Do theists know deep down that there no afterlife?

[SnakeLord]

and I stated that sub atoms must not exist..

Great but can we stick to afterlife? Do you contend that the afterlife does not come after life? Yes or no?

the claim was theory plays an important part in practice

??

Follow a line of debate back, (you wouldn't run into this problem if you didn't keep descending into separate and generally irrelevant matters).

The claim was made that the afterlife exists to which you then claimed existence of the soul to support the claim that the afterlife exists. I asked you to support your claims. I still ask you to support your claims. Would you like to support your claims or what?

perhaps you could show me an example where you...

After you good sir. Show me where in the last 1000 posts you have offered me an alternative to empiricism and I have refused it or retract your statement.

basically two types
one views oneself as the enjoyer of this world (this includes atheists and even some theists)
the other views god as the enjoyer of this world

I don't understand. How is this an argument for the afterlife being here, now as opposed to after life?

 

[superluminal]

You know Snakelord, what I will never understand is why we can't get some simple answers to some simple questions.

 

[heliocentric]

Not really, no. If you make a claim that you cannot adequately test, it is fantasy/ imagination.

Not atall, and this is the central point im making (whether an afterlife exists or not is a side issue for me).
If you cant attain a proof for something, you just cant attain a proof for it. That's all you can rationally conclude.
I think youre falling into the old 'absense of proof equals proof of absense' trap. When there's just as much possiblity that a lack of evidence might come down to the present day limits of empirical methodology.
Im very staunch about this kind of thing and im sure its annoying to alot of people, but for me it really is about being as precise as possible and not falling into any logical pot-holes.

It might ultimately be real, that's not the point - it is simply that an untested/untestable claim has no valid way of making it beyond fantasy status. This goes for gods, heavens and invisible leprechauns.

You dont call something fantasy just because it hasnt been scrutinised/tested though thats my point.
Youre essentially saying that something that hasnt been tested or cant be tested exists in some sort of indefinite suspended state of imaginative flight of fancy.
What im suggesting is, its more helpful and more intellectual valid simply to say that these things havent/cant be adequately tested and nothing more. This way youre in absolutely no danger of making any future errors, whereas if you go around calling any speculation or hypothesis 'fantasy' prior to adequate investigation, youre basically making never-ending assertions of absolute truth that at least some of the time are going to proven incorrect.

Not really, no - unless you have some kind of magical ability to see at what exact moment in the process of dying that they have these experiences.

Which is why i specifically said died (i.e having no vital signs). In other words to the best of medical knowledge and having checked for vital signs - they are dead. Youre quite right though, theres always the possiblity that the experience occurs sometime *prior* to death.

Furthermore, these experiences can be given to perfectly fine, normal, not dying people and can be shown that they are mere imagination - a product of the brain, not a heavenly realm:

You can stimulate the brain to trigger these experiences absolutely, but that doesnt really validate/invalidate the phenomenal experience in any real meaningful way. Although it does tell us though that its not *just* death (or the process of dying) that can trigger these experiences.

"By deliberately scrambling a person's visual and tactile senses, it is now possible to give them an "out-of-body" experience.

Two procedures – which are the first to imitate an out-of-body experience artificially – use cameras to fool people into thinking they are standing or sitting somewhere else in a room. They provide the strongest proof yet that people only imagine floating out of their bodies during surgery or near-death experiences.

"The brain can trick itself, and when it is trying to interpret sensory information, the image it produces doesn't have to be a real representation," says Henrik Ehrsson, of the Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK, who designed the first experiment....." Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1142175)

Out of body experiences could definitely be a 'trick' of consciousness rather than a 'display' of consciousness, its just not as easy as sorting one from the other as people tend to assume.
Even something as simple as simple as going downstairs to fetch a glass of water could have been a complete fabrication of the mind. Or perhaps you remembered getting water, and infact swear blind you got water but infact you got tea.
Any phenomenal experience you have throughout the day infact could in theory be a complete fabrication and its almost impossible to prove either way unless you have yourself followed by 10 different film crews throughout the day.
So when you get into the murky realm of self-contained phenomenal experiences that dont directly relate to any sort of immediately apparent environment. And when you start experiencing in ways that seem utterally detached from everyday thought processes it gets even harder to sort out what's actually going on, its the endless problem of subjectivity, or rather testing subjective experience by objective means.
NDEs are interesting to me both because they cut directly into the heart of the mind/matter debate, and because the experiences dont tally up with anything wed normally experience in everyday 'survival mode'.

If you would rather assert that it's space fairies, space cities or something else similarly peculiar then that's fine, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

I think youre completely missing the point here, and confusing very mainstream philosophical argument with geo-cities style newage mysticism.

Not at all. imagination exists, (in those alive and those just about to die).

Youre making leaps of faith again, you dont really know if the experiences occur during, after, or before death with any absolute certainty anymore than i do.
All we can say is that experiences of afterlifes exist, whether its imagination, reality or a mixture of the two is still anyones guess.

Scientists however can say a lot more beyond that. Oh and they can share their findings, support their findings, and do test after test after test to show that their findings are true. Now there's something.

Empricism is great, im just trying to tease out the difference between actual conclusions drawn from evidence and conclusions based on assumption and guesswork.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

and I stated that sub atoms must not exist..
”
Great but can we stick to afterlife?

does that mean you do or do not want to contend the validity of the term with linguistics?

Do you contend that the afterlife does not come after life? Yes or no?

Yes

“
the claim was theory plays an important part in practice
”
??

Follow a line of debate back, (you wouldn't run into this problem if you didn't keep descending into separate and generally irrelevant matters).

like saying "weeee replace one fantasy with another"?

The claim was made that the afterlife exists to which you then claimed existence of the soul to support the claim that the afterlife exists. I asked you to support your claims. I still ask you to support your claims. Would you like to support your claims or what?

which brings us back in the full circle
determining the validity of support begins with theory, to practice and so on.

I mean you can just say "weeeee what a fantasy" if you like, ..... but anyone could say the same thing about any type of knowledge on the platform of theory

“
perhaps you could show me an example where you...
”
After you good sir. Show me where in the last 1000 posts you have offered me an alternative to empiricism and I have refused it or retract your statement.

I think I have covered quite a few professions (that are privvy to knowledge outside of the perimeters of your average joe's empirical and rational capacities)
lawyers helping with legal issues
doctors helping with medical issues

even the good old high school drop out and the physics teacher operates on the same principle -Authoratative Testimony

“
basically two types
one views oneself as the enjoyer of this world (this includes atheists and even some theists)
the other views god as the enjoyer of this world
”
I don't understand. How is this an argument for the afterlife being here, now as opposed to after life?

if you have the view that god is the enjoyer of this world, even in this life, there is no distinction

 

[SnakeLord]

Not atall, and this is the central point im making (whether an afterlife exists or not is a side issue for me).
If you cant attain a proof for something, you just cant attain a proof for it. That's all you can rationally conclude.

Take into account the manner in which I use fantasy, ('a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies'). Things such as heavens, gods, floaty omnipotent bananas and invisible unicorns all come under 'fantasy' in this manner - regardless to whether they are ultimately true or not.

I understand what you're saying completely, but until such time where there is something to suggest existence of the thing it remains a fantasy/imagination. That doesn't mean it ultimately is not real - I think I didn't make that clear.

I think youre falling into the old 'absense of proof equals proof of absense' trap.

No.

You dont call something fantasy just because it hasnt been scrutinised/tested though thats my point.

Sure you do, that's my point and the point of the dictionary quote.

What im suggesting is, its more helpful and more intellectual valid simply to say that these things havent/cant be adequately tested and nothing more.

Given the manner in which I used the word fantasy, these things are fantasy. Perhaps when you were dreaming last night you were actually awake in another realm and the 'dream' that you had actually happened. It can't be tested and sure, it's possible.. but until such time where there is any solid foundation for that claim it is fantasy, nothing more. That is entirely valid given my usage of fantasy. The only reason I can see not to use the word fantasy is to prevent emotional outbreaks in fragile natured people.

Youre quite right though, theres always the possiblity that the experience occurs sometime *prior* to death.

You mean probable. For starters when brought back to life they remember the event. That shows that the hippocampus was still working.

You can stimulate the brain to trigger these experiences absolutely, but that doesnt really validate/invalidate the phenomenal experience in any real meaningful way.

It sorta does actually. It goes to indicate that these experiences are not actually people's innards floating off to another realm but an activity, an illusion of the brain brought about by sensory depravation.

NDEs are interesting to me both because they cut directly into the heart of the mind/matter debate, and because the experiences dont tally up with anything wed normally experience in everyday 'survival mode'

It's quite normal that they wouldn't 'tally up with normal experience in everyday mode' because the brain and senses are not in the same condition as they are when you're about to kick the bucket.

Youre making leaps of faith again, you dont really know if the experiences occur during, after, or before death with any absolute certainty anymore than i do.

Incorrect. It is not a leap of faith but a look at the evidence, (oobe studies/memory functions working), that indicate that these occurrences happen while the patient is alive. A leap of faith would be to assert that it is some other realm where someone goes after they die.

 

[heliocentric]

Take into account the manner in which I use fantasy, ('a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies'). Things such as heavens, gods, floaty omnipotent bananas and invisible unicorns all come under 'fantasy' in this manner - regardless to whether they are ultimately true or not.

I would have thought regardless of the precise definiton fantasy would always directly imply fiction, or a basic non-existance.
I still really think its alot more concise and accurate to just say 'invalidated' rather calling everything that isnt proven to a high degree via empiricism 'fantasy'.

I understand what you're saying completely, but until such time where there is something to suggest existence of the thing it remains a fantasy/imagination. That doesn't mean it ultimately is not real - I think I didn't make that clear.

As above i really dont think youre using the right word here, but theres only a limited extent to which i can labour the point.
I just feel like youre saying 'fantasy' when you really mean 'speculation'. But they both have very distinct implied meanings.

Sure you do, that's my point and the point of the dictionary quote.

But the problem is the dictionary cant justify the meaning attached to the word 'fantasy' that youve subscribed to, and why you havent gone with the other 9 or so definitions available.

I think the fallacy of the term in this instance remains that in applying this specific definition to the process of empiricsm, everything 'known' within science must by your definition have been pure fantasy prior to validation through experimental proofs.
What almost everyone in science calls speculation or hypothesis youre calling fantasy and within the confines of the paradigm and the enitre evolving nature of what we hold to be true, that doesnt really work.
See what i mean?

Given the manner in which I used the word fantasy, these things are fantasy. Perhaps when you were dreaming last night you were actually awake in another realm and the 'dream' that you had actually happened. It can't be tested and sure, it's possible.. but until such time where there is any solid foundation for that claim it is fantasy, nothing more. That is entirely valid given my usage of fantasy. The only reason I can see not to use the word fantasy is to prevent emotional outbreaks in fragile natured people.

I dont think anyones sensbilties are at risk of being hurt, (or at least not mine). The problem is, as i illustrated above is that with your method of truth aquistion. Everything remains fictional prior to empirical proofs.

You mean probable. For starters when brought back to life they remember the event. That shows that the hippocampus was still working.

Knowing what we know about memory (virtually nothing) thats highly debateable at this point, although yes you may be right in theory.

It sorta does actually. It goes to indicate that these experiences are not actually people's innards floating off to another realm but an activity, an illusion of the brain brought about by sensory depravation.

No all youve found is a way to trigger an experience, triggering an experience tells you absolutely nothing about the experience itself. It doesnt validate the experience or invalidate the experience, all youve found is a shortcut to a state of consciousness.

It's quite normal that they wouldn't 'tally up with normal experience in everyday mode' because the brain and senses are not in the same condition as they are when you're about to kick the bucket.

true

Incorrect. It is not a leap of faith but a look at the evidence, (oobe studies/memory functions working), that indicate that these occurrences happen while the patient is alive. A leap of faith would be to assert that it is some other realm where someone goes after they die.

Its a leap of faith either way untill you can get to grips with - why these experiences occur and how they occur.
And all the availalbe answers to either of these questions at the present time are still highly highly speculative (or pure fantasy if thats how youd term it).

 

[SnakeLord]

I would have thought regardless of the precise definiton fantasy would always directly imply fiction, or a basic non-existance.

Well I suppose we could quibble over semantics, but I have explained the way in which I use the term and generally do when I use it. This comes in several forms:

- imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.

- the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing

- an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream

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

- to form mental images; imagine; fantasize.

None of which are to state that the fantasy or imagination is ultimately true or false but:

imagination:

- the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.

- the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.

In both instances you'll notice they imply an idea based upon nothing solid. This applies to gods, leprechauns, and invisible flying cookie monsters and is thus a valid way with which to express their beliefs. If they take it to mean that there is no way their imaginations can be reality then that is fine by me.

As above i really dont think youre using the right word here, but theres only a limited extent to which i can labour the point.

It's semantics. The word is perfectly valid, some just look at it in an emotional manner.

everything 'known' within science must by your definition have been pure fantasy prior to validation through experimental proofs.

Well it certainly could have been called a fantasy if the claimant merely stated it as true with absolutely nothing to support it.

What almost everyone in science calls speculation or hypothesis

Worth noting that in the realm of science 'hypothesis' doesn't mean completely unfounded guess.

Knowing what we know about memory (virtually nothing) thats highly debateable at this point

Not entirely given investigations.. damage to the hippocampus - problems with new memories/damage to hippocampus in Alzheimers patients etc.

It's certainly not an absolute, but it's a lot more evidential than a claim to second lives in bright white realms.

Its a leap of faith either way untill you can get to grips with - why these experiences occur and how they occur.

Not really, although I guess this is going to eventually come down to semantics as well and thus we will undoubtedly be inclined to disagree. That's also fine

[edit] Now here's the thing as I see it: I could use terms different to fantasy, imagination and delusion but in doing so would seemingly lend my support for those imaginations. This would lead to a real predicament:

"I hear voices and they're real".

While ultimately it might be true, my patient might hear real voices - I see no benefit whatsoever in giving what is seemingly support and encouragement to those imaginations on the basis that I cannot absolutely guarantee that they're not real voices. Yes, those other 100 people might really be jesus reincarnated, but I have to go with what observable reality suggests, not what the imaginations of another individual suggests. If I go the other way I might as well just say "hey, that could very well be real, listen to those voices and have a nice day". Nothing good, to my knowledge, has ever come from doing that.

What it comes down to at the end of the day is that I am seemingly expected to tread the line delicately from fear of upsetting the emotionally fragile. Those that cannot accept their imaginations for what they are - those that are determined to assert that they really are jesus, or those voices really are real. I can bow to their emotional needs every time, but I see no value in doing so - for them or for anyone else.

 

[Grantywanty]

Do you think athiests know deep down that the reason they reject the idea of God is because if there was a God the athiests would have to face feelings of anger about things God has done and not done?

 

[Enmos]

Do you think athiests know deep down that the reason they reject the idea of God is because if there was a God the athiests would have to face feelings of anger about things God has done and not done?

That makes no sense.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Whatsoever.

 

[Oli]

It does to me.

If there is a god and I ever meet him the first thing I'd do is kick his b*lls up through his throat.*
And then ask "Why?".


* Some days...

 

[Sock puppet path]

It does to me.

If there is a god and I ever meet him the first thing I'd do is kick his b*lls up through his throat.
And then ask "Why?".

Sure but is that possibility a reason to reject the idea of god? I mean I guess it could be but it never entered into my equation.

 

[Oli]

Sure but is that possibility a reason to reject the idea of god? I mean I guess it could be but it never entered into my equation.

Not as such: but the "reasoning" is that if there is AND he's the one that put it all in motion (knowing how it was going to turn out) then the idea/ concept itself is unreasonable.
Or something...
Bad thinking day today

PS I didn't say it IS my reason to not believe, more that I understood it: in my darkest moments.