Do you believe in an afterlife?

Atheist here.

Curious as to what the afterlife is for believers. Do you take memories and your body? Floating orb soul? No memories = wouldn't remember anyone. How will you find your dog? Wherever this place is wouldn't if have to be big? And those that don't make it, do they really burn in fire forever? That too me would say you need a body or vessel to feel pain. If you feel pain do the other senses work?

Just to make it clear, since I might have made things a bit confusing at the beginning of what I said, but after my life changing occurrences at the start of the 2000s, I removed any organized religion from my life.  I have never been happier or more content.  But I still believe that there is something beyond this life, or at least I feel it very strongly.  As others have said though, it has nothing to do with religion or what another person wants everyone to believe.  

Logan wrote: I don't feel the need to include "other" option, though I expect that some would

I have (and had) many religious people, or people like TCat in my life as friends, relatives etc. Of course I don't know about TCat that much, but you get what I mean.

I believe how we were brought up and what we experienced made us what we are. So, I really try hard not to hurt people because of what they believe in. I'm also lucky that I haven't experienced anything traumatic yet, by reason of my mindset and at times expressing it in many anarchic ways; yes, I must be lucky about it, considering all my openness about being an anarchist, atheist, and materialist. I should thank the world and everything and everybody for that, I suppose. 




Edited by Shadowyzard - July 24 2020 at 15:14

20 years ago, I was a very religious, church-going person who devoted a lot of time to my church and held local leadership positions.  Somewhere along the change of the century, I had a major change in my life that threw everything into disarray and turned me into a completely different person when I came out the other side of it all.

I prophesy disaster wrote: Gong Video     No, I did not post this in the wrong thread by mistake. The term "Flying Teapot" is based on Russell's teapot, which is sometimes invoked in discussions about the existence of God, although as a general principle about philosophic burden of proof, it also applies to discussions about the existence of an afterlife.

I knew that and am glad you mentioned him. I'm a big admirer of Bertrand Russell and did a topic called A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments

That was a fun discussion (and is my favourie topic that I've started).

Bertrand Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

Edited by Logan - July 24 2020 at 14:22

 
 
No, I did not post this in the wrong thread by mistake. The term "Flying Teapot" is based on Russell's teapot, which is sometimes invoked in discussions about the existence of God, although as a general principle about philosophic burden of proof, it also applies to discussions about the existence of an afterlife.

 

Catcher10 wrote: Logan wrote: Catcher10 wrote: The real question is......If you have no evidence to prove otherwise, because nobody knows the answer, why do you chose to say No? Fear....? I say "no" because I'm an not convinced that there is an afterlife. As I said, it does not require certainty, and knowing something is not synonymous to me as believing something. What is the fear thing? I wish there were an afterlife, at least a nice one. I do not believe in fairies, is that fear, no? If we discover fairies then my belief will change. I believe that which I feel I have sufficient reason to believe. That doesn't mean that what I believe is is necessarily true, of course. My beliefs are subject to change as new evidence presents itself, and I am ignorant when it comes to most things. And as aside-note, though I thought this would be obvious from what I've said: Someone saying "No, I don't believe in the afterlife" does not necessitate that person to conclude "I believe that there is no afterlife". That presents a false equivalence fallacy. Maybe you would expand on your thoughts to present an argument. Why would one assume that it's fear, or that that is the "real" question? My thinking on all this has nothing to do with religion really, because once you start trying to explain that a higher being is "allowing" you to live eternally you lose.  The fear comment is more about the fear of being wrong in your choice if you say yes. To me saying No is the response when you have sufficient proof. Yes is the choice when you don't have sufficient proof.....Like they say "Prove me wrong..."

While I fear making the wrong decisions, and am wary of being wrong, I'd rather be wrong for as short a time as possible, and I hope to learn from my mistakes and be open to new evidence and rational arguments.

Proof can be a bit of a tricky word since it can have different usages in philosophy, law, mathematics and logic.

But basically we can say that proof is a demonstration that has a sufficient argument or evidence that the proposition is true or valid. For instance, if the premises are true then the conclusion will logically follow or if sufficient evidence fits the conclusion then the conclusion is valid.

There is no way to prove or disprove that there is an afterlife that I know of and I don't understand why one's default would be believing in something that cannot be demonstrated. Saying "Yes, I believe in fairies" because one can't disprove their existence would seem very strange to me. I can say "I don't know if fairies exist and I don't believe in fairies".

So if the question were, "Do you disbelieve in the afterlife" I take it that you would vote yes.

It is said that the burden of proof in logic (say, demonstrating to an adequate degree that the proposition is based on false premises and or inadequate evidence, which of course it it does not require certainty) falls on the one who refutes the other. To prove that person wrong it is expected that you can demonstrate that that person lacks a convincing argument (sufficient and valid premises to support the conclusion) or evidence.

I would also say the person who makes a claim to be taken very seriously, especially if an extraordinary claim, can be expected to present sufficient reason to accept the claim as true.

I'm not about to claim that there is no afterlife, because the proposition cannot be validated. It's not falsifiable.

I don't believe anything with absolute certainty, and I prefer not to believe things without what I think are good reasons to believe in them. I am a sceptic. I don't claim to know what is possible or true in regards to many things. If the question were, "Do you believe that an invisible and intangible Santa Claus resides in my my underpants" would your default position be "Yes" if or until the proposition could be demonstrated to be false? I wouldn't believe it, and not just because I'm wearing the underpants.

Just because we can neither prove nor disprove something is not going to make me think that "yes, I believe it' is the rational course.

Catcher10 wrote: Argo2112 wrote:  I thought this was the afterlife?  That's what I said earlier.......This is the afterlife....Prove me wrong

It can neither be proved nor disproved, and it's unfalsifiable. Have you heard the saying that extraordinary claims requite extraordinary proof/ evidence? I'm not about to believe things just because they can't be demonstrated to be false. That would not seem see a logical or rational approach to me to base one's beliefs on.

Do you believe that I'm a leprechaun with a stash of gold as big as a house and a moustache? Yes, or no. At least that is falsiable. I could demonstrate that I don't have a moustache, although I might have shaved it off by the time you saw my demonstration. As a general rule: I "believe" that a good time to believe things is when they can be shown, and also when there would be means to demonstrate if they are false according to certain metrics.

Edited by Logan - July 24 2020 at 13:07