do you believe in the afterlife?

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

And (correct me if I'm wrong here) you said that the reason you believe is that you think the order in the universe speaks to a creator. We've pointed out that the order you speak of is not necessarily there, and even if it is, it would not require a creator. And, since it does't require a creator, we'd have no rational reason to assume a creator. Logic dictates that we shouldn't make unnecessary complicating assumptions.

I am stating my beliefs. Not facts, not knowledge, not even fully-logical arguments. BE-FUCKING-LIEFS.

But WHY do you believe these things? As an engineer, if you or I said "I think this will be safe" and when asked for justification for this claim said "because it is my BELIEF", we would be laughed out of the room.

It would be nice isn't a reason to believe something. Having heard your argument, I think that when you slice off all the circular reasoning, and look at it honestly, you will find yourself left with nothing but that.

The order I speak of is IMO there due to the fact that we can even perceive it as such. Even if it's on the most finite scale imaginable, it's there. If there was no order, I see no way that we could perceive order. Hell if the Universe was pure chaos, we shouldn't exist.

As for requiring a Deity for the creation of the universe, is there another explanation at the moment? None that have been proven. My beliefs are a possibility like any other. A pseudo-logical possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. I see it as a compromise between logic and belief.

As for why I believe what I believe, to be blunt, it feels right. I've learned to trust my intuition/instincts. I admit that it doesn't make fully logical sense, but logic is only one form of human perception. I'm not saying I'm psychic or anything, but I believe there are perceptions other than logic that are valid. They're obviously not scientifically valid or proven (yet), because science is an application of logic. Whether science can prove them in the future or not has yet to be seen.

Actually, true order doesn't really exist, in fact, at the quantum level the universe is most likely entirely random. (See uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics)

Simplified, things will probably follow certain patterns, because thats how particles will probably move, but there is always a chance they won't. It's just unlikely. (really, really, simplified, and it might be applying the principle to macro-systems where it hardly applies, but, the point is made, is it not?)

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: irishScott
...

In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.
....

And some drunk people think they can fly. I'm sure lots of them have. They also seem to think they can dance well.
The evidence does not match the reality of it though.

These "near death experience" things are hallucinations, perhaps a systemic thing - if you lay on a limb for a long time, you feel that "pins and needles" sensation when the pressure is let off. That's something that many people will report. That doesn't mean that there are invisible pins jabbing into your arm all over the place. It's a bug in the system. Contact with the nerves is being re-established, and this triggers lots of small pain signals, despite the absence of any true stimuli.
Hot peppers: The capsaicin tricks your pain receptors into firing. But it's just a chemical hack.

Similarly, if you're near death, your systems aren't working properly, and among the things going wrong will likely be oxygen delivery, either too little bloodflow to your brain, or too little oxygen in the blood. Parts of your brain will fade in and out, so you're in a state of partial consciousness, somewhere between being awake and dreaming. I don't put any merit into the things I experience in dreams. On that same note, I wouldn't put merit into what I'd experience when near death, just as I wouldn't put merit into experiences I'd endure while under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.

 

[manowar821]

You don't need faith to "believe in" UFOs, so I never really understood why that was a huge issue for people. But the afterlife is something you cannot possibly know until you die for good, and for that reason alone, I'll never worry about it or believe in it. There's no reason to.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: irishScott
1. My beliefs in this regard are pseudo-logical. Circular reasoning does not apply as I'm not trying to prove anything.

It's circular no matter how much you make ad-hoc hypotheses why it's not, or why it doesn't matter. It's true by virtue of the fact that it's circular.

Originally posted by: irishScott
3. I believe he exists because it feels right, has pseudo-logical backing, and I trust my intuition.

So you don't care if your beliefs are true? You just believe "because it feels right"? Consider this hypothetical:
Your doctor knows you have cancer, yet he tells you you're fine because it would break your spirit and make you depressed. In both cases, you feel "right" - you get comfort from it.

Originally posted by: irishScott
5. IMO, yes. There's a reason Einstein's theory of relativity is still a theory. Same story with gravity. Just because we don't know how doesn't mean it's not possible.

Stop. For someone who purportedly doesn't like playing semantics, you sure are engaging in some. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, and is the highest level of recognition and value an idea in science get. It is not a colloquial "theory" - a conjecture not supported by evidence. That is a hypothesis. Furthermore, "just because we don't know how" means we shouldn't assume that a God exists. You're not solving anything - you're just moving the questions to an unneeded entity. You're explaining a mystery with a mystery - your hypothesis has no explanatory power.

Originally posted by: irishScott
6. And there is evidence for my beliefs. Pseudo-logical evidence but evidence nonetheless.

It's not pseudo-logical, it's not even logical. It's not evidence, it's hearsay. If I say I'm God, how can you refute me by your reasoning? I mean it's evidence, eh? You have to have standards of evidence - something someone said cannot be used as evidence as people can say anything and be mistaken.

Originally posted by: irishScott
7. So the human creation of logic is the be-all-end-all? One singular perception is so great that if something does not follow it, it can't exist? Sounds more arrogant than most religions.

How repugnant. First of all, the laws of logic are formed by our observations of the preconditions of existing - anything that exists is behaving in these rules in all cases we've observed, and there have been absolutely no cases in which things that exist don't follow these rules. Since there's mountains of evidence to support this, there's no reason to assume that there are any exceptions, as there is a total, complete void of evidence to the contrary. Your mocking is a silly ad-hoc hypothesis, and it doesn't carry any weight. To say it's arrogant is the exact opposite. These truths don't have any ego attached.

8. That was my original point. Unless you know how to build the tools you need to make the tools you need to make a generator that can produce something approximating lightening. A bad analogy on my part, as that is theoretically possible if you have the knowledge.

Originally posted by: irishScott
9. It's evidence. It's not perfectly reliable in any logical sense, but, once again, my beliefs are not entirely logical.

See #6

Originally posted by: irishScott
The order I speak of is IMO there due to the fact that we can even perceive it as such. Even if it's on the most finite scale imaginable, it's there. If there was no order, I see no way that we could perceive order. Hell if the Universe was pure chaos, we shouldn't exist.

Then explain quantum randomness. Go ahead, if your God hypothesis has any explanatory power you should be able to answer how he created order, or why he created order. Explaining a mystery with a mystery.

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for requiring a Deity for the creation of the universe, is there another explanation at the moment? None that have been proven.

This is intellectually dishonest. It's called "god of the gaps" - you can't explain it, so therefore God did it. It's intellectually dishonest - you can't STAND THE POSSIBILITY OF not knowing something, so you cower behind this God of the Gaps. Be honest and say that you don't know how the universe, if created, came about.

Originally posted by: irishScottA pseudo-logical possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. I see it as a compromise between logic and belief.

It's not logical at all. Why would you believe something without evidence? What rational do you have for believing that doesn't apply to every religion, including ones that you can just make up on the spot?

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for why I believe what I believe, to be blunt, it feels right. I've learned to trust my intuition/instincts.

Your intuitions. You have so much experience when it comes to the creation of cosmos and the birth of universes, I should just trust your judgment on this one. You don't have any reason to believe it, and you can't even explain why you believe it, you can't explain anything about it, all you do is move the mystery up one level.

Originally posted by: irishScottbut I believe there are perceptions other than logic that are valid.They're obviously not scientifically valid or proven (yet), because science is an application of logic. Whether science can prove them in the future or not has yet to be seen.

This whole section is total nonsense.

*sigh* I can safely say you are the most binary, logical person I've ever met. Either something is logical or it isn't. Something exists or it doesn't. That and you're trying to put everything I'm saying into logical terms. Guess what? You can't. Because what I'm saying is pseudo-logical.

1. Call it what you will. It doesn't prove anything other than a logical fallacy. Since what I'm saying is admittedly pseudo-logical, it is a logical fallacy by definition. Yay you just restated what I've said multiple times.

2. We're talking about my beliefs when it comes to this grand cosmological/spiritual/afterlife stuff. Like I said, I don't live my life around this stuff and I use common sense. As for comfort and depression, I endured 6 years of near-clinical depression and 7 years (and counting) of family violence. Emotional pain from being told I have cancer would be considerable, but I've endured far worse.

3. Once again, you're the one playing semantics not me. I said "theory", meaning the general common sense definition of a theory (an idea that's supported by evidence but yet to be conclusively proven) You're the one demanding the precise detailed definition. Are you a lawyer?

That and I'm not trying to "solve" anything or prove anything. You're talking about 1s and 0s. I'm working in base 10.

4. You're right, it's not logical. It's pseudo logical. Like I said, you seem to be stuck in base 2. It's either logical or it's not.

5. You say there's no ego involved, yet you see my beliefs as "repugnant"? We can debate the definition of logic to no end. Suffice to say it is a human creation, a human interpretation of things, and a human perception. It's a product of the human brain. Simply because it explains a lot doesn't make it paramount. You say we are void of any evidence to the contrary. What you appear to mean is any logical evidence to the contrary.

So in short you require a logical explanation to disprove logic. Which is impossible.

6. see my number 4

7. Like I said earlier, the order may not be universal. Yet another example of your binary thought process. Order is either universal or it isn't to you it would seem.

8. Yes, it's a "god of the gaps" as you put it. That's why I'm not stating it as fact, proof, or any other logical definition you could slap on it. It's a belief. Nothing else, nothing more, nothing but.

9. Once again, binary. It's either logical or it's not to you.

10. I believe I have about as much experience as you do. I'm not asking you to trust my judgment, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything; and you are exactly right. I can't fully explain why I believe what I believe beyond abstractions. Hence the reason I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply defending my beliefs, not attacking yours.

11. Total nonsense eh? Right. Because I have no logical evidence for what I'm saying, and if my evidence is illogical it doesn't exist right? Once again, binary thought process my friend; with all due respect, the very definition of close-mindedness.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: irishScott
...

In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.
....

And some drunk people think they can fly. I'm sure lots of them have. They also seem to think they can dance well.
The evidence does not match the reality of it though.

These "near death experience" things are hallucinations, perhaps a systemic thing - if you lay on a limb for a long time, you feel that "pins and needles" sensation when the pressure is let off. That's something that many people will report. That doesn't mean that there are invisible pins jabbing into your arm all over the place. It's a bug in the system. Contact with the nerves is being re-established, and this triggers lots of small pain signals, despite the absence of any true stimuli.
Hot peppers: The capsaicin tricks your pain receptors into firing. But it's just a chemical hack.

Similarly, if you're near death, your systems aren't working properly, and among the things going wrong will likely be oxygen delivery, either too little bloodflow to your brain, or too little oxygen in the blood. Parts of your brain will fade in and out, so you're in a state of partial consciousness, somewhere between being awake and dreaming. I don't put any merit into the things I experience in dreams. On that same note, I wouldn't put merit into what I'd experience when near death, just as I wouldn't put merit into experiences I'd endure while under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like I've said before, and will probably have to say again, I'm not stating any facts here. There's a good deal of evidence that they're nothing more than hallucinations. That makes it the most likely possibility. Doesn't discount the others.

Even if you're right and they are simply, utterly, entirely hallucinations, doesn't discount the presence of an afterlife. I fully admit that my "evidence" is not purely logical in nature.

Either way, I don't live my life around this stuff. I'll figure it out for sure when I die, which will hopefully be at least 6 decades from now.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like I've said before, and will probably have to say again, I'm not stating any facts here. There's a good deal of evidence that they're nothing more than hallucinations. That makes it the most likely possibility. Doesn't discount the others.

Even if you're right and they are simply, utterly, entirely hallucinations, doesn't discount the presence of an afterlife. I fully admit that my "evidence" is not purely logical in nature.

Either way, I don't live my life around this stuff. I'll figure it out for sure when I die, which will hopefully be at least 6 decades from now.

That is of course the most important thing. I hate seeing people doing whatever they can in this lifetime for the sole purpose of getting a ticket into the "good" afterlife. You should live a good life for its own sake, not so you can say, "See? See? I was good! Can I come into the good place now?" Doing it that way cheapens the value of what you do during life.



"You....you saved me from that burning building! Thank you so much!"

"Oh, no problem. I don't really care about you, I just wanted to do something nice so I get 5 Rep Points; I need Reps so I can get into Heaven."

"........um, could you just toss me back in there quick?"

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: irishScott
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like I've said before, and will probably have to say again, I'm not stating any facts here. There's a good deal of evidence that they're nothing more than hallucinations. That makes it the most likely possibility. Doesn't discount the others.

Even if you're right and they are simply, utterly, entirely hallucinations, doesn't discount the presence of an afterlife. I fully admit that my "evidence" is not purely logical in nature.

Either way, I don't live my life around this stuff. I'll figure it out for sure when I die, which will hopefully be at least 6 decades from now.

That is of course the most important thing. I hate seeing people doing whatever they can in this lifetime for the sole purpose of getting a ticket into the "good" afterlife. You should live a good life for its own sake, not so you can say, "See? See? I was good! Can I come into the good place now?" Doing it that way cheapens the value of what you do during life.



"You....you saved me from that burning building! Thank you so much!"

"Oh, no problem. I don't really care about you, I just wanted to do something nice so I get 5 Rep Points; I need Reps so I can get into Heaven."

"........um, could you just toss me back in there quick?"

Seriously. I have a 5 year old cousin, and my Uncle (her father) happens to be a Baptist pastor. They're good people and all, but you should hear some of the stuff that comes out of her mouth about "the one true God" heaven and hell and such. Makes my skin crawl.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: rh71
I was listening to the radio morning show - they were talking about things you believe in (ghosts, UFOs, etc.). They got to the subject of the afterlife and some RN at a hospital calls in. In her words, "without fail, just as they are about to pass, they always look to the corner of the room and ask 'do you see them?', and they seem to pass in great peace." Another of the hosts agreed that's what he read about too. The RN went on to say if it were members of your loved ones, they would mention their relationship ("I see my brother", mother, etc.) rather than saying "them" as if they were strangers... a welcoming committee of sorts (not to make light of the situation).

This is the first time I've heard about the dying looking at the corner and saying something just before they die - google fails me. You guys heard of this before?

Thats the first time I've ever heard of it and I've personally sat with dozens of dying patients.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: irishScottSomething exists or it doesn't.

Show me something that half-exists.

Originally posted by: irishScott Because what I'm saying is pseudo-logical.

There is no such thing. "Like logical" means that it's not logical. You can't just talk about "right' "wrong" or "proven" without using logic.

Originally posted by: irishScott1. Call it what you will. It doesn't prove anything other than a logical fallacy.

If you're using a logical fallacy to base your reasoning or rational, then you are wrong.

Originally posted by: irishScott3. Once again, you're the one playing semantics not me. I said "theory", meaning the general common sense definition of a theory (an idea that's supported by evidence but yet to be conclusively proven) You're the one demanding the precise detailed definition. Are you a lawyer?

A scientific theory is supported by evidence and proven to the extent that we can know anything. "Absolute certainty" is a red herring - because we would require infinite knowledge, which is in itself self-contradictory. A theory cannot be "proven" - neither can any secular scientific theory at all. "Proven" is a mathematical term - in science we deal with empirical evidence and standards of evidence and "reasonable doubt".

Originally posted by: irishScottThat and I'm not trying to "solve" anything or prove anything. You're talking about 1s and 0s. I'm working in base 10.

You would still be in 1's and 0's unless the tenets of logic existed.

Originally posted by: irishScott4. You're right, it's not logical. It's pseudo logical. Like I said, you seem to be stuck in base 2. It's either logical or it's not.

You can't have "like" logic - it's either logical or illogical. That's like saying you have half of a unit that is not divisible.

Originally posted by: irishScottSuffice to say it is a human creation, a human interpretation of things, and a human perception. It's a product of the human brain.

Logic, in either world view, is man-made. The logic you're talking about here is the human creation of language to interpret the laws of logic. The consistency of logic is not our "human" perception - it's the universe's preconditions of existing.

Originally posted by: irishScottSo in short you require a logical explanation to disprove logic. Which is impossible.

Exactly! It's like the question "Why be rational" - requiring a logical explanation to fulfill it's questioning powers. You cannot "disprove logic" - that's an oxymoron. Anything that exists follows the laws of logic by definition because the laws of logic are based on the prerequisites for existing!

Originally posted by: irishScott8. Yes, it's a "god of the gaps" as you put it. That's why I'm not stating it as fact, proof, or any other logical definition you could slap on it. It's a belief. Nothing else, nothing more, nothing but.

What I'm asking for is a logical reason for anyone else to believe what you believe. Why even bother conjecturing when you can't even back up anything you say? If you don't care that your beliefs are true, then fine. But if you care at all, the only way to find out that your beliefs are true are to investigate and to use the scientific method. Science gives us what is most likely true - beyond any reasonable doubt. You can't just assume that you're true because there's no evidence to the contrary - that's against the very principles of rational and critical thinking. If you're going to say you're rational then you've got to investigate.

Originally posted by: irishScott10. I believe I have about as much experience as you do.

How many cosmos have you created?

Originally posted by: irishScott I can't fully explain why I believe what I believe beyond abstractions.

Then don't say it's true.

Originally posted by: irishScott11. Total nonsense eh? Right. Because I have no logical evidence for what I'm saying, and if my evidence is illogical it doesn't exist right? Once again, binary thought process my friend; with all due respect, the very definition of close-mindedness.

I will accept any arguments or evidence that is logical. I'm the one that's open minded, you won't consider the possibility that you're wrong, otherwise you wouldn't be a deist.

 

[NinjaGnome]

anyone who firmly thinks one or the other to be the absolute truth is not very open minded at all. There is no proof of either being right so why would you try and guess what happens to you when you die? Live yor life the way you see fit and then when you die you will know. Why waste any time speculating?

 

[Wheezer]

do you believe in the afterlife?

depends....I'll let you know when I get there.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: NinjaGnome
anyone who firmly thinks one or the other to be the absolute truth is not very open minded at all. There is no proof of either being right so why would you try and guess what happens to you when you die? Live yor life the way you see fit and then when you die you will know. Why waste any time speculating?

It's unfortunate to think that people's behavior in life can be dictated by the notion that something significant happens after you die.

There's no evidence to suggest that anything happens after you die. There is evidence to the contrary.
Mental processes are a result of electrochemical interactions between neurons. These actions cease upon death. Conclusion: Thought and awareness end upon death.

Memories are stored by connections between neurons. Neurons, like other cells, decay after death. Conclusion: Memory decays after death.


The notion that there's something "more" like an eternal "soul" is just some ego-stroke contrived by primitive humans to make themselves feel like they had gained dominance over nature.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

Well if you believe that something can't come from nothing, who made god?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You create your reality according to your beliefs and expectations, and it is the same in whatever environment to which you focus your attention. You are awake, those that believe you dream. You dream, those that believe you are awake -- for the difference is meaningless. Physical reality is like a bright beacon upon which we have all focused to the exclusion of the larger dimensions of reality, and those realities are evident in your dreams. All events are simultaneous, so if you are conscious now, you will always be conscious, and you have always been conscious. You likely have a very limited idea of what it means to be conscious. Your personality is part of a larger gestalt of individuality and awareness that continuously creates for itself new realities as a means of self-discovery. If you want to know what experience is like independent of your physical body, your best place to start is your dreams.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You create your reality according to your beliefs and expectations, and it is the same in whatever environment to which you focus your attention. You are awake, those that believe you dream. You dream, those that believe you are awake -- for the difference is meaningless. Physical reality is like a bright beacon upon which we have all focused to the exclusion of the larger dimensions of reality, and those realities are evident in your dreams. All events are simultaneous, so if you are conscious now, you will always be conscious, and you have always been conscious. You likely have a very limited idea of what it means to be conscious. Your personality is part of a larger gestalt of individuality and awareness that continuously creates for itself new realities as a means of self-discovery. If you want to know what experience is like independent of your physical body, your best place to start is your dreams.

Hehe, It's like you randomly rearranged words from a philosophy textbook. Well played.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You create your reality according to your beliefs and expectations, and it is the same in whatever environment to which you focus your attention. You are awake, those that believe you dream. You dream, those that believe you are awake -- for the difference is meaningless. Physical reality is like a bright beacon upon which we have all focused to the exclusion of the larger dimensions of reality, and those realities are evident in your dreams. All events are simultaneous, so if you are conscious now, you will always be conscious, and you have always been conscious. You likely have a very limited idea of what it means to be conscious. Your personality is part of a larger gestalt of individuality and awareness that continuously creates for itself new realities as a means of self-discovery. If you want to know what experience is like independent of your physical body, your best place to start is your dreams.

Hehe, It's like you randomly rearranged words from a philosophy textbook. Well played.

I do legitimately believe what I wrote, but I know how difficult it is to grasp, and I'm not really going to argue about it.

And yes, I know it reads pretty disjointedly.