Do theists know deep down that there no afterlife?

[VitalOne]

Your obstinate refusal to actually think continues to amaze me:
The evidence is that we all are conscious.
The explanation of why we are conscious has not yet been solved.

Right..so that means that it is unknown whether there is an afterlife or not (based on logic and rationality)

Your logic is "well it just seems like there is no life after death, case closed, problem solved"

If that were true wouldn't that argue against your entire case of an afterlife? (Given that one just keeps being born over and over)?

No...why would it? In Hinduism and Buddhism heaven and hell are true and also rebirth is true...

To quote Gautama Buddha:
"Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five? Hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, human beings and gods"

However, the fact of the matter is that Lenny the leprechaun decides who lives and who dies. He does this via a daily lottery using conkers and acorns.

What does that have to do with my argument..its illogical, its non-sequitur

Then don't use statements such as: "I guess..", it doesn't make you look like you're sure of much. But anyway, of what value is certainty when it's wrong?

Well I'm not sure he'll go to hell...thats why I said I guess...but I am sure that heavens, hells, etc...exist

 

[SnakeLord]

No...why would it? In Hinduism and Buddhism heaven and hell are true and also rebirth is true...

Right, so once again: Have you experienced the afterlife, (It is what I asked)? I'm not asking if you've lived as a frog or banana, I'm asking if you've experienced this heaven.

What does that have to do with my argument..its illogical, its non-sequitur

Just giving you the facts, nothing more.

 

[Oli]

Right..so that means that it is unknown whether there is an afterlife or not (based on logic and rationality)

Correct it IS unknown.
But once again balance of probabilities comes into it.
How many people have provably come back?

Your logic is "well it just seems like there is no life after death, case closed, problem solved"

Nope that's how I life my life, because anything else would be unfounded speculation.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Nope that's how I life my life, because anything else would be unfounded speculation.

And what about if you are one curious being, and want to experience for youself the truth about what happens after death?
(I´m obviously stating a case on which you don´t want to die to experience it).
There are people who said they´ve experienced it, and gave us the methods to do the same; what then?

 

[Oli]

And what about if you are one curious being, and want to experience for youself the truth about what happens after death?

Because what I want most likely doesn't come into it.
There's nothing to make be think that an after life exists and my desires aren't going to make it so.

(I´m obviously stating a case on which you don´t want to die to experience it).
There are people who said they´ve experienced it, and gave us the methods to do the same; what then?

If they haven't died they haven't experienced it...:shrug:

 

[Medicine*Woman]

How would you know that there is no afterlife anyway?

**************
M*W: How would you know there is?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

THey don't know at all...they use faith or belief without evidence to know that there is no afterlife...its just atheistic faith

*************
M*W: You don't know if there is an afterlife... you use faith and believe it with no evidence, so why should we be any different?

I've said this before: Atheists don't have 'faith' or 'hope' that no god exists. Having 'faith' and 'hope' to believe in the existence of a supernatural being takes mental, emotional, and intellectual energy. Atheists believe it is not necessary to exert energy in the belief that god doesn't exist. NOT believing in something doesn't require any effort. Therefore, it is wrong for theists to say that atheists 'have faith' that a god doesn't exist. It's NOT a matter of 'faith,' it's a matter of reason and understanding. Can theists honestly say that they have the reasoning and logical understanding that a supernatural being exists? I don't think so.

 

[VitalOne]

*************
M*W: You don't know if there is an afterlife... you use faith and believe it with no evidence, so why should we be any different?

I've said this before: Atheists don't have 'faith' or 'hope' that no god exists. Having 'faith' and 'hope' to believe in the existence of a supernatural being takes mental, emotional, and intellectual energy. Atheists believe it is not necessary to exert energy in the belief that god doesn't exist. NOT believing in something doesn't require any effort. Therefore, it is wrong for theists to say that atheists 'have faith' that a god doesn't exist. It's NOT a matter of 'faith,' it's a matter of reason and understanding. Can theists honestly say that they have the reasoning and logical understanding that a supernatural being exists? I don't think so.

No it doesn't, faith simply means "belief without evidence" it has nothing to do with emotions, therefore its the samething, anytime you have a view based upon "belief without evidence" then it is faith-based..so atheism is really no different than any other faith-based belief system...

 

[lightgigantic]

C'mon, everyone over the age of 3 knows it's a ridiculous fantasy.

I take it you have never enquired into the age of the tons of theistic philsophers one can appraoch (oh that's right - you're more intelligent than them ....)

Sit yourself down in front of a mirror and say "when I die i'm going to go and live again in a place with no bad things or bad people and I'll live happily ever after.."

if you think this is what the said philosopher's advocate as a means of discerning the nature of eternal life, I guess you haven't came in contact with them

If you've passed puberty and think that's reality, you need a good hard slap.

while your demeanor has a certain obnoxious charm about it that perhaps is suitable for chat room forums, its clear you have not had much experience in presenting the philosophical basis for your opinions

 

[superluminal]

There are at least three members here that refuse to acknowledge that non-believers:

1) Only claim that there is no evidence to justify an afterlife, and it is therfore unlikely as a description of what happens upon death.

2) Do not disbelieve as a matter of "faith" but observe a complete lack of objective evidence that would support belief in god.

Having said that, why would certain theists continue to twist the truth and continuously fall back on strawmen and evasion?

I have several theories...

 

[shaman_]

Right..so that means that it is unknown whether there is an afterlife or not (based on logic and rationality)

So you are being illogical and irrational to believe that there is one. You also agree that it is illogical to believe in gods. You also believe that elves exist right?

..Anyway, so while it is unknown you lack the belief that the afterlife exists, which is similar to atheism. Atheism being the absence of belief that gods exist.


There is certainly evidence to suggest that there is no afterlife. As far as we know, everything we need to function decays when we die. Eveything needed for existence, as we know it, is gone.

I think people who believe in the afterlife conveniently forget that if you do continue on then you will do so without sight, hearing, intelligence, emotion, memories ect. It doesn’t sound like a very interesting existence.

 

[shaman_]

I would say yes, God "has arms, legs, nose ect."

Why would god need arms? Couldn't he lift things without them?

Why would he need eyes and a nose? To see and hear? Is he blind when he closes his eyes?

 

[SnakeLord]

I take it you have never enquired into the age of the tons of theistic philsophers one can appraoch (oh that's right - you're more intelligent than them ....)

No, I've met "theistic philosophers" of all ages.

While on the subject of intelligence, when using it most can figure out that one cannot test afterlives without having died first. Available evidence shows that once a person dies they rot and that's that. Any conjuring up of living again in golden cities, or in a realm with dozens of virgins or any one of the millions of individual beliefs of what will happen once they're dead, (other than that which is evidenced), is fantasy, imagination. Nothing more.

Dictionary:

Fantasy: 'a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.'

Everyone should be well aware that the claim to afterlives is a fantasy - a hope brought on generally by psychological needs. That's not to say one can't enjoy their fantasy - they can, why I enjoy a fantasy as much as the next guy. However, one should at least recognise that fantasy for what it is.

Why do I get the feeling that you'll now try and convince me that reading a book is somehow evidence that an afterlife exists?

 

[Photizo]

Why would god need arms?

To one day embrace those who chose to believe/love/obey Him because of the weight/pain borne by those same arms.

Couldn't he lift things without them?

Yes, but not the "things" that pertain to your eternal welfare.

Why would he need eyes and a nose? To see and hear?

To see and hear as you do.

Is he blind when he closes his eyes?

Not really...a more interesting novelty are those who are blind with their eyes open.

 

[lightgigantic]

There are at least three members here that refuse to acknowledge that non-believers:

1) Only claim that there is no evidence to justify an afterlife, and it is therfore unlikely as a description of what happens upon death.

the next question would be "Is evidence inherently connected to qualification and do such 'unbelievers' meet such standards of qualification?"

2) Do not disbelieve as a matter of "faith" but observe a complete lack of objective evidence that would support belief in god.

the next question would be "Is it reasonable to expect all aspects of reality to be discernible by classical empiricism?"

Having said that, why would certain theists continue to twist the truth and continuously fall back on strawmen and evasion?

Is inquiry into the philosophical foundations of your opinions twisting the truth, etc or is it only when such inquiries reveal your opinions to be flawed?

I have several theories...

c'mon share them around - after all this is a discussion forum

 

[lightgigantic]

“Snakelord

I take it you have never enquired into the age of the tons of theistic philsophers one can appraoch (oh that's right - you're more intelligent than them ....)
”
No, I've met "theistic philosophers" of all ages.

which one's specifically have you read?

While on the subject of intelligence, when using it most can figure out that one cannot test afterlives without having died first.

why?

Available evidence shows that once a person dies they rot and that's that.

therefore there is the theoretical foundation that the consciousness is separate from the body (which theistic philosophers did you say you have read again?)

Any conjuring up of living again in golden cities, or in a realm with dozens of virgins or any one of the millions of individual beliefs of what will happen once they're dead, (other than that which is evidenced), is fantasy, imagination. Nothing more.

if you keep this up I will have to start talking about high school drop outs again

Dictionary:

Fantasy: 'a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.'

precisely
you have no foundation (aka theory) for discerning the claims of theists, thus all your claims of their invalidity can be rejected as fantasy (regardless of how secure it makes you feel in this world)

Everyone should be well aware that the claim to afterlives is a fantasy -

actually everyone should be aware of the foundation of theory that drives claims - then we would have less antagonistic high school drop outs and atheists in the world (which would definitely make it a nicer place don't you think)

a hope brought on generally by psychological needs.

like say, the hope that reality can be discerned by classical empiricism?

That's not to say one can't enjoy their fantasy - they can, why I enjoy a fantasy as much as the next guy. However, one should at least recognise that fantasy for what it is.

thats right - the moment we start passing of our incredulous claims as factual when we are not even aware of elementary theory on the topic, we are kind of like those machines in public toilets that people dry their hands with

Why do I get the feeling that you'll now try and convince me that reading a book is somehow evidence that an afterlife exists?

I guess because that is an easy common standard by which theory is established, which in turn gives an important contribution to practice ...and of course if you want to start talking of the truth or falsity of any claim, well that happens after practice .....

 

[heliocentric]

Everyone should be well aware that the claim to afterlives is a fantasy - a hope brought on generally by psychological needs. That's not to say one can't enjoy their fantasy - they can, why I enjoy a fantasy as much as the next guy. However, one should at least recognise that fantasy for what it is.

The problem is, youre making the same leap of faith that theists are on this issue, youre really projecting quite a fair bit beyond what you actually know.

What we know, and all we know is - people have phenomenal experiences of some sort of state of existance after having died (i.e. no vital signs).
We also know that these experiences occur regardless of race, culture, sex, or religion. From that you can infer that these experiences arnt in them selves bound to any cultural trend or specific psychology and that they occur within a broad enough range to rule out lying (not entirely of course, but we can infer that the experiences themselves probably exist.)

So all you can really say is 'experiences of afterlives exist'.
Beyond that you can claim delusion/fantasy or you can claim 'reality' of experience, but you cant really prove it either way.

Thats why subjectivity is so tricky imo, its not that different from me out walking with a friend and him telling me he can smell lavender.
I cant 'get inside' his phenomenal experience, so all i have to go on is whether i can see any lavender in the local area.
If i cant, then the only options available are - he imagined it, he got a hint of lavender pollen on the wind which neither of us could visibly detect, or he lied.
I can obviously construct all kinds of possiblities around those 3 options, assuming that i rule out lying (i.e. i can find others whove had similar experiences and i cant find any motivation for him to lie to me in this instance). Then as with the NDE all i can accurately say is that a phenomenal experience has occured and not much else beyond that.

Obviously when you introduce the existance of things which we're unsure of (ghosts, aparitions, arial phenomena) it gets even trickier and it becomes frighteningly tempting to assume imagination outright as a catch-all solution.

 

[one_raven]

I think the majority of them do seriously doubt, deep down, that there is nothing after death, and fear that.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1529368#post1529368

 

[Photizo]

I think the majority of them do seriously doubt, deep down, that there is nothing after death, and fear that.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1529368#post1529368

There is no death for believers in Christ, His death was our death...and, as He was raised from death, so were we--to walk now free from death, and in newness of Eternal Life, :

Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life...Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him...

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

On the other hand, those of you outside of Christ are dead this very moment, but--consistent with being dead--you simply fail to realise it.

For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

The separation of our spirit from our body brings us directly into His Presence and is an opportunity to bring further Glory to Him:

This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.

 

[Oli]

There is no death for believers in Christ, His death was our death...and, as He was raised from death, so were we--to walk now free from death, and in newness of Eternal Life, :

Supposition.

On the other hand, those of you outside of Christ are dead this very moment, but--consistent with being dead--you simply fail to realise it.

Blah blah.

So belief, in and of itself, is what distinguishes life from death?
Arrant nonsense.