Do you believe in an afterlife?

Logan wrote: Snicolette wrote: I really love how you delve so deeply into the process, Logan.  I admit, sometimes I am just answering in a sort of stream of consciousness way, to see how I arrive at the destination.  I, too, love seeing how others think of these things and how they get there.  We may never know these answers, but at least we ask the questions.   Thank you. I'd like to do more stream of consciousness stuff, I am a terrific rambler, sometimes I do but these days it comes across as so incoherent. I always love reading your thoughts, Nickie, and I used the honour term already for Mike's post, and I mean it too with you, I consider it to be an honour and a privilege to read what you write. Your heart comes through and you have really interesting perspectives that do make me think. You come across as an empathetic and tuned-in individual, and empathy is one of the qualities I most highly value. I can relate to your experiences, and will share some of mine later perhaps. It is a mysterious universe, sometimes painful, but also wondrous. There is very much we may never know, but sometimes it's the journey rather than the destination that matters.

Some of this stuff is so personal, you don't know sometimes if it is too too much for people who haven't been there to look at it.  My mother taught me the meaning of empathy so many years ago (she also, sadly, died too young, at 47) and the difference between it, and sympathy.  That old saying comes to mind, that a life unexamined, is not worth living. We are here to learn and to learn from each other.  What else makes any sense at all?

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.

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.

Edited by Logan - July 25 2020 at 02:16

Snicolette wrote: Grumpyprogfan wrote: 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?   For me, I don't know.  I just think I believe rather than disbelieve, which makes no logical sense. Just like I believe there could be other intelligent life off of this planet, which may never be proven scientifically.  I know some things I've experienced that can't be explained to any certainty.  I just know that until I don't know for certain, there are still possibilities.  I definitely don't believe that there is burning in eternity for those who don't follow one silly stricture or another, that is kind of absurd, since that one usually goes along with the idea of a god or gods.  Why would something so huge be so concerned with such small details of so many individuals?  I think that it is likely that there is more than one reality within these larger realms.  Or maybe not.    I am just not discounting it until I know for sure it is discountable.

Once the body dies the brain dies. So how do you process thought? If we are just scattered into atoms in another plane we still can't process thought. So we will never know if we are in an afterlife. Matter will just exist.



Edited by Grumpyprogfan - July 25 2020 at 07:50

This is what Stephen Hawking said about the afterlife "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail," he said. "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." 

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.

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.

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."

The other he refers to is the cosmos not humans.

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