Is there an afterlife?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rational, accurate, non-threatening conclusion based on everyday, mundane observations with some additional parenthetical commentary.

I think the source of the issue is "I know there is no afterlife". The more reasonable statement is "There is no reason to believe there is an afterlife.*

* - it needs to be noted that being expected to disprove a negative is an indication the person demanding as such doesn't understand how this sort of stuff works"

And honestly, with all the crying and mourning Christians make with for their dead loved ones, we really need to ask just how much do they actually believe in Heaven.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Rational, accurate, non-threatening conclusion based on everyday, mundane observations with some additional parenthetical commentary.

I think the source of the issue is "I know there is no afterlife". The more reasonable statement is "There is no reason to believe there is an afterlife.*

* - it needs to be noted that being expected to disprove a negative is an indication the person demanding as such doesn't understand how this sort of stuff works"

And honestly, with all the crying and mourning Christians make with for their dead loved ones, we really need to ask just how much do they actually believe in Heaven.

I understand your point and I'm absolutely certain Lion does as well.

We say "I know" about a lot of things. Should I say "I think" this is my wife when making introductions? I mean after all she could be a body snatcher, an angel, a demon, a succubus, a ghost, an ET from Proxima Centauri, etc. And that goes for a lot of things.

It's quite fine to say "I know," when in fact you know. If a religious person is uncertain about one of their dogmatic convictions that doesn't mean we all have to act equally crazy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Rational, accurate, non-threatening conclusion based on everyday, mundane observations with some additional parenthetical commentary.

I think the source of the issue is "I know there is no afterlife". The more reasonable statement is "There is no reason to believe there is an afterlife.*

* - it needs to be noted that being expected to disprove a negative is an indication the person demanding as such doesn't understand how this sort of stuff works"

And honestly, with all the crying and mourning Christians make with for their dead loved ones, we really need to ask just how much do they actually believe in Heaven.

I disagree, as I know that there is no afterlife (if you'd like to discuss or debate the matter, I already made a case). On the other hand, there is no sufficient reason to believe there is an afterlife (there are some, but far too weak), whereas there are compelling reasons to believe there is not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Atheist - I know there is no afterlife.
(Reason, logic, everybody knows this is true, it's a brute fact. Atheists really know their stuff.)

Theist - I know there is an afterlife.
(Faith head woo, fundy dogma, delusion, wishful thinking, a lie invented to control people, no matter what percentage of the population think this is true - it's still an unsupported claim with zero evidence.)

If you can't see the level of special pleading which separates this double standard dissonance then you are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

It is not that there is no evidence for the afterlife. There is but is negligible, whereas the evidence against it is overwhelmingly strong. The fact that most of the population believe in the afterlife is very weak evidence, since the evidence that nearly all of those believers have is that they were told so by their parents when passing on their religion, which is extremely weak, and particularly so given that - as can be established on other, independent grounds - their religion is false even at the level of some core, basic beliefs.

That said, I have already provided an argument. Do you have a counterargument? Unlike most people, since you're posting here you probably went on to look for some evidence in support of your afterlife beliefs. What is it? How do you come to the assessment that there is an afterlife - and in particular, the version of the Christian afterlife that you believe in?

 

[Lion IRC]

Rational, accurate, non-threatening conclusion based on everyday, mundane observations with some additional parenthetical commentary.

I think the source of the issue is "I know there is no afterlife".

That's exactly the issue. Thank you.

The more reasonable statement is "There is no reason to believe there is an afterlife.*

Fine. I can do non-fundy mode too.
Here's my more reasonable statement.
There is no reason to think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) isn't real.

* - it needs to be noted that being expected to disprove a negative is an indication the person demanding as such doesn't understand how this sort of stuff works.

No. The expectation is that you provide evidence to support your claim one way or the other.
...at which time fundies, on both sides of the debate, will turn on their CAPS LOCK and shout about what is and isn't evidence.

If you can't prove a negative then you shouldn't make declarative assertions that there is no afterlife. You should admit that when it comes to the afterlife you are a believer or an agnostic.

And honestly, with all the crying and mourning Christians make with for their dead loved ones, we really need to ask just how much do they actually believe in Heaven.

You're at the airport departure gate. Your loved one is going away on a long trip. You're gonna miss them a lot. They won't be there in your daily life.
That overseas job posting - 3 years, 5 years, 10 years - is gonna feel like forever.
Final boarding call for all passengers. This is it. Time to say goodbye.
One final hug before they go.
So Jimmy Higgins. Are there any tears in your eyes?

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there an afterlife?

Sure. After life there something called death.

 

[Rhea]

That's exactly the issue. Thank you.

The more reasonable statement is "There is no reason to believe there is an afterlife.*

Fine. I can do non-fundy mode too.
Here's my more reasonable statement.
There is no reason to think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) isn't real.

No, that is not more reasonable. Not even "as" reasonable.
He provided a long discussion of what evidence would be expected and whether it is seen.

You?

Still just bald-faced assertions.

I asked you in this post to state what evidence you had about an after-life.
You seem to have decided you don't need to offer any story or explanation of any kind ion how you came to know what the afterlife looks like and how you know it exists.
Care to try? Here's the requote of the post

Atheist - I know there is no afterlife.
(Reason, logic, everybody knows this is true, it's a brute fact. Atheists really know their stuff.)

Theist - I know there is an afterlife.
(Faith head woo, fundy dogma, delusion, wishful thinking, a lie invented to control people, no matter what percentage of the population think this is true - it's still an unsupported claim with zero evidence.)

If you can't see the level of special pleading which separates this double standard dissonance then you are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

I can see why you would do flips and twists to try to equate the WAY we arrive at an answer as equivalent with the WAY you arrive at an answer. You probably feel that it lends credence and authority to your conclusion.

But since you are achingly wrong in your equivalence, there is not relevance given to your afterlife claim.

You can try though. You were presented with strong logical arguments for why a person would conclude there is no afterlife. The WAY an atheist would typically approach this would be to wonder, “if there were afterlife, what would the evidence look like,” and then notice none of that evidence exists.


So try our logical way of thinking. What does evidence for afterlife look like to you and where have you seen it, Lion?
I’m all ears, ready to see HOW you arrive at a conclusion.

* - it needs to be noted that being expected to disprove a negative is an indication the person demanding as such doesn't understand how this sort of stuff works.

No. The expectation is that you provide evidence to support your claim one way or the other.
...at which time fundies, on both sides of the debate, will turn on their CAPS LOCK and shout about what is and isn't evidence.

If you can't prove a negative then you shouldn't make declarative assertions that there is no afterlife. You should admit that when it comes to the afterlife you are a believer or an agnostic.

Hed did go through great detail what evidence one should see if this were true and expose that none of that evidence is seen.

And honestly, with all the crying and mourning Christians make with for their dead loved ones, we really need to ask just how much do they actually believe in Heaven.

You're at the airport departure gate. Your loved one is going away on a long trip. You're gonna miss them a lot. They won't be there in your daily life.
That overseas job posting - 3 years, 5 years, 10 years - is gonna feel like forever.
Final boarding call for all passengers. This is it. Time to say goodbye.
One final hug before they go.
So Jimmy Higgins. Are there any tears in your eyes?

I said goodbye to my son when he left for college. I'm going to miss him a lot, but I know he is going on to something that is so exciting and fun for him that I am not grieving. Yes I'll miss him, but I would not stop him for anything. (3 years later, I'm still fine when he leaves to go back to school.) That is not how christians behave at funerals, like, at all. As you know.

 

[steve_bank]

Wouldn't it be a lie for an atheist parent to assert that there is no God/afterlife?
The atheist parent doesn't know this for a fact.

One thing that IS a fact is the actual historical existence of Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

As a physicist I knew put it, the only way to know is to put a bullet in your brain pan. Not that he recommended it.

Back to the same old thing. The burden of proof is on the theisst. Evidence proffered, subjective experience and old disjointed writings.GS.

I would raise kids to be skeptical of everything, including science. Always critically evaluate evidence.

It is not a lie to say to kids there is no objective evidence for an afterlife. Beliefs in a spirit world are common and have been throughout human history.

What about Buddhist reincarnation?

The lie would be raising kids to have absolute belief in a god without imparting the ability to objectively questioning it. Brain washing from birth in a sense.

Beliefs in an afterlife and a heaven serve to lesson the pains of living with a finite life.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is no reason to think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) isn't real.

Yes, there is, and a conclusive one at that - as argued above: when the brain is gone, there is nothing of the person left (and some phenomenal consciouness isn't left, either, but even if it were but had nothing to do with a human mind, no memories or capacity to form them, no capacity for language or reason, to feel fear, or pain, or attraction, or anything, it would not be a person in the afterlife. It would be some other entity).

 

[Lion IRC]

This isn't my thread/Op.
You can debate the topic with your fellow atheists if you like.
If you want to chat about Hemant Mehta's views about lying to children... about the afterlife, there's a better thread here.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This isn't my thread/Op.
You can debate the topic with your fellow atheists if you like.
If you want to chat about Hemant Mehta's views about lying to children... about the afterlife, there's a better thread here.

I was replying to your post, which is acceptable in a discussion board.
To be frank, I did not intend to debate you at first, because I know it can take quite some time and RL stuff significantly limits the time I have for this sort of thing. However, you insisted on the "dogmatic" charges and the like, and eventually managed to convince me to engage. But now you're declining to engage, which is unexpected. Regardless, if you do not want to debate that with me, that's fair enough, but since you're making claims and arguments about the afterlife in a discussion board, it's also okay if I choose to reply to some of them regardless - which I might or might not do.

 

[James Brown]

There is no reason to think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) isn't real.

There's no evidence for it. Is there?

 

[steve_bank]

This isn't my thread/Op.
You can debate the topic with your fellow atheists if you like.
If you want to chat about Hemant Mehta's views about lying to children... about the afterlife, there's a better thread here.

4th down and long yardage to go. The theist punts rather than going for it. I love sports metaphors.

When confronted with explicit arguments the theists here invariable evade and pivot unable to form a response. But then by definition religious faith is belief without objective evidence. All's a theist has to say is I belive and know it is true even though I can not prove it.

To me that is a perfectly acceptable response. However at that point academic debate ends. Which I believe to be the point of faith, one gets beyond the entanglement of debate over a set of beliefs that reconciles reality for the believer. At that point one dwells in the spirit of god, Jesus, Krishna and so on.

 

[skepticalbip]

Fine. I can do non-fundy mode too.
Here's my more reasonable statement.
There is no reason to think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) isn't real.

I can see that you may think there is no reason to think it isn't real if you have ignored or haven't bothered to read all the reasons that have been given.

But by your standards, I could say that there is no reason to think that there isn't a family of gremlins living under my home or that I can visit Narnia if I can find the right wardrobe.

 

[steve_bank]

With Alzheimer's part of the brain along with cognitive function is gone.


I believe the Buddhists say that what survives is a loosely defined essence of the spirit. No specific memories.

 

[Rhea]

This isn't my thread/Op.
You can debate the topic with your fellow atheists if you like.
If you want to chat about Hemant Mehta's views about lying to children... about the afterlife, there's a better thread here.

[moderator’s note: This thread is a derail split from the WSJ lying thread in Secular Lifestyles since this part of the discussion is not about the merits of telling lies to kids but is about whether or not an afterlife exists. The thread in Secular lifestyles assumes it does not because it is... Secular Lifestyles. Therefore the derail topic is Lion’s, in effect and was moved to General Religion where it belongs.]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's exactly the issue. Thank you.

Actually, based on the next statement by you, not "exactly".

The more reasonable statement is "There is no reason to believe there is an afterlife.*

Fine. I can do non-fundy mode too.
Here's my more reasonable statement.
There is no reason to think the afterlife (discarnate consciousness) isn't real.

Other than the lack of evidence for its existence. What a bogus "reasonable" statement you made. Without evidence, there isn't reason. There isn't even hearsay.

* - it needs to be noted that being expected to disprove a negative is an indication the person demanding as such doesn't understand how this sort of stuff works.

No. The expectation is that you provide evidence to support your claim one way or the other.
...at which time fundies, on both sides of the debate, will turn on their CAPS LOCK and shout about what is and isn't evidence.

False equivalency.

And honestly, with all the crying and mourning Christians make with for their dead loved ones, we really need to ask just how much do they actually believe in Heaven.

You're at the airport departure gate. Your loved one is going away on a long trip. You're gonna miss them a lot. They won't be there in your daily life.
That overseas job posting - 3 years, 5 years, 10 years - is gonna feel like forever.
Final boarding call for all passengers. This is it. Time to say goodbye.
One final hug before they go.
So Jimmy Higgins. Are there any tears in your eyes?

Yes, but only due to the terrible analogy. Heaven isn't supposed to be goodbye. It isn't supposed to be bad. So why again are we tearing up in sadness for the departure that fulfills the most important part of the Christian faith?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When confronted with explicit arguments the theists here invariable evade and pivot unable to form a response. But then by definition religious faith is belief without objective evidence. All's a theist has to say is I belive and know it is true even though I can not prove it.

It's the difference between belief in an afterlife and an actual afterlife. Believing in something does not make it real, however emotionally satisfying the belief. There's a disconnect here, a lack of self awareness.

 

[Lion IRC]

This isn't my thread/Op.
You can debate the topic with your fellow atheists if you like.
If you want to chat about Hemant Mehta's views about lying to children... about the afterlife, there's a better thread here.

I was replying to your post, which is acceptable in a discussion board.

Sure, you just can't debate the evidence for or contra the existence of the soul/afterlife in a thread about;
...whether it's OK for atheists to lie to children about the existence of the soul/afterlife

To be frank, I did not intend to debate you at first, because I know it can take quite some time and RL stuff significantly limits the time I have for this sort of thing.

No need to explain. I don't want to debate an anti-afterlife fundy.
I've heard more than enough absence-of-evidence = evidence of absence fallacies and argued about what is and isn't evidence enough to know that once you've made up your mind it's sufficient.

However, you insisted on the "dogmatic" charges and the like, and eventually managed to convince me to engage.

Now, now. You just got stung by the pot/kettle accusation.
You are dogmatically sticking to your beliefs about the non-existence of the soul/afterlife.
That's cool.
Embrace it. Don't apologise.

But now you're declining to engage, which is unexpected. Regardless, if you do not want to debate that with me, that's fair enough, but since you're making claims and arguments about the afterlife in a discussion board, it's also okay if I choose to reply to some of them regardless - which I might or might not do.

Um...you (and ronburgundy) got called out by Jimmy Higgins for your overreach. Your claim to "know" stuff about a topic for which atheists vociferously claim there is NO EVIDENCE. Well, if there's no evidence, then you don't have any either.

 

[Rhea]

Lion - are you going to present your evidence or not?


What’s with this dance and fast step to avoid presenting your evidence? Is this you trying to prove that you have no evidence of any kind for an afterlife?