Do you believe in an afterlife?

 I thought this was the afterlife? 

The Dark Elf 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. 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? Actually, the obverse seems more likely. The fear factor is a religious response to the afterlife. It's what drives people to repent at the hour of their death, because of a fear of a vengeful god sending them to hell for whatever particular sin they've committed. If one does not expect an afterlife based on a religious doctrine designed for neolithic shepherds and updated by medieval Ecclesiastics for the sole purpose of maintaining power and wealth, then there really is nothing to fear.

That's what I think too. I've actually heard the "fear" thing said by various religious people, but I still want to hear his argument in case he's coming at this from another angle. I try to be careful when assuming intention.

Definitely. I think the fact that countless people have seen ghosts is proof that there is something beyond this realm. Also, I knew a guy a long time ago from college who was in Vietnam who had two near death experiences(not one but two!). For one of them he was officially pronounced dead and had the metal on his tooth to prove it. I saw it myself. I'm not sure how he came back but I remember him saying that "there's definitely something out there." 

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - July 24 2020 at 11:10

Argo2112 wrote:  I thought this was the afterlife?

That's what I said earlier.......This is the afterlife....Prove me wrong 

In thinking about "convinced," vs "believe," I suppose my yes response is that I believe that there is, but I also am quite aware that my belief doesn't make it truth, or proven.  I wish (another funny word) that more humans understood that what they believe may not be true.  

Also I do believe that all these NDE are not religious based, has nothing to do with a higher being. Yes I know that most describe a light or such, but life is a light, death is darkness. So in a near death experience if you see light it is because you are coming out of darkness, so to me makes sense you see a light.

Edited by Catcher10 - July 24 2020 at 11:42

Logan wrote: SteveG wrote: Image result for I dont know Image not showing. But again, knowledge and belief are not being used synonymously. 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. Knowledge should be based on evidence,on truth. 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 is disbelieve in an afterlife" I did a pretty deep dive on epistemology in another thread, and discussed difference in belief and knowledge, probably the Bertrand Russel one amongst others, and had a related discussion. I'll look for a link to that. Like I said, if people think of it as "Are you convinced that there is an afterlife?" "Yes or no", that might make the question easier to understand for some who find it it hard to understand the question as I intended, and why I would frame it with a basic dichotomy. The either you believe something or you don't believe it, which does not require knowing.

The thing about humans is that we are programed to believe. A Vietnam Vet once told of a time that he went almost outside the "wire" to take a dump at night. He heard twigs snapping in an area that was a "no mans land". He starting firing immediately after yelling to where the noise was and getting no response. He didn't know he was in danger, he only believed it. How much of that thinking are we programed to do? By the way, what was stepping on the twigs was later found to be a warthog.

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