Do you believe in an afterlife?

Catcher10 wrote: Logan wrote: Catcher10 wrote: Logan wrote: Catcher10 wrote: Again, my Yes has nothing to do with religion. I am Catholic, all my life and will end this life as a Catholic, for sure I have wavered here and there as most do with religion. I don't ever see myself leaving the Catholic church.....but nothing in how I was raised or all the Catholic teachings makes me select Yes. I just believe there is an afterlife. Now if the question is 100% scientific and only that then you can easily argue the answer is No, since there is no proof. This to me is the same as asking if there is life outside of our Earth........and my answer is of course there is, no way we are the only beings of our kind in the entire universe.  What we have been able to explore outside of Earth is akin to going outside your house and exploring your porch, no further. As Earthlings we will never have the ability to travel far enough and survive to find another human race. What we are made of exists in space......unlike the robots that roam this website. I did a deeper a deeper dive on this I think in the Bertrand Russell thread, but belief as I've been saying I don't treat as synonymous knowledge (related and overlap, certainly, how much so and in what way depends on the angle). 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 is disbelieve in an afterlife. The question could be phrased as "Are you convinced that there is an afterlife?" I wonder then how many would say I don't know. Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Now I'm quoting myself from the Liberal Deacalogue thread since I got really into this there: "The burden of proof is used in law and logic, and formal debate, and in logic means that one should adequately demonstrate a thing to be if not absolutely true, valid reasoning for the assertion (premises should be considered acceptable, relevant and sufficient enough to convince people who have no skin in the game that the conclusion/assertion logically follows), or something similar, been ages since I studied it. Of course what's considered valid etc. depends upon the person, but in logic (and mathematics) the propositions should support the conclusion in acceptable ways that should satisfy the standards of logical reasoning. Making arguments in formal academic logic does have fairly universal standards, and it is a closed-system of propositions (within particular frameworks). In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof. It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation -- hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative -- they are subject to change." I think you may be confusing the knowledge concept with belief. When you say, "This to me is the same as asking if there is life outside of our Earth........and my answer is of course there is, no way we are the only beings of our kind in the entire universe" in your analogy you are asking a different category of question to the one I intended. Is there life outside of Earth? I would expect so, I think so, but I don't know (I remain ultimately agnostic on the matter). Do I believe that there is life outside of Earth? Okay, I must admit that I would want to answer in a more nuanced way than yes or no. It seems highly unlikely to me from a probability standpoint that we are alone in the universe. I tend to believe so, but that belief is held tentatively, and I recognise that we lack "proof". I feel that there is justification to believe, or assume, that there is life outside of Earth despite any lack of evidence. I think that it is a reasonable assumption, but it still an assumption. Of course knowledge and belief are related concepts, and it is said that a sound belief is based on evidence as well, and the time to believe is when something can be demonstrated. Do I have sufficient evidence for a firm belief in extraterrestrial life, no. Am I convinced that there are extra terrestrials, I am reasonably convinced, but it is not held as a true belief because of the lack of evidence even if it is true. There is a relationship between belief and knowledge of course and I do not mean to,or can I, fully separate the two. In fact knowledge is sometimes called justified true belief. micky wrote: Logan wrote: don't feel the need to include an "unsure" or "other" option, though I expect that some would like to have that option. I'm more interested in what people have to say than poll results anyway. Answering yes or no does not require certainty. I don't believe that I can be certain of anything, and I am ultimately agnostic on all matters, which does not mean that I don't believe or am not convinced when it comes to many things.... yep!  so "other" for me...  much as anything in life.. or hah.. the after life.. it ain't as simple as black and white ... yes and no man.. Feel free to elaborate on your views any way you can. I'm more interested in people's thoughts and experiences than just how they vote. As I often say, the poll question should merely be treated as an accessory to discussion, and all tangents are welcome. I'm not meaning to force anyone to choose, and if it's other, that can be explained in a post so I can understand better your rationale. I hope you find reading through the read interesting at least. There is room for nuance, but I was approaching this from a particular philosophical standpoint by phrasing it in a dichotomous manner. If you needed a few beers to get through what I was trying to express in the Bertrand Russell topic where I discussed similar things, you might need a case to get through this. I do hope that believing and not believing in the afterlife simultaneously is not causing any cognitive dissonance. Nahh, I'm not confusing "knowledge with belief". The word knowledge is to know....I don't know that there is an afterlife, never said I know there is or is not one. I do believe, but not know it exists. This is getting too exacting of a conversation with having to define words like a lawyer does in trial...."what do you mean when you say NO..." LOL The question is not scientific, I don't think you can apply that to the question or anyone's answer, because your right a belief is not science or math, its not exact....It's a hunch, a feeling and nothing more or less. Those who do not believe in a God, do not know scientifically that a God does not actually exist...they merely believe or think or feel that no such being exists. Does a God exist? I don't know, but I believe a God exists...Is there an afterlife? I don't know, but I believe there is one. Everyone's answer here is valid, as nothing has been proven....yet. Carry on.... I'm not trying to prosecute you, I'd leave that to Ivan (though you are both Catholic so it might go well). Now Ivan and I, we had some major nit-picky arguments. Sorry if I seem dogged, just trying to understand your positions, (and perhaps better explain mine), as I would hope you would also be trying to do this with me and others. You've raised some points and at least one question and I have tried to address those adequately, and I hope that I've done so fairly. I have tried to understand your positions. I'm interested in all perspectives and I'm not trying to invalidate the belief or lack there-of. The question is not scientific, nor intended to be. It's of a philosophical nature. Not all who do not believe in a God also believe, think, or feel that a God does not exist. A point I've rattled on about too much already perhaps. There's a spectrum of belief-- some believe more strongly than others. Some are convinced that the after life exists, some are convinced that it doesn't, and there's a wide range of shades in between. Some might never have even been exposed to a God concept and so have no basis to believe anything on the God front, others might be negative atheists (also known as weak, soft and agnostic atheism) who neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Ask them if they believe in God, and they are likely to say no. Ask them if they disbelieve in God and they are also likely to say no. As I've said, an individual can be in the position of neither believing nor disbelieving in the afterlife, which is akin to how one can not know whether or not there is an afterlife (be agnostic on the matter). My wife does not claim to know with certainty that God exists, but she is a believer. I can respect that. My atheism/agnosticism has been more of a problem for her than her theism has been for me, at least when we were dating (she being an ex-Catholic Born Again Christian). I tried to get her into a less orthodox/ more liberal-minded outlook by taking her to the Anglican Church that I liked to attend. Whether or not everyone's answer is valid, not every argument is going to be valid or logically sound. Some arguments are more valid and logically sound than others (say deductively, that the conclusion logically follows from the premises). One can argue many metaphysical notions in a reasonable manner even if we cannot truly know something. That's a good post Greg, nothing there I would challenge, not that I want to do that anyway as I don't think this thread is about that or your question. My wife was also raised Catholic, we were married in our church before God and we both have a profound sense of appreciation for that moment (well more than a moment, heck an hour long mass then the marriage ceremony....I just wanted some wedding cake!! ). Ivan and I have not had any discussions on that, I really don't want to as they say religion and politics should not be discussed among friends . Cheers my friend...

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I don't know when I'm making sense when I go nights without sleep, but that seems to be the time that I like to get philosophical and make topics such as this one or "Do you think that Mike Pence looks hot in that dress?" I've never really been much of one for debates. I guess that's why I say out of the Politics thread. I like a challenge when I feel there's some hope to understand each other, and sometimes one just wants to pull one's hair out cause it's like you're talking at cross-purposes and you can't get your ideas across. This is not one of those cases.

Many of my favourite people have been Catholics,and I am comfortable attending Catholic Church -- although I guess I shouldn't take communion and I have. Hey, I was baptised a kind of catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I had a Catholic girlfriend at one time, and I went to Catholic Church with her.To be honest, had she been a Scientologist I likely would have gone to auditing even though Scientology makes me really uncomfortable.

I wanted a church wedding, and I had my kids baptised at the church I was baptised and where I attended. It's about bringing them into a community. I'm comfortable in the Catholic Church cause it doesn't feel that different from the Anglican Church, I know what to say. Ivan, he of the vicious big blue font, was fun to argue with. We had a pedantic argument soon after I joined, and it was good, it was like trial by fire. If I could survive that wicked blue font, I could survive anything here.I wish all newbies could go through an Ivan hazing ritual. ;) I like Ivan; good guy.

I have had transcendent experiences at more than one Buddhist Temple while in Japan and on hikes, and once at a church.. Whether that's just brain chemistry/ a physiological reaction, and I expect so, that doesn't negative the experience. I have felt a oneness with the cosmos so to speak -- as the man said to the hot dog vendor, "Make me one with everything." Church has been important to me despite my lack of belief (rather than disbelief, well I have genuine disbelief when it comes to some religious things). But I ramble...

I have a very strong spiritual sense, or sense of the numinous, the transcendent, I might call it, and I have a had a very strong sense that there is some form of "being" beyond death, and have at least thought that I experienced signs of some kind of being after death on several occasions. So ultimately I nether believe nor disbelieve, but I want there to be something beyond and for it to be something good ideally.

I say yes, because I don't disbelieve in one.  

BrufordFreak wrote: Energy follows thought. If one can imagine it, it is possible (even probable). We are co-creators of our own realities. The world of energy and thought are not bound or confined by laws of four-dimensional physics (unless they choose to be). Mind, or Consciousness, is separate from (though it uses) the material, four-dimensional world. I have a body with all of its accompanying senses, for which I am grateful (especially when it serves me well), but I am much more than my body and its sensory inputs and activities. I have emotions, but I am much more than my emotions. I have thoughts (clouds in the infinite sky), but I am much more than my thoughts and human intellect.  We are inspired by the essence of Eternal Consciousness; We are all drops or waves in the Cosmic Ocean of Divine Consciousness.

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....?

No, why do you choose to say Yes? Hope? Lack of belief is not abandonment of hope. Belief is a cognitive commitment. Lack of belief is simply an absence of a cognitive commitment. Not a denial. And yes, Fear (as in God-fearing and Hell) is something that Christianity has cultivated in concept. It is an act of projection to attribute it to the non-religious.

Psychedelic Paul wrote: BrufordFreak wrote: Energy follows thought. If one can imagine it, it is possible (even probable). We are co-creators of our own realities. The world of energy and thought are not bound or confined by laws of four-dimensional physics (unless they choose to be). Mind, or Consciousness, is separate from (though it uses) the material, four-dimensional world. I have a body with all of its accompanying senses, for which I am grateful (especially when it serves me well), but I am much more than my body and its sensory inputs and activities. I have emotions, but I am much more than my emotions. I have thoughts (clouds in the infinite sky), but I am much more than my thoughts and human intellect.  We are inspired by the essence of Eternal Consciousness; We are all drops or waves in the Cosmic Ocean of Divine Consciousness. Those wise words sound like they could be the inspiration for a proggy 1970's-style concept album on the theme of higher consciousness.

I like the way you think, Drew.

Logan wrote: Catcher10 wrote: Logan wrote: Catcher10 wrote: Again, my Yes has nothing to do with religion. I am Catholic, all my life and will end this life as a Catholic, for sure I have wavered here and there as most do with religion. I don't ever see myself leaving the Catholic church.....but nothing in how I was raised or all the Catholic teachings makes me select Yes. I just believe there is an afterlife. Now if the question is 100% scientific and only that then you can easily argue the answer is No, since there is no proof. This to me is the same as asking if there is life outside of our Earth........and my answer is of course there is, no way we are the only beings of our kind in the entire universe.  What we have been able to explore outside of Earth is akin to going outside your house and exploring your porch, no further. As Earthlings we will never have the ability to travel far enough and survive to find another human race. What we are made of exists in space......unlike the robots that roam this website. I did a deeper a deeper dive on this I think in the Bertrand Russell thread, but belief as I've been saying I don't treat as synonymous knowledge (related and overlap, certainly, how much so and in what way depends on the angle). 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 is disbelieve in an afterlife. The question could be phrased as "Are you convinced that there is an afterlife?" I wonder then how many would say I don't know. Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. Now I'm quoting myself from the Liberal Deacalogue thread since I got really into this there: "The burden of proof is used in law and logic, and formal debate, and in logic means that one should adequately demonstrate a thing to be if not absolutely true, valid reasoning for the assertion (premises should be considered acceptable, relevant and sufficient enough to convince people who have no skin in the game that the conclusion/assertion logically follows), or something similar, been ages since I studied it. Of course what's considered valid etc. depends upon the person, but in logic (and mathematics) the propositions should support the conclusion in acceptable ways that should satisfy the standards of logical reasoning. Making arguments in formal academic logic does have fairly universal standards, and it is a closed-system of propositions (within particular frameworks). In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof. It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation -- hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative -- they are subject to change." I think you may be confusing the knowledge concept with belief. When you say, "This to me is the same as asking if there is life outside of our Earth........and my answer is of course there is, no way we are the only beings of our kind in the entire universe" in your analogy you are asking a different category of question to the one I intended. Is there life outside of Earth? I would expect so, I think so, but I don't know (I remain ultimately agnostic on the matter). Do I believe that there is life outside of Earth? Okay, I must admit that I would want to answer in a more nuanced way than yes or no. It seems highly unlikely to me from a probability standpoint that we are alone in the universe. I tend to believe so, but that belief is held tentatively, and I recognise that we lack "proof". I feel that there is justification to believe, or assume, that there is life outside of Earth despite any lack of evidence. I think that it is a reasonable assumption, but it still an assumption. Of course knowledge and belief are related concepts, and it is said that a sound belief is based on evidence as well, and the time to believe is when something can be demonstrated. Do I have sufficient evidence for a firm belief in extraterrestrial life, no. Am I convinced that there are extra terrestrials, I am reasonably convinced, but it is not held as a true belief because of the lack of evidence even if it is true. There is a relationship between belief and knowledge of course and I do not mean to,or can I, fully separate the two. In fact knowledge is sometimes called justified true belief. micky wrote: Logan wrote: don't feel the need to include an "unsure" or "other" option, though I expect that some would like to have that option. I'm more interested in what people have to say than poll results anyway. Answering yes or no does not require certainty. I don't believe that I can be certain of anything, and I am ultimately agnostic on all matters, which does not mean that I don't believe or am not convinced when it comes to many things.... yep!  so "other" for me...  much as anything in life.. or hah.. the after life.. it ain't as simple as black and white ... yes and no man.. Feel free to elaborate on your views any way you can. I'm more interested in people's thoughts and experiences than just how they vote. As I often say, the poll question should merely be treated as an accessory to discussion, and all tangents are welcome. I'm not meaning to force anyone to choose, and if it's other, that can be explained in a post so I can understand better your rationale. I hope you find reading through the read interesting at least. There is room for nuance, but I was approaching this from a particular philosophical standpoint by phrasing it in a dichotomous manner. If you needed a few beers to get through what I was trying to express in the Bertrand Russell topic where I discussed similar things, you might need a case to get through this. I do hope that believing and not believing in the afterlife simultaneously is not causing any cognitive dissonance. Nahh, I'm not confusing "knowledge with belief". The word knowledge is to know....I don't know that there is an afterlife, never said I know there is or is not one. I do believe, but not know it exists. This is getting too exacting of a conversation with having to define words like a lawyer does in trial...."what do you mean when you say NO..." LOL The question is not scientific, I don't think you can apply that to the question or anyone's answer, because your right a belief is not science or math, its not exact....It's a hunch, a feeling and nothing more or less. Those who do not believe in a God, do not know scientifically that a God does not actually exist...they merely believe or think or feel that no such being exists. Does a God exist? I don't know, but I believe a God exists...Is there an afterlife? I don't know, but I believe there is one. Everyone's answer here is valid, as nothing has been proven....yet. Carry on.... I'm not trying to prosecute you, I'd leave that to Ivan (though you are both Catholic so it might go well). Now Ivan and I, we had some major nit-picky arguments. Sorry if I seem dogged, just trying to understand your positions, (and perhaps better explain mine), as I would hope you would also be trying to do this with me and others. You've raised some points and at least one question and I have tried to address those adequately, and I hope that I've done so fairly. I have tried to understand your positions. I'm interested in all perspectives and I'm not trying to invalidate the belief or lack there-of. The question is not scientific, nor intended to be. It's of a philosophical nature. Not all who do not believe in a God also believe, think, or feel that a God does not exist. A point I've rattled on about too much already perhaps. There's a spectrum of belief-- some believe more strongly than others. Some are convinced that the after life exists, some are convinced that it doesn't, and there's a wide range of shades in between. Some might never have even been exposed to a God concept and so have no basis to believe anything on the God front, others might be negative atheists (also known as weak, soft and agnostic atheism) who neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Ask them if they believe in God, and they are likely to say no. Ask them if they disbelieve in God and they are also likely to say no. As I've said, an individual can be in the position of neither believing nor disbelieving in the afterlife, which is akin to how one can not know whether or not there is an afterlife (be agnostic on the matter). My wife does not claim to know with certainty that God exists, but she is a believer. I can respect that. My atheism/agnosticism has been more of a problem for her than her theism has been for me, at least when we were dating (she being an ex-Catholic Born Again Christian). I tried to get her into a less orthodox/ more liberal-minded outlook by taking her to the Anglican Church that I liked to attend. Whether or not everyone's answer is valid, not every argument is going to be valid or logically sound. Some arguments are more valid and logically sound than others (say deductively, that the conclusion logically follows from the premises). One can argue many metaphysical notions in a reasonable manner even if we cannot truly know something.

Having the same conversations for 15 years doesn't surprise me. Hell, look at the constant threads about the same six bands.



Edited by Grumpyprogfan - July 25 2020 at 10:00

The other he refers to is the cosmos not humans.

micky wrote: Grumpyprogfan wrote: micky wrote: and that is why atheists can be as moronic as the other extreme.. the religious fundies. believe what you want..it is a private belief... but trying to rationalize to others it by comparing humans to computers? come on man... your brain is only half your essence. Use it! Well if you are brain dead, your essence will not keep you alive very long. you go Hawking.. I'd go Einstein    transformation man...

Since you brought up Einstein, here is his view of the afterlife.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other."