I’m not a believer in an afterlife.
I always say “where were you before you were born?” - You just didn’t exist & had no idea that you didn’t exist. I think the same thing happens when you die.
[quote]B A S T A R D wrote:
I always say “where were you before you were born?” - You just didn’t exist & had no idea that you didn’t exist. [/quote]
I don’t remember much before I was like 8 or so. Bits and pieces. I don’t know where I was this time 2 years ago.
My toddler doesn’t understand her existence to near the extent she will in 6 months, let alone six years.
Why do you assume everything depends on human comprehension of a situation?
If a person wasn’t around to scientifically prove it happened, would a bear still shit in the woods?
Shit evolution in and of itself basically eliminates any theory that our involvement, understanding or comprehension has anything to do with anything. We, as an individual species, don’t matter. Why do we think so highly of ourselves? Because we are part of a system? Well the system was around before we were part of it…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
An interesting passage:
“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes[/quote]
That’s the “unmoved mover” concept first articulated by Aristotle and taken up by Thomas Aquinas amongst others. It’s interesting but is something of a dead end in my opinion. Personally, I think ontology and specifically the “subject-object problem”, the “mind-body problem” and the “philosophy of space and time” are likely to be of more use in uncovering the “why.”[/quote]
How so?
[quote]B A S T A R D wrote:
I’m not a believer in an afterlife.
I always say “where were you before you were born?” - You just didn’t exist & had no idea that you didn’t exist. I think the same thing happens when you die.[/quote]
This is a fundamental problem for me. I can see the allure there. I think Twain had some fantastic quote about it: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]B A S T A R D wrote:
I’m not a believer in an afterlife.
I always say “where were you before you were born?” - You just didn’t exist & had no idea that you didn’t exist. I think the same thing happens when you die.[/quote]
This is a fundamental problem for me. I can see the allure there. I think Twain had some fantastic quote about it: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”[/quote]
It’s just a very egocentric way of looking at life and death.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
When you do, unless you have had some personal experience, miracle. Likely you realize that there are better explanations that don’t involve an afterlife… Etc. etc. [/quote]
This is simply an opinion because “better” is a subjective term. There may be theories that are heading in the direction of HOW the world - the solar system, the Milky Way, the universe, the multiverse - came into being, but there are still none that address WHY there is Something rather than Nothing.
In that respect, the idea of a Creator may sound absurd - but to me that’s no more absurd than this world existing in any form anyway. Who is to say that this world existing and containing a species of cognizant, self-aware beings who contemplate and explore it makes sense, but then the idea that something set it all in motion … well, THAT is a bridge too far.
From what I have seen, science does the “how” better than anyone. The “why” … well, that is another story, and that’s where philosophy edges it aside… [/quote]
I think that when you move away from existential despair it’s by default a better thing than having or subjecting existential despair to children or the unwitting. It’s like, would you like that with, or without herpes. Without herpes is always better, or at least I’d like to assume so…
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
When you do, unless you have had some personal experience, miracle. Likely you realize that there are better explanations that don’t involve an afterlife… Etc. etc. [/quote]
This is simply an opinion because “better” is a subjective term. There may be theories that are heading in the direction of HOW the world - the solar system, the Milky Way, the universe, the multiverse - came into being, but there are still none that address WHY there is Something rather than Nothing.
In that respect, the idea of a Creator may sound absurd - but to me that’s no more absurd than this world existing in any form anyway. Who is to say that this world existing and containing a species of cognizant, self-aware beings who contemplate and explore it makes sense, but then the idea that something set it all in motion … well, THAT is a bridge too far.
From what I have seen, science does the “how” better than anyone. The “why” … well, that is another story, and that’s where philosophy edges it aside… [/quote]
I think that when you move away from existential despair it’s by default a better thing than having or subjecting existential despair to children or the unwitting. It’s like, would you like that with, or without herpes. Without herpes is always better, or at least I’d like to assume so… [/quote]
You’ll have to explain this more, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Having faith and abandoning it or not having faith in the first place are two sides of the same coin, and can both lead to heavy existential despair.
It’s not as if a child lives in a bubble and one can say, “By not telling them of the possibility of an afterlife, I can spare them the pain of them possibly coming to the belief that there is none.” No - they’re human, and they will likely inevitably ponder their purpose, and the meaning of all this.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
An interesting passage:
“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes[/quote]
That’s the “unmoved mover” concept first articulated by Aristotle and taken up by Thomas Aquinas amongst others. It’s interesting but is something of a dead end in my opinion. Personally, I think ontology and specifically the “subject-object problem”, the “mind-body problem” and the “philosophy of space and time” are likely to be of more use in uncovering the “why.”[/quote]
How so?[/quote]
To try to put it simply, concepts such as the unmoved mover are not “teleological” by which I mean they don’t describe a “purpose” or “aim”. Studying the actual fundamental nature of reality, existence and being reveals teleological clues. For instance, does existence precede essence? If it does, then people cannot have a “soul” until they make one during their existence. And if people come into existence without a soul then it is hard to imagine that they were created with some purpose in mind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
An interesting passage:
“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes[/quote]
That’s the “unmoved mover” concept first articulated by Aristotle and taken up by Thomas Aquinas amongst others. It’s interesting but is something of a dead end in my opinion. Personally, I think ontology and specifically the “subject-object problem”, the “mind-body problem” and the “philosophy of space and time” are likely to be of more use in uncovering the “why.”[/quote]
How so?[/quote]
To try to put it simply, concepts such as the unmoved mover are not “teleological” by which I mean they don’t describe a “purpose” or “aim”. Studying the actual fundamental nature of reality, existence and being reveals teleological clues. For instance, does existence precede essence? If it does, then people cannot have a “soul” until they make one during their existence. And if people come into existence without a soul then it is hard to imagine that they were created with some purpose in mind.
[/quote]
Right, but then aren’t we sitting squarely in the realm of philosophy? Not that that is a bad thing, but it’s going to be hard find clues for that, whereas finding out about the hard reality of our universe - and how there does not appear to be a starting point to whatever we’re in, because you can always go backwards - offer more … not “proof,” but more … concrete-ish proofs that there is a Creator?
Dealing with the soul in any way is going to be hard to qualify in any way for the more scientifically-minded people, I would think.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Right, but then aren’t we sitting squarely in the realm of philosophy?
[/quote]
Of course. Philosophy deals with questions that cannot be answered by science. And regarding a “soul” I’m not necessarily talking about a soul in a spiritual sense but rather the essence or primordial nature of the self.
Also - for those who say no to the possibility of an afterlife, how do you explain the frequency with which supernatural things occur?
I’ve never seen a ghost or had an experience, but over the course of human history these things are well-documented, and continue to be, even with our scientific advancements. Furthermore, those who have lived through them are utterly convinced (and I’ve known a few of them).
It’s easy to claim that they’re either acting irrationally, were hallucinating, or saw something that was just not there - but are those feasible explanations when the person otherwise has no lapses in sanity, mental issues, or a history of hallucinating?
Again, not to trivialize this or make it into a campfire storytime, but I can’t say that I don’t believe there to be a kernel of truth in these stories, which have literally been around since the dawn of civilization.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Also - for those who say no to the possibility of an afterlife, how do you explain the frequency with which supernatural things occur?
I’ve never seen a ghost or had an experience, but over the course of human history these things are well-documented, and continue to be, even with our scientific advancements. Furthermore, those who have lived through them are utterly convinced (and I’ve known a few of them).
It’s easy to claim that they’re either acting irrationally, were hallucinating, or saw something that was just not there - but are those feasible explanations when the person otherwise has no lapses in sanity, mental issues, or a history of hallucinating?
Again, not to trivialize this or make it into a campfire storytime, but I can’t say that I don’t believe there to be a kernel of truth in these stories, which have literally been around since the dawn of civilization.[/quote]
It makes sense for that to act as evidence for the individual who had the experience, but how can it act as evidence for anyone else?
An example:
“There are far too many experiences of haunting and inexplicable presences or disturbances of normality, which have been recorded throughout the centuries, for anyone to dismiss them as mere superstition or fraud.”
While first-hand sightings like the one above may not be enough to prove existence, can they be dismissed just as easily?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Also - for those who say no to the possibility of an afterlife, how do you explain the frequency with which supernatural things occur?
I’ve never seen a ghost or had an experience, but over the course of human history these things are well-documented, and continue to be, even with our scientific advancements. Furthermore, those who have lived through them are utterly convinced (and I’ve known a few of them).
It’s easy to claim that they’re either acting irrationally, were hallucinating, or saw something that was just not there - but are those feasible explanations when the person otherwise has no lapses in sanity, mental issues, or a history of hallucinating?
Again, not to trivialize this or make it into a campfire storytime, but I can’t say that I don’t believe there to be a kernel of truth in these stories, which have literally been around since the dawn of civilization.[/quote]
It makes sense for that to act as evidence for the individual who had the experience, but how can it act as evidence for anyone else?
[/quote]
I’m not saying it can. I’m just saying that it happens so often, to so many, over so great a length of time, that it would be hard to simply dismiss it without consideration.
[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
[quote]Sutebun wrote:
[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
Nihlism leads to destructionism.
Faith leads to hope, understanding, knowledge, and peace.
Those with faith have no fears in life or death.
There is no absolute truth god exists there is no absolute truth he doesn’t. You put your faith where you see fit.[/quote]
Had a small rant ready and then re-read your post and want to clarify.
“Faith leads to…”
Are you implying faith in a supreme being? Can faith be expressed in other ways that don’t involve the religious belief of an omniscient being?
[/quote]
I imply nothing merely stating faith is important. For example we are all posting on a weightlifting forum. I doubt many would last if they didn’t have faith in there bodies that by lifting heavy object A would lead to desired outcome B. Looking better? or getting stronger? whatever we all worship the god of the iron.
Where you place your faith however has a massive outcome on where you end up emotionally, physically, mentally, and spiritually.
Those who place there faith in something not man made that cant be destroyed or eroded with time. Place faith and move in a direction towards meaning to exist. Those who place faith in say themselves may find with time. They placed faith in something that isn’t constant and will be a pile of dust. The possible problem with this is that overtime you may have gone 4 steps forward 5 steps backward, 10 steps sideways. But then again maybe if you don’t believe in a end destination where you end up now has little meaning or value.[/quote]
Good post and I think I’m inclined to agree – except maybe the part of an end destination.
On a first read your original post sounded similar to one of those typical “atheists must not have morals since they don’t have commandments, a god, and the bible blahblah…” ramblings.
So we need to have -ideals- and have faith in them? The human spirit or progress or an idealistic set of principles, or yes god and an afterlife. But the impression I get from your writing is that outlook and disposition are of prime importance, and not the exact belief one hold’s.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Also - for those who say no to the possibility of an afterlife, how do you explain the frequency with which supernatural things occur?
I’ve never seen a ghost or had an experience, but over the course of human history these things are well-documented, and continue to be, even with our scientific advancements. Furthermore, those who have lived through them are utterly convinced (and I’ve known a few of them).
It’s easy to claim that they’re either acting irrationally, were hallucinating, or saw something that was just not there - but are those feasible explanations when the person otherwise has no lapses in sanity, mental issues, or a history of hallucinating?
Again, not to trivialize this or make it into a campfire storytime, but I can’t say that I don’t believe there to be a kernel of truth in these stories, which have literally been around since the dawn of civilization.[/quote]
It makes sense for that to act as evidence for the individual who had the experience, but how can it act as evidence for anyone else?
[/quote]
I’m not saying it can. I’m just saying that it happens so often, to so many, over so great a length of time, that it would be hard to simply dismiss it without consideration. [/quote]
I never really believed in the whole ghost thing, until my Daughter started talking to our dag we had put down when she was an infant. She would walk over to the door of the room we kept his food, and say “hi doggie. Doggie, hi”.
Shit freaked me the fuck out after she did it a couple times. We were very careful not to encourage the behavior through our actions. We basically ignored it, so not to influence her doing it again.
Now I have no idea what to think. Because I’ve “sworn” I’ve seen the ghost of the old woman who built the house with her husband. She seems like a nice enough lady and hasn’t made me go blind from masturbation yet so…
I don’t know. I’m still leaning it isn’t real and all in my head, but man o man, I just don’t know.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I never really believed in the whole ghost thing, until my Daughter started talking to our dag we had put down when she was an infant. She would walk over to the door of the room we kept his food, and say “hi doggie. Doggie, hi”.
Shit freaked me the fuck out after she did it a couple times. We were very careful not to encourage the behavior through our actions. We basically ignored it, so not to influence her doing it again.
Now I have no idea what to think. Because I’ve “sworn” I’ve seen the ghost of the old woman who built the house with her husband. She seems like a nice enough lady and hasn’t made me go blind from masturbation yet so…
I don’t know. I’m still leaning it isn’t real and all in my head, but man o man, I just don’t know. [/quote]
Oh really? Seen an old woman in the house?
It’s shit like that that I’m talking about. You may think you sound foolish talking about it, but once again, with the majority of the world believing in some sort of religion, I just don’t think it’s that absurd to believe in spirits here.
Haven’t read the whole thread, can see it’s 6 pages long and it’s probably derailed by now 
I don’t believe in life after death because I don’t see any evidence that there is one, and I have no motive to believe in one. The thought of nothing after I die doesn’t depress me, or scare me - I will be have ceased to be, so I’d be incapable of feeling those emotions.
In the potentially awkward scenario where I see a bright light and end up outside the pearly gates chatting to Saint Peter, I’ll feel that my inability to guess which of the many religions in the world was right about which afterlife I go to was justified.
[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
Haven’t read the whole thread, can see it’s 6 pages long and it’s probably derailed by now
I don’t believe in life after death because I don’t see any evidence that there is one, and I have no motive to believe in one. The thought of nothing after I die doesn’t depress me, or scare me - I will be have ceased to be, so I’d be incapable of feeling those emotions.
In the potentially awkward scenario where I see a bright light and end up outside the pearly gates chatting to Saint Peter, I’ll feel that my inability to guess which of the many religions in the world was right about which afterlife I go to was justified. [/quote]
The thread actually hasn’t gotten derailed at all.
And that’s Pascal’s Wager… it could be very awkward, and involve a lot of, “Oh man, I was drinking a lot at that time, and who knew, really?”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You may think you sound foolish talking about it, but once again, with the majority of the world believing in some sort of religion, I just don’t think it’s that absurd to believe in spirits here.
[/quote]
Can you clarify what you mean?
Are you saying “because the majority of the world believe something which seems absurd, it shouldn’t be considered odd for me to believe something else which also seems absurd?”
Cos that hurts me right in the logic