attract attention.

Theist would get offended by the insult because they firmly believe that they are correct on this matter.


and so on and so forth ............

[BennyST]

The most logical answer is

We dont know for sure.


but each has their own belief system Theist would say Yes and Atheist would say NO.

Atheist would like to be louder and will throw some insults because they are fewer in number so they need to attract attention.

Theist would get offended by the insult because they firmly believe that they are correct on this matter.


and so on and so forth ............

I think the logical standpoint is no. We really can't know anything for sure. Absolutely certainty is all but impossible. We use everything we have, plus whatever evidence, shared experience, and shared reality etc to make as true a judgement as possible about the reality of things as we see and know them, but we can't be absolutely certain about much in life at all, if anything.

I can't be absolutely sure that as I left my home today, it wasn't blown up straight after or fell into some kind of space/time vortex and that I won't be coming back to a home at all, but I'm reasonably certain, about as certain as I can be of anything, based on what I and others all perceive as reality, that it will still be there as it is every day.

Everything, from a scientific perspective based on our shared reality, points to the fact that we don't go on living in some other realm of existence. We can't know with absolute certainty that we don't, but that's just like we can't know with absolute certainty that Zeus and Mithra aren't still zooming about on flying horses and **** and that Thor isn't flying about bashing people with hammers, but we're about as sure as we can be. That's the logical standpoint I think.

[miron_lang]

I think the logical standpoint is no. We really can't know anything for sure. Absolutely certainty is all but impossible. We use everything we have, plus whatever evidence, shared experience, and shared reality etc to make as true a judgement as possible about the reality of things as we see and know them, but we can't be absolutely certain about much in life at all, if anything.

I can't be absolutely sure that as I left my home today, it wasn't blown up straight after or fell into some kind of space/time vortex and that I won't be coming back to a home at all, but I'm reasonably certain, about as certain as I can be of anything, based on what I and others all perceive as reality, that it will still be there as it is every day.

Everything, from a scientific perspective based on our shared reality, points to the fact that we don't go on living in some other realm of existence. We can't know with absolute certainty that we don't, but that's just like we can't know with absolute certainty that Zeus and Mithra aren't still zooming about on flying horses and **** and that Thor isn't flying about bashing people with hammers, but we're about as sure as we can be. That's the logical standpoint I think.

I am absolutely sure that all humans ( The physical body) will die

I am absolutely sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow

I am absolutely sure that if i pull the trigger of a loaded .45 caliber pointed inside my mouth i will die.

There are so many things that we are sure about. but the existence or non existence of an afterlife is not one of them.


Logic means valid reasoning. saying NO is the most logical is false. because you need to be certain to make it valid.

"We dont know for sure"

[Weltschmerz]

Fate is one of those concepts I really don't get. If you believe in fate, then you don't think you have control of you're life.

If your predestined to end in some place in your life, then what's the point? I don't believe in fate, soul mates, life after death, aliens, big foot, fairies, ghouls or goblins.

I believe in ME. I believe that I am in control of my life and nobody else. I control my health (for the most part) with the decisions I make, the money I make, the lifestyle I live and who I am with.

Of course there are things out of your control but all in all, we are the captains of our own ships.

Fate to me, seems like an excuse to just accept failure. I refuse to accept failure.

I am fully in control of my life and I'm no weakling as you imply.

You don't get the point of what I said for starters, so it's difficult for me to give a reasonable response to your babble.

It's great that you believe in yourself though, the Nietzschean approach I often applaud.

But you are not in control of everything, even if you're superman in your own head. For example, Mother Nature can crush you at any second. You're just human like everybody else around you.

[Barn]

I am absolutely sure that all humans ( The physical body) will die

I am absolutely sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow

I am absolutely sure that if i pull the trigger of a loaded .45 caliber pointed inside my mouth i will die.

There are so many things that we are sure about. but the existence or non existence of an afterlife is not one of them.


Logic means valid reasoning. saying NO is the most logical is false. because you need to be certain to make it valid.

"We dont know for sure"

But there's no scientific argument for life after death, it makes sense that once the energy conversions/chemical reactions that take place in your brain in order to make it work stop working, then the brain stops working and we are no longer aware of our selves and we are truly dead.

So the logical answer is a "no".

[Dr Rumack]

When you're dealing with religious belief (superstition) you're not dealing with a rational thought process.

Religion, because it depends on totally unsupported claims, comes with an in-built clause that asking questions is wrong. 'Blasphemy', as religious folk will call it wherever they have the power to do so.

Questioning political or economic beliefs is considered a rational, perfectly normal thing to do. Questioning religious beliefs on the other hand is regarded as outrageous, an insult, something that only a 'militant' atheist would consider.

Why the double standards? It's because religion can't defend itself against questioning. Nothing destroys religious indoctrination quicker than critical thinking, which is why religious fundamentalists (christian and ******) hate education so much.

Just look at this statement in religious infused platform of the Texas GOP:

Knowledge-Based Education ?We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Frightening stuff. They regard education in secular society as having an embedded agenda which focuses on the destruction of religious belief. This is nonsense. The destruction of religious belief is merely a by-product of learning how to think.

Indoctrination depends upon certain questions never being asked, with those questions being regarded as taboo and given negative connotations, hence the institution of blasphemy. Education leads people to question everything. They don't always do so of course, but the fantastical and flimsy teachings like those contained in religious doctrine are particularly vulnerable to that inquisitive impulse.

When you think about the question of life after death, the 'we don't know for sure' argument is reasonable, to some extent. But it's advanced by people who also insist upon respect for their belief in a man in the sky who made everything and watches everything we do. It's the selective skepticism that gives the game away.

When a rational thought process comes to the conclusion that 'we don't know for sure', the normal outcome is to disregard the proposition until which time that evidence emerges that supports it. I don't know for sure that an onion in my kitchen doesn't control the universe, but it seems pretty unlikely that it does.

When the religious thought process presents the same 'we don't know for sure' conclusion, it's merely to argue that their belief can't be disproven, and therefore the belief that the onion in the kitchen controls the universe should be respected, and given special status in society.

This isn't necessarily the way all individuals who have religious faith behave, but it is how religious institutions behave. And it is absolutely the thought process of the loudest and shrillest religious fundamentalists who seem to have more of platform nowadays than they've had in centuries.

[Weltschmerz]

When you're dealing with religious belief (superstition) you're not dealing with a rational thought process.

Religion, because it depends on totally unsupported claims, comes with an in-built clause that asking questions is wrong. 'Blasphemy', as religious folk will call it wherever they have the power to do so.

Questioning political or economic beliefs is considered a rational, perfectly normal thing to do. Questioning religious beliefs on the other hand is regarded as outrageous, an insult, something that only a 'militant' atheist would consider.

Why the double standards? It's because religion can't defend itself against questioning. Nothing destroys religious indoctrination quicker than critical thinking, which is why religious fundamentalists (christian and ******) hate education so much.

Just look at this statement in religious infused platform of the Texas GOP:



Frightening stuff. They regard education in secular society as having an embedded agenda which focuses on the destruction of religious belief. This is nonsense. The destruction of religious belief is merely a by-product of learning how to think.

Indoctrination depends upon certain questions never being asked, with those questions being regarded as taboo and given negative connotations, hence the institution of blasphemy. Education leads people to question everything. They don't always do so of course, but the fantastical and flimsy teachings like those contained in religious doctrine are particularly vulnerable to that inquisitive impulse.

When you think about the question of life after death, the 'we don't know for sure' argument is reasonable, to some extent. But it's advanced by people who also insist upon respect for their belief in a man in the sky who made everything and watches everything we do. It's the selective skepticism that gives the game away.

When a rational thought process comes to the conclusion that 'we don't know for sure', the normal outcome is to disregard the proposition until which time that evidence emerges that supports it. I don't know for sure that an onion in my kitchen doesn't control the universe, but it seems pretty unlikely that it does.

When the religious thought process presents the same 'we don't know for sure' conclusion, it's merely to argue that their belief can't be disproven, and therefore the belief that the onion in the kitchen controls the universe should be respected, and given special status in society.

This isn't necessarily the way all individuals who have religious faith behave, but it is how religious institutions behave. And it is absolutely the thought process of the loudest and shrillest religious fundamentalists who seem to have more of platform nowadays than they've had in centuries.

People who died and woke up have described different experiences. Some say there's nothingness, but some have colorful stories about what happened. Who knows?