Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you believe in life after death?
  • Subject: Do you believe in life after death?
Subject: Do you believe in life after death?

GAAAAYYY


Posted by: soulEATER123666

Posted by: Final Rose
Yes, because I'm not a pessimist idiot.


You're calling people who don't believe in a miracle existence after the brain and heart stop idiots?

OT: No,death is just like 3 billion years before you were born, nothing,no thinking or existence.

Dude that's Rose. He is an utter spastic take no regard of what he says.

  • 01.01.2013 1:30 AM PDT

Posted by; A random forum poster
Posted by; ghostvirus
This apple is brown, and rotten. This orange on the other hand, is in relatively average shape. So the orange is definitely the preferable option.
----------You can't compare apples and oranges. You're so dumb.


Posted by: echo630

This is ridiculous. You calling them idiots for having faith is hypocritical because you're so faithful yourself in the idea that life does not continue after death. To use an analogy, atheism is as much a position of faith as theism.


Not really. In an infinitude of positions, many directly contradictory, its exceedingly unlikely that any one position is true. The null hypothesis is that in the absence of any compelling evidence, any given specific hypothesis in a sea of possible hypotheses is probably false. This naturally leads one to agnosticism. Moving from this position requires that one can reasonably conclude that a hypothesis, or some hypotheses, are more likely than others to be true.

The simplest way to do this is to apply the principle of Occam's razor. That is to say all things being equal, the hypothesis with the fewer assumptions wins out. In other words hypotheses that speculate the existence of fewer unknowable entities, realities, or forces are more dependable.

Belief in supernatural phenomenon is by definition non parsimonious - it betrays Occam's Razor explicitly.

Define supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

That is to say hypotheses that claims the afterlife exists is NOT equal to hypotheses that states that it doesn't. Because a hypothesis that states the afterlife exists must invent entities, myths, or forces, a hypothesis that states you rot in the ground does not and cease to exist does not. Thus belief in the latter in a sea of hypotheses that speculate the existence of unknown entities, and forces, is justified.

This confusion, which I see quite often, tends to come from people who are scientifically or epistemologically ignorant. In modern discourse, "true belief", is seen as a fools errand. That is to say it is impossible to ever be 100% convinced of any statement, about what is conventionally thought of as the "outside" world. In this view, the role of philosophical and scientific inquiry is to establish degrees of certainty. A person can state, " I believe X is true", while still accepting that X may not be true. The belief indicates differential levels of confidence in this position rather than contradictory positions. A person is rational when that differential levels of confidence can be empirically or rationally justified.

Thus I can maintain that god, or gods, do not exist, and for all intents and purposes be an atheist, because of a lack of qualifying evidence in gods, but still be open to future evidence (i.e death) proving me wrong.

Stated another way: In a sea of possible and actualized hypotheses without any evidence, it is probable that any given hypothesis is wrong. A hypothesis without evidence that requires subsequent hypotheses without evidence in order to be coherent, is therefore even more likely to be wrong.


Now I think we can go further, which is to say I can demonstrate that there is evidence that the self is a physical substrate of some kind.

For this I would point to people who suffer traumatic brain injury, that results in the damage of brain tissue. Such people suffer the complete loss of function, depending on where the damage is localized. Virtually every fundamental component of the self, has been associated with a specific part of the brain. Now imagine that I selectively destroy a part of your brain. You lose certain functions, certain parts of your self, but are otherwise normal. Then I selectively destroy some more tissue, and you lose other functions. For example perhaps I destroy the corpus callosum, the main connective fiber separating the right and left neo cortex. As a result you can no longer solve logical problems from your left eye. I can ask you to identify a word in your right eye, and you will see gibberish, but if I show you it in your left eye it appears as normal. A likely symptom you will suffer is a ghost hand syndrome. Where periodically your non-dominant hand or leg will suddenly act on its own accord, often performing intelligent behavior. Because your non-dominant hemisphere is still operational, despite not being connected very well to the rest of your neural network. I could continue this, selectively destroying tissue, forcing you to lose specific parts of what you consider "the self", leaving you only with the tissue and function I do not destroy, until there is nothing left.

This demonstrates and supports a reductive, non-cohesive, materialistic, view of consciousness. It is the emergent product of biological processes, rather than a cohesive, immaterial object. The evidence suggests that your consciousness is the product of the biological machine, we call the brain. That as I destroy your brain tissue, you will lose that part of yourself. Now we must be intellectually honest, and admit that even if the evidence suggests this, that we cannot be 100% certain. However it forces you to evoke even more unknown phenomenon in order to explain away the significance of the evidence presented.

So now we can have some confidence in the belief that the afterlife doesn't exist, because we can demonstrate consciousness is probably a biological process, and that it appears that we can destroy specific aspects of consciousness by destroying or disrupting certain biological phenomenon, while leaving other aspects intact.

I have formerly demonstrated that even if there was no particular compelling reason to believe the afterlife doesn't exist, the belief that it doesn't exist is justified. Arguing that all other alternative hypotheses similarly lack a compelling reason to be believed, but must also evoke other hypotheses without a compelling reason to believe in them.

I have now demonstrated that there is a compelling reason to believe in the material, non-cohesive, reductive, conception of consciousness. While simultaneously giving a compelling reason to believe consciousness dies with brain tissue. Again, you may articulate a new hypothesis, that assumes some new meta mythological reason to marginalize this evidence. However now the belief that there is no afterlife has compelling evidence, and all other beliefs must evoke even more unknown forces to remain coherent.


[Edited on 01.01.2013 1:46 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 1:33 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.

i'd like to point out here that surely there being no evidence would put you in an agnostic position, rather than for or against the notion.

sure, there is no evidence for a life after death so why should you believe it? but you have to see that it goes both ways. if you're going to say that there is no afterlife, you need evidence for that. i'm not saying that just because there is no evidence against it you should believe it, but if you shouldn't believe something without evidence but there is no evidence supporting 'there is no afterlife' then why should you believe that either? doing this is completely hypocritical and is something i see members of the scientific community doing all the time; it gives them no credit whatsoever.

  • 01.01.2013 1:37 AM PDT

Citizens of Me! The cruelty of the old Pharaoh is a thing of the past. Let a whole new wave of cruelty wash over this lazy land.

Hear the word of Pharaoh. Build unto me a statue of ridiculous proportion. One billion cubits in height......that I might be remembered for all eternity!

And be quick about it!

Yes, I do believe in life after death.

I'm not sure how far this thread can go, since taking it beyond a simple 'yes' or 'no' brings it into a religious discussion, which is against the rules.

  • 01.01.2013 1:39 AM PDT

"Living to smile, and not to succeed; smiling to inspire happiness, not to give the illusion you are happy; creativity and music to inspire smiling, which in turn inspires happiness; being nice to be happy, not for being perceived a good person."

My thoughts and the rational part of my mind tell me no, that there isn't one.

But yet I secretly hope, for it and a god, because I wish for meaning in this world and my death.

  • 01.01.2013 1:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That's right. My plumage is brighter than yours.


Posted by: EvilBad6666

Posted by: echo630

Posted by: EvilBad6666

Posted by: echo630
EvilBad: What I mean is that we can say, let's, with 99% accuracy that we are living right now. I mean, for all conventional purposes, that's a fine assumption. The tricky part is proving whether or not inside of our life, inside of ourselves, there is a soul that animates us--and if there is, which is a theory on the table, then that is reason to believe that it might persist after our bodily deaths. So we aren't positing something out of nowhere so much as we are extrapolating it. That's about what I mean about evidence.

Now, as far as what I actually believe, I don't believe we have a soul, so I think the question, "Do you exist after death?" is meaningless.

But yeah, I think in your summation of what I said, we're on the same page.


So you're saying that there's evidence that a soul might exist? I'm not going to argue with you on whether an afterlife exists right now or not, but I just want to be sure I get what you're saying. I mean I think you're saying that since there's this life then that's evidence that an afterlife might exist.

I just don't see how if something doesn't have any evidence why it would not be dismissible. Do we have a miscommunication on what evidence is?


No, no. I believe that when you think critically about it and really put the idea through your mental crucible, evidence to the contrary exists for a soul. I believe we are soulless and ever-changing. We have no centers. But I am saying that the existence of the soul is the competing theory. I split these theories into two groups: atman (souls) and anatman (no souls). I believe in anatman, and I think there is evidence and reason for that. But, if you really have reason to believe in atman, if you really think there is strong evidence for it (which I don't), then it is right to believe that there is no evidence to say that the soul either persists or perishes after bodily death. It's outside the scope of our science and our reason. It is of a different magisterium, so to speak.


Why would you have to have evidence to the contrary for a soul if there is no evidence for it in the first place? Also, if I understand your last statement correctly, are you saying that if no evidence can be collected then you can not tell if something is true or not? I'm pretty sure that if no evidence can be collected for something then it's the same as something where evidence can be collected but there is none collected.


I am saying that IF evidence can be collected, unequivocally, for atman, something that is eternal, then, once our bodies die, we have no way to track that atman, as far as we know. In that case (again, IF atman exists), we can't collect evidence for the persistence or perishing of said atman. It really is just a matter of either position being one of faith. It is not religion's, or the soul's, fault that we humans are so dependent on reason as the basis of many of our beliefs' but some beliefs by nature are not amenable to reason.

Now, why would I have to have evidence to the contrary of a soul if there is no evidence for it in the first place...well, that isn't true, that last part. When I use the word "soul", I use it more elastically than most people; but I basically am referring to a fixed entity that inhabits our bodies, that is veritably imprisoned by our bodies. That is the soul, that is atman. We all have that natural inclination to believe in that, I think. I mean, it is a survival tool to believe in yourself, to believe you survive for longer, for tomorrow, for next year, forever. It is delusion, but it is a helpful delusion. There are Darwinian reasons for why we would have developed this delusion, too: it is for survival.

However, that very delusion is the basis of our suffering and dissatisfaction with life because we attach to it so vehemently. It causes us anxiety to think that after we die, our personality, our beliefs, our very names will perish with our bodies. We like ourselves, don't we? Even those of us who hate ourselves, we apparently still like ourselves enough to give us the benefit of continuity, as if we will always be the way we are and nothing can change that. It is natural for us to believe in ourselves, our atman, and to believe that we will keep living for longer--you may say that it is a by-product of aforethought, an evolutionary advantage. But again, it is a mere useful delusion.

So it takes some real practice and devotion and honesty to get to the point where we accept that we don't have fixed selves, that we are just bundles of thought and skin and bones and organs that are ever changing and in dissolution. That is a "harsh" reality to face when we like ourselves so much.

ghostvirus: I hate to respond to all that so briefly, since it is now so late (or so early), but the thing is, if we have already accepted that the soul exists (which is an assumption that we can treat as a given for the sake of dialectic), then we are already in the realm of the supernatural before we even begin to talk about the afterlife. What I said above to EvilBad applies here then. We can either go down that, the supernatural, road, or this, the natural, road--i.e., atman or anatman. I believe in anatman, but if someone believes in atman, then that belief must open up into one of two possibilities, that that atman persists after death in the same unchanged form (or, let's be lenient, a similar form) or else it perishes. Either way, IF we have already assumed atman to exist, then there is still no way to tell which is true until we die and directly realize that truth ourselves.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 1:50 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 1:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That's right. My plumage is brighter than yours.

Basically, if someone asks you, "Is there an afterlife?", then the truest answer you can give them is, "I don't know." Because you don't know. You have no way of knowing, and it takes cajones the size of basketballs to say that you do know. You can be the greatest espouser of reason and science and philosophy in the world, but even Socrates would call you unwise to act as if you knew--he too understood that there is no way to know for sure, so it is best to be open (I think all this comes from the Apology, or maybe Phaedo, can't remember).

  • 01.01.2013 1:53 AM PDT

I think people misunderstand athesim. Most atheists including myself don't know if there is a God. Even the infamous Richard Dawkins has said that if he was to put his atheism on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1 being certain there is a God and 7 being certain there is no God he would be a 6.9. People don't seem to understand the difference between the questions Do you believe in a God and Is there a God. Which are both completely different questions. Unlike theists, atheists don't claim to know the answer.
And don't get me started on that stupid word known as agnosticism.

I don't mean to start a religious thing. I just wanted to clear a couple of things up.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 2:02 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 2:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That's right. My plumage is brighter than yours.

It's cool, I understand.

But for the sake of argument, yes, I was making it a given assumption that the soul exists, and then yes, what you said just then would be true, we'd have no evidence for its status after bodily death. But it is only an assumption--I guess we'd call it an "assumption on a conditional proof" in formal logic.

  • 01.01.2013 2:02 AM PDT

'course not.

  • 01.01.2013 2:13 AM PDT

Posted by; A random forum poster
Posted by; ghostvirus
This apple is brown, and rotten. This orange on the other hand, is in relatively average shape. So the orange is definitely the preferable option.
----------You can't compare apples and oranges. You're so dumb.


Posted by: echo630

ghostvirus: I hate to respond to all that so briefly, since it is now so late (or so early), but the thing is, if we have already accepted that the soul exists (which is an assumption that we can treat as a given for the sake of dialectic), then we are already in the realm of the supernatural before we even begin to talk about the afterlife. What I said above to EvilBad applies here then. We can either go down that, the supernatural, road, or this, the natural, road--i.e., atman or anatman. I believe in anatman, but if someone believes in atman, then that belief must open up into one of two possibilities, that that atman persists after death in the same unchanged form (or, let's be lenient, a similar form) or else it perishes. Either way, IF we have already assumed atman to exist, then there is still no way to tell which is true until we die and directly realize that truth ourselves.



Dialetic? Uh, there is your problem right there. You embrace a methodological epistemology that begs the question, then tests the internal consistency of the belief. With the intent of identifying self refuting beliefs. This doesn't change the fact that if I look at two self consistent beliefs from the outside looking in, I can identify that one makes more assumptions than the other. And from there conclude that one belief is more preferable than the other. Even if I cannot have "true belief" in any sense.

Further, why would we ever, in rational discourse, other than for the sake of argument, not address a fundamental point of contention? The arguments I made against the afterlife, all apply to arguments about the soul. This was quite deliberate on my part, because I understood that belief in the soul is at the heart of the belief in the afterlife. I very purposefully addressed the reductive, material, nature of consciousness. When we shift the discussion to the existence of the immaterial soul, and assume an identical self instead, then you have the same problem. You haven't addressed the argument, you've kicked the can down the road.

I can create any number of coherent, self consistent, unfalsifiable hypotheses, that contradict any positive claim in existence. I could challenge the existence of an identical self, ala Hume, or challenge the existence of the world, ala Descartes. I could equally argue that the mere belief in the material world, is a faith based belief, just as much as the belief that the world is a dream, a virtual reality simulation, or a illusion created by an evil daemon. Ultimately the only thing that can lead one to assume one belief over the other, is a preference for parsimony leading to changes in relative confidence. Otherwise we're all universal agnostics.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 2:32 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 2:15 AM PDT

It's not my fault, I was just trying to tie my shoe!

Join TFS, the grooviest private group on bungie.net! We r cewl gaiz who dun fraid of nething. Join for heated debates, game nights, and lols. We're waiting! (Be a man) We must be swift as the coursing river. (Be a man), With all the force of a great typhoon. (Be a man), With all the strength of a raging fire. Mysterious as the dark side of the moon!

No. There's enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

  • 01.01.2013 2:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That's right. My plumage is brighter than yours.


Posted by: EvilBad6666

Posted by: echo630
It's cool, I understand.

But for the sake of argument, yes, I was making it a given assumption that the soul exists, and then yes, what you said just then would be true, we'd have no evidence for its status after bodily death. But it is only an assumption--I guess we'd call it an "assumption on a conditional proof" in formal logic.


So you're saying that, if there's a soul, then we don't know what happens after death. I get that.

What I don't get though is, do you think that there's evidence for a soul? If not, then why would you say, "I don't know"? If so, then I understand that but I see no evidence for a soul and we can end there.


Well, assuming there is a soul, then again, we just have no evidence for or way to tell that there is an afterlife for that soul--hence, "I don't know."

Assuming that there is no soul, then it seems almost perfectly reasonable to say "No" to the afterlife question. However, it may be possible that reincarnation occurs in a different way, even without an atman, such as to warrant the response, "I don't know." Buddhists, for example, traditionally believe in reincarnation--which at first seems contradictory, since they believe in atman. However, they believe in a very particular kind of reincarnation. Because of the law of karma, this "causal continuity" that is "you" cannot just end upon death; effects are still in order; "you" continue to ripple (so to speak) through the universe, a la karma and the conservation of mass and energy and so on. You are reborn, but it is not "you" that is reborn. It is something different, conditioned by your karma. So, "I don't know."

  • 01.01.2013 2:23 AM PDT


Posted by: TOMahawk7890
I think people misunderstand athesim. Most atheists including myself don't know if there is a God. Even the infamous Richard Dawkins has said that if he was to put his atheism on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1 being certain there is a God and 7 being certain there is no God he would be a 6.9. People don't seem to understand the difference between the questions Do you believe in a God and Is there a God. Which are both completely different questions. Unlike theists, atheists don't claim to know the answer.
And don't get me started on that stupid word known as agnosticism.

I don't mean to start a religious thing. I just wanted to clear a couple of things up.
This^
Plenty of people at my school claim to know the what Atheist believe, but in reality they just make us look like ignorant bigots. I once had someone tell me that Atheist wouldn't believe in god even if we saw him. It struck a nerve

  • 01.01.2013 2:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag: ossku
  • user homepage:

''Misanthropes have some admirable if paradoxical virtues. It is no exaggeration to say that we are among the nicest people you are likely to meet. Because good manners build sturdy walls, our distaste for intimacy makes us exceedingly cordial "ships that pass in the night." As long as you remain a stranger we will be your friend forever.''

''I want people to be sincere; a man of honor shouldn't speak a single word that doesn't come straight from his heart. ''


Posted by: Final Rose
No, because I'm not a optimist idiot.

  • 01.01.2013 2:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That's right. My plumage is brighter than yours.

ghostvirus, I don't really embrace any epistemological methodology, as you put it, but I am using one. You can try and figure out what that might entail, but I'm not that serious about it. I'm using formal logic: if the soul exists, then so-and-so. There is nothing wrong with that, as you used it yourself in your discussion of consciousness.

Now, I have not been talking too much about the neurobiological bases of consciousness because I haven't had the need too--and I still don't have a need to. I, for one, agree with you. I mean, that is evidence indeed. If you look back at my posts, you would see that I do agree with that; I have mostly just summed us up as being a bag of skin and bones and organs and beliefs and so on. If I wanted to get into neurobiology, I could, but it would mostly be an exercise in mental auto--blam!-. We're on the same page as far as that goes.

But we are also not really talking about consciousness. We're talking about the possibility of something above and beyond and between consciousness, something invisible, something immaterial, held hostage by the body, something outside the possible radar of science and reason: namely, the soul. Now, as I've said time and again, I do not believe in the soul, but if you DO believe in such a soul, you can engage in dialectic to dig out the truth of what you could possibly know about it. There is nothing wrong with that, it is a fine method. It is, so it seems, the only method that we can even use to talk about it. So all of this stuff about begging the question is ridiculous--I am using an assumption on a conditional proof, so of course it will seem like I am begging the question to someone who isn't following my point. It is not begging the question, however, because I am not using the ACP and the inferred argument to conclude that there is a soul; I am using the assumption that there is a soul (such as I have described) to move on to broader topics about the afterlife. That is not what begging the question means. That is what ACP means.

So no, you really didn't combat the argument I as making for the consequences of an "afterlife" if a "soul" exists as much as you just provided evidence against the soul.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 2:44 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 2:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Bungie doesn't like French on their site.

I don't; I think when you die, it's just like before you were born - you were non-existent. Nothing. Absolute nothingness.

  • 01.01.2013 2:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That's right. My plumage is brighter than yours.

EvilBad: I agree that the "function" that is us dies when our body dies, but karma still dictates that we ripple in space-time. Think of the people who remember you at death, who come to your funeral, who keep photos of you and talk about you as if you were alive, who see your face long after death in the face of a child, who rename their own children after you, who aspire to be like you. Think of the children you may have who survive you, and their children, and their children. This doesn't quite get to the Buddhist idea of reincarnation, but it is a part of it; so this is the evidential part of the Buddhist reincarnation argument. Besides that, they believe in reincarnation because of reason and, most importantly, realization. It is a realized thing more than a known thing. Reincarnation is an extension of the ideas of karma, interdependent origination, emptiness, and anatman, all of which are directly realized through Buddhist practice. But ask a Buddhist abut the afterlife, and they will still probably just say, "I don't know." Because they (their "functions", to be specific) have no died yet. And thus they will never "know" so much as they will realize it.

  • 01.01.2013 2:43 AM PDT

Posted by: Dropship dude
No, acnboy. Spartain Ken 15 is a lesser being. Much like the bacteria that lives in your shi­t.
Posted by: mike120593
My shi­t bacteria takes offense to that comparison.

Don't make me lel. You won't like me when I lel.

Posted by: echo630
The default position is agnosticism, then, because there is evidence neither for the existence nor the nonexistence of the afterlife. Either of those positions, because there is no evidence for them, is a position of faith.
but that's wrong

  • 01.01.2013 2:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: WhiteFang0699

Posted by: And Im Here Too
Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody knows until they're dead. Or maybe they won't know.

  • 01.01.2013 3:06 AM PDT