Do you believe in an afterlife?

I'm still having trouble in believing in afterbirth so.....

Logan wrote: jamesbaldwin wrote: Voted no but... My family, my education... they were Catholic in a very intense way (priests and nuns in the family). I consider myself a doubter, not even an agnostic because I am not sure that there is no way to find out the truth.  A problem I have had with some agnostics I have known is that they expressed a belief that we cannot know or ever know if a God (or Gods) exists. Agnosticism entails a lack of knowledge, so that knowledge step was a step too far for me. I am a sceptic. I call myself an agnostic on all things to demonstrate my lack of certainty when it comes to all things. Mind you I would not say that knowledge requires absolute certainty. We can accept things as true and facts even if we cannot know assuredly, but all things I think should be open to scrutiny and all ideas subject to change (tentative knowledge). JamesBaldwin wrote: I believe we are immersed in a mystery: why does the world exist? the life? Why does the world exist and not nothing? either the created God, or the world has always existed, and is therefore ... God. the question on the principle of everything has no answer. An atheist believes that the origin of the world was made by himself (what was there before the Big Bang?) So I think the main difference is not between believers and atheists but between those who give an answer to the mystery of existence, and those who do not give it and remain in doubt and seek it.  The universe and life is mysterious. I tend to think more in terms of "how" does the world exist? If there was nothing there would be nothing to ponder -- we couldn't ponder it. We don't tend to think that the world always existed, and we often think that the universe (at least our local known, and I suspect a much greater and eternal cosmos) had a beginning. How that happened is a mystery. Atheism is not a positive assertion, it just entails a lack of belief in a God or Gods (it means without/lacking theism). There are different types of atheists, some are positive atheists, they claim there is no God, and ones like me (soft or negative atheism) who lack belief in God, but do not claim that there is no God. Atheism does not make the claim that the origin of of the world was made my himself (not sure I understand that statement) -- it refers to being without theism. Atheists have a wide range of beliefs and a spectrum of disbelief. The implicit atheist need not have any conception of God, or even have been exposed to a God concept. With explicit atheism, it's better thought of as lacking belief on one issue, God or Gods. On a related note, theists often don't agree on what God is and what attributes God has, so even when talking notions of God, it helps to understand the form of the God that is being professed. A theist of one stripe could be said to be an atheist when it comes to another God in this sense. And of course there are so many notions of the afterlife. Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." And with Plato, paraphrased, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance". JamesBaldwn wrote: So in my opinion Logan's opposition is not an opposition: whoever says yes and who says no has given an answer. they are believers, they know what to believe. atheism is a church, in fact. the contrast should be between those who give the answer and those who do not.  My primary interest in making this topic was on the notion of "belief" itself. My opposition, if one would call it that, mostly involves how others think that I should have framed this topic and on what belief means (as well as some general epistemological issues). Had I asked the question, "Is there an afterlife", then I would have put a third option. To me it's not an interesting question because I don't think that we can know (won't say we can never know), and am more interested in what people believe/ are convinced of and "why?" I am not a believer, I lack belief. I am not convinced that there is an afterlife, ergo I do not believe in a afterlife. This is not me claiming that there is no afterlife. It does not require that I believe that there is no afterlife to say that I do not believe in an afterlife. I do not know and I lack belief in it. I do not believe in the Loch Ness monster, but I could imagine that the Loch Ness monster does exist. I wont say that it doesn't. I will say that to my knowledge there is not compelling evidence to conclude that there the Lock Ness Monster exists, and thus I do not believe it exists. If strong evidence comes that there is a Lock Ness Monster, then I will reevaluate that lack of belief, and maybe become a believer (it does not require certainty). There are a huge number of things I don't believe in that I might comes to believe later. This discussion I got into elsewhere with someone who made a similar claim to that atheism is church one, in that case it was that atheism is a religion, but I couldn't understand a rational argument for that assertion so I cannot believe that. I would have to be convinced to believe it. We are opposed, it seems, in thinking about "I don't believe", or "I lack belief" as belief rather than as a non-belief and on notions of what it means to be atheist as well as other things it seems. It's not about knowing what to believe, it's just about what you are convinced of to me. An atheist could believe in the afterlife, an atheist can be unsure about that and the existence of God. A belief system without God, but that believes in the afterlife is possible. To me that's something of a non-sequitur. If atheism is a church, then it's a very broad church. Atheists have such a wide variety of beliefs on so many issues. The only thing that is shared is lacking theism (atheism meaning without theism). If God or the afterlife (neither requires the other that I know of) was demonstrated to exist, then I expect that I would be a believer. I still might not be certain, but I may be convinced. Anyway, it seems you're thinking of a very dogmatic version of atheism that holds a more coherent world-view than I would ascribe to atheism generally that I do not fall into, and neither do many atheists/ non-believers. So I'm not saying that there is no afterlife, or God, I'm just saying that I'm not convinced. By saying that I don't believe in the afterlife, I'm not claiming that the proposition that there is an afterlife (or God) is false. Others do. As I said earlier on these issues there is a spectrum of belief and disbelief -- say, a positive belief that the afterlife or God does not exist, a positive belief to the contrary, and a lack of belief either way. If one lacks belief then I would expect a "no" vote, and if one believes that there is no afterlife than I would also expect a "no' vote. Some are convinced that there is no afterlife, some are not, and both can say that they don't believe in an afterlife (are not convinced). I have been trying over many posts to explain my position and why I think yes and no is a fair question when it comes to belief (but I wouldn't take that approach if I asked about what you know) and I hope this doesn't muddy the waters more. Perhaps my next topic will be "Do you believe that there are invisible and mostly intangible fairies in my underpants?" They only make themselves known when no one is paying attention, by the way. I don't even if it might explain some queer things that have happened there. I won't do that.

I endorse all that. Just two additional things. I sometimes have trouble with agnostics because they indicate that the question of the existence of God can be solved by positive evidence. Existence of a creator can be solved by positive evidence. There is actually no reason to presume that a creator equals God without making additional theological presumptions. Without evidence for these additional theological conclusions, the existence of God is simply an undebatable opinion. Some religions in fact do distinguish between the creator and a god worthy of worship (e.g. Zoroastrianism and some versions of Gnostic Christianity, Mandaeanism).

I think there is another layer of belief beyond what you and I have talked about - beyond the notion of pretending to know something one does not actually know. I think it goes further than that. A full-fledged religious belief is something which is made true by the very act of believing (Actually it May not be exclusively religious. Gamblers seem to do something similar in always convincing themselves the next one is the winner.). I refuse to subscribe to that kind of non-naturalistic epistemology. An afterlife is or isn’t. But I don’t think my belief or anyone else’s belief will make it so - And for me, that is the core of what makes me an atheist.

jamesbaldwin wrote: Voted no but... My family, my education... they were Catholic in a very intense way (priests and nuns in the family). I consider myself a doubter, not even an agnostic because I am not sure that there is no way to find out the truth.

A problem I have had with some agnostics I have known is that they expressed a belief that we cannot know or ever know if a God (or Gods) exists. Agnosticism entails a lack of knowledge, so that knowledge step was a step too far for me. I am a sceptic. I call myself an agnostic on all things to demonstrate my lack of certainty when it comes to all things. Mind you I would not say that knowledge requires absolute certainty. We can accept things as true and facts even if we cannot know assuredly, but all things I think should be open to scrutiny and all ideas subject to change (tentative knowledge).

JamesBaldwin wrote: I believe we are immersed in a mystery: why does the world exist? the life? Why does the world exist and not nothing? either the created God, or the world has always existed, and is therefore ... God. the question on the principle of everything has no answer. An atheist believes that the origin of the world was made by himself (what was there before the Big Bang?) So I think the main difference is not between believers and atheists but between those who give an answer to the mystery of existence, and those who do not give it and remain in doubt and seek it.

The universe and life is mysterious. I tend to think more in terms of "how" does the world exist? If there was nothing there would be nothing to ponder -- we couldn't ponder it. We don't tend to think that the world always existed, and we often think that the universe (at least our local known, and I suspect a much greater and eternal cosmos) had a beginning. How that happened is a mystery. Atheism is not a positive assertion, it just entails a lack of belief in a God or Gods (it means without/lacking theism). There are different types of atheists, some are positive atheists, they claim there is no God, and ones like me (soft or negative atheism) who lack belief in God, but do not claim that there is no God. Atheism does not make the claim that the origin of of the world was made my himself (not sure I understand that statement) -- it refers to being without theism. Atheists have a wide range of beliefs and a spectrum of disbelief. The implicit atheist need not have any conception of God, or even have been exposed to a God concept. With explicit atheism, it's better thought of as lacking belief on one issue, God or Gods. On a related note, theists often don't agree on what God is and what attributes God has, so even when talking notions of God, it helps to understand the form of the God that is being professed. A theist of one stripe could be said to be an atheist when it comes to another God in this sense. And of course there are so many notions of the afterlife.

Bertrand Russell said, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." And with Plato, paraphrased, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance".

JamesBaldwn wrote: So in my opinion Logan's opposition is not an opposition: whoever says yes and who says no has given an answer. they are believers, they know what to believe. atheism is a church, in fact. the contrast should be between those who give the answer and those who do not.

My primary interest in making this topic was on the notion of "belief" itself. My opposition, if one would call it that, mostly involves how others think that I should have framed this topic and on what belief means (as well as some general epistemological issues). Had I asked the question, "Is there an afterlife", then I would have put a third option. To me it's not an interesting question because I don't think that we can know (won't say we can never know), and am more interested in what people believe/ are convinced of and "why?" I am not a believer, I lack belief. I am not convinced that there is an afterlife, ergo I do not believe in a afterlife. This is not me claiming that there is no afterlife. It does not require that I believe that there is no afterlife to say that I do not believe in an afterlife. I do not know and I lack belief in it. I do not believe in the Loch Ness monster, but I could imagine that the Loch Ness monster does exist. I wont say that it doesn't. I will say that to my knowledge there is not compelling evidence to conclude that there the Lock Ness Monster exists, and thus I do not believe it exists. If strong evidence comes that there is a Lock Ness Monster, then I will reevaluate that lack of belief, and maybe become a believer (it does not require certainty). There are a huge number of things I don't believe in that I might comes to believe later.

This discussion I got into elsewhere with someone who made a similar claim to that atheism is church one, in that case it was that atheism is a religion, but I couldn't understand a rational argument for that assertion so I cannot believe that. I would have to be convinced to believe it. We are opposed, it seems, in thinking about "I don't believe", or "I lack belief" as belief rather than as a non-belief and on notions of what it means to be atheist as well as other things it seems. It's not about knowing what to believe, it's just about what you are convinced of to me. An atheist could believe in the afterlife, an atheist can be unsure about that and the existence of God. A belief system without God, but that believes in the afterlife is possible. To me that's something of a non-sequitur. If atheism is a church, then it's a very broad church. Atheists have such a wide variety of beliefs on so many issues. The only thing that is shared is lacking theism (atheism meaning without theism). If God or the afterlife (neither requires the other that I know of) was demonstrated to exist, then I expect that I would be a believer. I still might not be certain, but I may be convinced. Anyway, it seems you're thinking of a very dogmatic version of atheism that holds a more coherent world-view than I would ascribe to atheism generally that I do not fall into, and neither do many atheists/ non-believers.

So I'm not saying that there is no afterlife, or God, I'm just saying that I'm not convinced. By saying that I don't believe in the afterlife, I'm not claiming that the proposition that there is an afterlife (or God) is false. Others do. As I said earlier on these issues there is a spectrum of belief and disbelief -- say, a positive belief that the afterlife or God does not exist, a positive belief to the contrary, and a lack of belief either way. If one lacks belief then I would expect a "no" vote, and if one believes that there is no afterlife than I would also expect a "no' vote. Some are convinced that there is no afterlife, some are not, and both can say that they don't believe in an afterlife (are not convinced).

I have been trying over many posts to explain my position and why I think yes and no is a fair question when it comes to belief (but I wouldn't take that approach if I asked about what you know) and I hope this doesn't muddy the waters more.

Perhaps my next topic will be "Do you believe that there are invisible and mostly intangible fairies in my underpants?" They only make themselves known when no one is paying attention, by the way. I don't even if it might explain some queer things that have happened there. I won't do that.

Edited by Logan - August 10 2020 at 15:25

Hi,

Tillerman88 wrote: SteveG wrote: Tbh, sometimes I feel like I have enough problems navigating this life to worry about another one. So why not stop meddling in this "problematic" discussion??

Well, his position is my position too. Fine to philosophize about an afterlife, but if there is no genuine information about how to ensure it, or if it even needs to be ensured, why worry about it. If proper conduct is needed to ensure it, fine but then you are back looking at this life anyway. Who knows beyond that? Is faith needed? If so I’m screwed. I don’t see the moral high ground of faith, but who knows? I really refer people to Mandaean beliefs. Mandaeans hold John the Baptist as their most exalted prophet. They believe cleansing of sin is essential for preparing the way to the “light world”. Sin is accumulated in all sorts of (are to us) innocuous ways and has to be cleansed constantly through baptism. Their version of baptism requires flowing water, as from a river. Still non-flowing “cut” water can do more harm than good, which is how they view Jesus, as taking the easy way out and doing more harm than good. Now, if they’re right, Christians, generally baptized infrequently and in “cut” water are screwed. But who knows? How does one determine that a certain specific type of meditation doesn’t provide entry into the afterlife. One doesn’t. One can’t. Just live this life the best you see fit and see what happens.

SteveG wrote: Tbh, sometimes I feel like I have enough problems navigating this life to worry about another one.

Tbh, sometimes I feel like I have enough problems navigating this life to worry about another one.

dr wu23 wrote: SteveG wrote: Why wasn't "possibly" a choice? I don't know anything as a fact, either way. This.....an agnostic because I simply don 't know. The only tenable position imho.

It's not like I'm asking "Is there an afterlife?"

To be agnostic deals with being without knowledge (we cannot know), I'm taking about belief or a lack of belief. If you read the thread, I went into this at some length. Hackettfan expressed my position well: "I do not believe in an afterlife. I do not disbelieve in an afterlife. I hope there is an afterlife. I do not THINK there is an afterlife." If you were to ask me if I believe in the afterlife then my answer would be no. If you were to ask me if I disbelieve in the afterlife, then my answer would also be no. If you ask me if I know that there is an afterlife, then my answer would be no. If you ask me if I know that there is no afterlife, then my answer would also be no. I know, so terribly negative. I don't know if there is or isn't an afterlife, but I don't believe in one. I have a lack of belief/ lack belief, and I lack knowledge.

I'm just going to copy-paste something I wrote earlier in the thread:

"Sorry to repeat myself, but if you consider something to be true, then that is a belief (it doesn't mean it's truth, but you believe it). You don't have to know with certainty, and if it is not a Truth then the belief is not true knowledge. Basically, knowledge is considered to be evidence-based whereas belief does not require evidence (justified belief should be justifiable). Knowledge should be based on evidence, on falsifiability, on perceivable truth (that I could have phrased better). If I don't see the evidence that something is true such as the afterlife, then my default is not to believe in it, even if I don't ultimately know (have access to truth writ large). It's compatible to say that "I don't believe in an afterlife and I don't know if there is an afterlife". And one can say "I don't believe in an afterlife nor do I disbelieve in an afterlife."

I suggested before that if people have difficulty with the question, then perhaps consider it as "Am I convinced that there is afterlife?" Yes, or no. I'm an agnostic on all things, but that doesn't mean that I cannot feel comfortable answering" Do you believe X proposition?" and "Do you disbelieve X proposition."

Quoting myself again from this thread, but I said that 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 underpants" would the 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. That doesn't mean that I know it's not there as I can't see it or feel it, but the best time to believe something is when there is evidence and rational reasons to believe in them. A lack of belief makes the most sense to me when it comes to that which cannot be demonstrated, is not falsifiable etc..

I also don't know if an "afterlife" is possible. It might be impossibly. ;)


Edited by Logan - July 26 2020 at 00:06