Atheism and the Afterlife

Akrasia

When asked about swanners views on homeopathy or reiki

Swanner wrote: »

I have no real views on either tbh.

I don't count them or discount them.

If people get benefit from them then who am i to judge ?

This translates to me as 'I don't care about truth or reality'

Are you a postmodernist by any chance?

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Are they compatible ?

Well, yes. At the core of it atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. If you don't have a god in your belief system, then it's atheist. While atheism is generally synonymous with rationality and science, it doesn't require it. Your athiest belief system can be any hodge-podge of nonsense provided it doesn't include the existence of a god.

TV programmes like Stargate posit a universe where no creator-god exists, but individuals can "ascend" to a higher energy-like consciousness. In fact the entire core of the series is about breaking down "gods" and freeing people to think for themselves. But a massive part of the story deals with religious-like themes about the afterlife without any god(s).

So an atheistic afterlife belief is possible.

And the obvious lead on question, Can we prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife....

It can be proven or disproven to the same extent that god can be proven or disproven. That is, there is zero evidence to that one exists, or any kind or form. However, like god(s), one can invent any "afterlife" that exists outside the realm of testability, thereby making it impossible to prove or disprove its existence.

Something that is not testable, can be ignored and assumed for all practical purposes to not exist.

What I find funny though is your insistence on being atheist, yet look at the below paragraph you wrote;

Swanner wrote: »

You're absolutely correct. To date we have been unable to prove the existence of this "energy". It is a matter of faith. However if you were to experience it, and I appreciate you're saying that you haven't, but if you did, you would no longer require faith to know it existed.

I've experienced it. I'm not asking you to believe that and I can't prove it but that's not relevant to the point...

Because if it's my reality that I experience this "energy" then i'm in a position of believing without the need for faith

...Replace the word "energy" with "God", and it would be something written by a religious believer. So in essence you've just swapped out the "God" for "something else".

The pertinent question to ask yourself is "Why are you atheist"? Then apply that rationale to your current belief system and see if it still fits.

The Bishop Basher

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I think you need to accept your existence is finite and stop grasping at straws. This mystic bollòx is more irritating than religion.

Why would I though ? Because you state it as fact ?

Fine then show me the definitive proof that no afterlife exists.

If I say i have an open mind with regard to an afterlife and you state categorically that i'm wrong, surely then the burden of proof lies with you to provide definitive evidence to back up that statement ?

I'm not looking to play games here. We both know that an afterlife to date cannot be proven nor disproven.

You have your opinion and that's fine. I respect both your opinion and your right to hold it. But in the absence of definitive proof one way or the other it is, was and will remain just that. An opinion.

The Bishop Basher

Akrasia wrote: »

When asked about swanners views on homeopathy or reiki

This translates to me as 'I don't care about truth or reality'

Are you a postmodernist by any chance?

No.

It means..

I have no real views on either tbh.

I don't count them or discount them.

If people get benefit from them then who am i to judge ?

Akrasia

I'm just after spending a few days in hospital dealing with an infection. I don't know if it was the antibiotics. Or the painkillers, or the exhaustion or just the weird environment of a hospital ward, but every time I closed my eyes I instantly had visual and even sensational hallucinations. If i was superstitions i would have been fully convinced that they were ghosts or apparitions or whatever. But that would have been a completely unreasonable conclusion given the mental state I was in.

Our brains are fully capable of constructing realities independent of external stimulus. When you meditate you're deliberately pushing your brain to behave in an abnormal way, so when you enter an abnormal brain state, that's exactly what you would expect to happen

Huntergonzo

After death we're all worm feed so enjoy your innings people, it's the only one we'll ever have.

As for a soul, I have to admit I find the idea quite dull and vague, to me it simply doesn't exist, period. But the idea/existence of a soul seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but sure look whatever gets them through their day is fine by me......once they don't badger me about my 'soul' of course!

Akrasia

Swanner wrote: »

No.

It means..

I have no real views on either tbh.

I don't count them or discount them.

If people get benefit from them then who am i to judge ?

You don't need to judge the people who use them but why would you not feel like you can judge the technology beneath these practices?

Some things are just scams. If someone told you that they were thinking of investing in a pyramid scheme would you consider that wise?

Mark Tapley

Swanner wrote: »

Why would I though ? Because you state it as fact ?

Fine then show me the definitive proof that no afterlife exists.

If I say i have an open mind with regard to an afterlife and you state categorically that i'm wrong, surely then the burden of proof lies with you to provide definitive evidence to back up that statement ?

I'm not looking to play games here. We both know that an afterlife to date cannot be proven nor disproven.

You have your opinion and that's fine. I respect both your opinion and your right to hold it. But in the absence of definitive proof one way or the other it is, was and will remain just that. An opinion.

Thats not how it works , you are the one with the energy afterlife supposition. That despite the fact your brain is rotting in a box you will retain some form of consciousness. I say that is a farcical belief. The burden of proof is yours.

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

Well, yes. At the core of it atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. If you don't have a god in your belief system, then it's atheist. While atheism is generally synonymous with rationality and science, it doesn't require it. Your athiest belief system can be any hodge-podge of nonsense provided it doesn't include the existence of a god.

TV programmes like Stargate posit a universe where no creator-god exists, but individuals can "ascend" to a higher energy-like consciousness. In fact the entire core of the series is about breaking down "gods" and freeing people to think for themselves. But a massive part of the story deals with religious-like themes about the afterlife without any god(s).

So an atheistic afterlife belief is possible.

OK Thanks. My point was that not all atheists would obviously share the belief but that in theory it is possible. If you're atheist and believe it's possible then my question is answered. It only needs one

seamus wrote: »

It can be proven or disproven to the same extent that god can be proven or disproven. That is, there is zero evidence to that one exists, or any kind or form. However, like god(s), one can invent any "afterlife" that exists outside the realm of testability, thereby making it impossible to prove or disprove its existence.

Something that is not testable, can be ignored and assumed for all practical purposes to not exist.

Understood and this is where NDE's come in to play for me. We have so many documented experiences of a continuation of consciousness that I don't believe we can just ignore it. There may be a rational explanation, they could all be making it up but until we investigate and discount these possibilities it should surely remain on the table for discussion.

seamus wrote: »

What I find funny though is your insistence on being atheist, yet look at the below paragraph you wrote;

...Replace the word "energy" with "God", and it would be something written by a religious believer. So in essence you've just swapped out the "God" for "something else".

The pertinent question to ask yourself is "Why are you atheist"? Then apply that rationale to your current belief system and see if it still fits.

Apologies, I should have been clearer. I no longer identify as atheist.

I was raised in a Christian home but never accepted Christianity. Que years and years of soul searching which continues to this day.. For about 6 years of that i identified as atheist...

But over the years as i challenged myself on this I came to recognise nature as a "force" i couldn't ignore. I suppose you could say it was intelligent design that got me in the end. I'm not " religious", I have no label for what i believe, I don't claim to have any answers, it's very much a work in progress and always will be, but I do believe in a something other then the physical of this world so i cannot be considered atheist.

And from my own perspective, as i witness this "force" every day when i walk the woods or the beach, I have no requirement for any faith in anything unseen whatsoever.

So that's where I sit. It's taken me 40 years to get here and it's through discussion like this that I continue to develop my understanding of it all.

So thanks for posting..

Akrasia

Swanner wrote: »

but I do believe in a something other then the physical of this world so i cannot be considered atheist.

..

You've just answered your own question

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and this is where NDE's come in to play for me. We have so many documented experiences of a continuation of consciousness that I don't believe we can just ignore it. There may be a rational explanation, they could all be making it up but until we investigate and discount these possibilities it should surely remain on the table for discussion.

You see, what you've done is jump one step ahead in the investigation. Here's what I mean;
As a phenomenon, NDE's happen. We accept that, as you say we have documented proof that people have these experiences.
The next logical step is to investigate the experiences themselves - when do they happen, what do they involve, why do they happen, etc etc.

You've jumped to the next step - assumed that NDEs are the result of the afterlife "poking in" and therefore the existence of the afterlife should not be ignored.

There is literally an infinite number of theories which could be imagined to explain NDE's. The existence of the afterlife is just one of these theories and doesn't stand out as being more likely than any other.

The Bishop Basher

Akrasia wrote: »

Our brains are fully capable of constructing realities independent of external stimulus. When you meditate you're deliberately pushing your brain to behave in an abnormal way, so when you enter an abnormal brain state, that's exactly what you would expect to happen

I agree. Our minds are capable of creating all sorts of "realities". I suppose it's something i instinctively feel or "know" when i experience it. But as i said before, you don't need to believe me to discuss the theory.

And as i said, i'm open to other possibilities, including yours, but in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, i trust my gut and my own experience.

Akrasia wrote: »

You don't need to judge the people who use them but why would you not feel like you can judge the technology beneath these practices?

Some things are just scams. If someone told you that they were thinking of investing in a pyramid scheme would you consider that wise?

Because I have no experience of them so i'm not going to claim to have the answers either way. If people believe they get benefit from homeopathy or reiki i'm sure as hell not going to tell them they don't. There my be all sorts of rational explanations for how they benefit but as always in the absence of definitive proof either way i'll retain an open mind.

Huntergonzo

Swanner wrote: »

Apologies, I should have been clearer. I no longer identify as atheist.

I was raised in a Christian home but never accepted Christianity. Que years and years of soul searching which continues to this day.. For about 6 years of that i identified as atheist...

But over the years as i challenged myself on this I came to recognise nature as a "force" i couldn't ignore. I suppose you could say it was intelligent design that got me in the end. I'm not " religious", I have no label for what i believe, I don't claim to have any answers, it's very much a work in progress and always will be, but I do believe in a something other then the physical of this world so i cannot be considered atheist.

And from my own perspective, as i witness this "force" every day when i walk the woods or the beach, I have no requirement for any faith in anything unseen whatsoever.

So that's where I sit. It's taken me 40 years to get here and it's through discussion like this that I continue to develop my understanding of it all.

So thanks for posting..

The "force", are you sure you're not talking about the new Star Wars?.. .sorry, sorry that was flippant.

Anyway look I can't claim to know what's in your head but I do admire people who constantly challenge themselves and ask questions about our existence. We humans know so little about the universe around us and the best way to continue learning is to constantly ask new questions and challenge unproven beliefs.

As for believing in something other than this physical world, well there are probably plenty of things yet to be discovered about our own home planet and there's an incalculable number of unanswered questions regarding other world's in our solar system and indeed the entire universe. For me those are the really interesting mysteries and I like to see people channel their curiosity down those paths.

Again I don't have any interest in the supernatural and I don't think it holds any of the answers. But no matter what you believe I think you should occasionally challenge yourself just to make sure you're happy with what you do and don't believe and also to keep learning new things.

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

You've jumped to the next step - assumed that NDEs are the result of the afterlife "poking in" and therefore the existence of the afterlife should not be ignored.

There is literally an infinite number of theories which could be imagined to explain NDE's. The existence of the afterlife is just one of these theories and doesn't stand out as being more likely than any other.

But I don't think I have....

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and this is where NDE's come in to play for me. We have so many documented experiences of a continuation of consciousness that I don't believe we can just ignore it. There may be a rational explanation, they could all be making it up but until we investigate and discount these possibilities it should surely remain on the table for discussion.

I'm open to all possibilities that have not yet been disproven. I mentioned earlier that there's some early research on brain stem function and how it could play a part. I look forward to reading the findings. I'm not looking for answers to validate my beliefs. I'm just looking for answers that provide definitive proof one way or the other. Futile I know but sure that's what we do.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

For about 6 years of that i identified as atheist...

But over the years as i challenged myself on this I came to recognise nature as a "force" i couldn't ignore. I suppose you could say it was intelligent design that got me in the end. ..

And from my own perspective, as i witness this "force" every day when i walk the woods or the beach, I have no requirement for any faith in anything unseen whatsoever...

You might enjoy Carl Sagan's classic short film; Pale Blue Dot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI

Or David Attenborough's Wonderful World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8WHKRzkCOY

Neither of these guys had any time for so called "intelligent design" or creationists.

The Bishop Basher

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Thats not how it works , you are the one with the energy afterlife supposition. That despite the fact your brain is rotting in a box you will retain some form of consciousness. I say that is a farcical belief. The burden of proof is yours.

I say there's evidence to suggest either of us could be correct and i'm open to that possibility.

You say, Nonsense. That you are correct and I am wrong. You're shutting down all other possibility and stating your position as fact.

I believe in that instance, the burden of proof is on you - No ?

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

I agree. Our minds are capable of creating all sorts of "realities". I suppose it's something i instinctively feel or "know" when i experience it. But as i said before, you don't need to believe me to discuss the theory.

And as i said, i'm open to other possibilities, including yours, but in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, i trust my gut and my own experience.

That's your mistake, I think. Trusting your gut because you 'feel' or 'know' something with no proof. People 'knew' in their gut that illness was caused by demons. They 'felt' that witches were real. If everyone had left it at that we'd still be dying of treatable illnesses and hanging mad old women. Don't trust things you 'just feel' or 'know in your heart' because that's not proof.

For what I've read the most plausible reason for NDE's is a chemical dump by a dying brain. Why are they so similar? For the same reason that LSD trips tend to be rather similar. Have a google of, IIRC, the God Helmet: it is possible to induce religious experiences using electromagnetism.

Swanner wrote: »

Because I have no experience of them so i'm not going to claim to have the answers either way. If people believe they get benefit from homeopathy or reiki i'm sure as hell not going to tell them they don't. There my be all sorts of rational explanations for how they benefit but as always in the absence of definitive proof either way i'll retain an open mind.

That's a bit of a cop out, don't you think? No-one that I've seen has asked what you think of people who believe in reiki or homeopathy, they've asked what you think of reiki and homeopathy themselves.

And as for 'definitive proof either way' there are stacks and stacks of papers showing results no better than placebo and a handful saying that they work. It's like climate change deniers sayin that there's no scientific consensus when the truth is that more than 90% of scientists agree with climate change.

The Bishop Basher

Akrasia wrote: »

You've just answered your own question

Do you mean the original question ? Are they compatible ?

If so...

When I held that view I had not got to the point i'm at today. I had no belief in any god. None whatsoever. I believed that when we die, we rot. End of.

I was 100% atheist yet I was more then comfortable with the idea that an energy within me could continue on after death.

It would be fair to say that it all sits a lot easier with me now that I can accept something "other" whatever that is, but i don't believe the 2 are mutually exclusive.

sbsquarepants

Swanner wrote: »

I completely agree that one personal account is proof of nothing but when you look at the growing numbers of NDE's, many with similar experiences, many with memory of the events we simply cannot explain and with so many high profile cases now documented, surely we have to take them seriously as part of an overall body evidence.

Every once in a while on a quite regular basis I find myself transported to far off worlds, some familiar some strange where I talk and interact with all manner of people, some I know, some are strangers, some I know to be long dead and gone. It's all utterly believable and I experience it as real - then my alarm goes off and I get up and go to work!:mad:

The mind is a strange and scarcely understood thing - but one thing we know for damn sure is that it's at best a fantasist and at worst a bare faced liar! Just because you experience something (much less so hear that someone else claims to have experienced something) doesn't mean jack shít.
Your mind is so easily distorted and manipulated by hormones , drugs etc. that you just can't rely on anything it says, especially in times of stress......such as almost dying!

The Bishop Basher

kylith wrote: »

For what I've read the most plausible reason for NDE's is a chemical dump by a dying brain. Why are they so similar? For the same reason that LSD trips tend to be rather similar. Have a google of, IIRC, the God Helmet: it is possible to induce religious experiences using electromagnetism.

That's my point though. You've mentioned a couple of realistic and valid explanations which have to be thoroughly investigated.

The difference is that I don't discount the idea that it could actually be a consciousness beyond death because as long as there is evidence in both directions and as long as it has not been definitively proven one way or the other, I cannot be in a position to state anything as fact.

I have my opinion and i can try and defend it with the evidence we do have but at the end of the day you'll have just as much evidence to dispute my claim so I just accept that reality that none of us can actually know for sure.

kylith wrote: »

That's a bit of a cop out, don't you think? No-one that I've seen has asked what you think of people who believe in reiki or homeopathy, they've asked what you think of reiki and homeopathy themselves.

If I must give an opinion i'd say i'm highly skeptical but in the absence of definitive proof either way i'll continue to maintain an open mind on the topic.

stesaurus

I had an experience once before. I woke up during the night and I could feel another presence in the room with me. I knew the person so wasn't too scared even though I had just been at their funeral that day. As my eyes cleared I saw that person standing at the end of the room. I was speechless.
Turns out it was a pile of clothes. The mind is an amazing thing but untrustworthy at best. You should always question yourself and what your mind tells you, especially when dealing with fanciful notions of NDE or any other flapdoodle not grounded in facts.
I was 9 at the time OP, what's your excuse?

Mark Tapley

Swanner wrote: »

I say there's evidence to suggest either of us could be correct and i'm open to that possibility.

You say, Nonsense. That you are correct and I am wrong.

I believe in that instance, the burden of proof is on you - No ?

No . To be honest you really lost me with "intelligent design". I think it is a mistake to indulge this credulous nonsense. You posit a ridiculous theory and expect me to disprove it. An intangible thing that you just believe without rhyme or reason.
Other posters are more polite or diplomatic than I am so I will leave you to it.

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Every once in a while on a quite regular basis I find myself transported to far off worlds, some familiar some strange where I talk and interact with all manner of people, some I know, some are strangers, some I know to be long dead and gone. It's all utterly believable and I experience it as real - then my alarm goes off and I get up and go to work!:mad:

The mind is a strange and scarcely understood thing - but one thing we know for damn sure is that it's at best a fantasist and at worst a bare faced liar! Just because you experience something (much less so hear that someone else claims to have experienced something) doesn't mean jack shít.
Your mind is so easily distorted and manipulated by hormones , drugs etc. that you just can't rely on anything it says, especially in times of stress......such as almost dying!

I'm well aware of this and have agreed with this point many times on here. However I don't believe it's a reason to discount all experience. After all, you know, after the event, that what you experienced was dream. Is waking the reality or was the dream the reality ? You pick the being awake part as the reality as would most. You accept that as your reality and you accept the dream as fantasy. You are more then capable of distinguishing between the 2.

robdonn

Swanner wrote: »

Why would I though ? Because you state it as fact ?

Fine then show me the definitive proof that no afterlife exists.

If I say i have an open mind with regard to an afterlife and you state categorically that i'm wrong, surely then the burden of proof lies with you to provide definitive evidence to back up that statement ?

I'm not looking to play games here. We both know that an afterlife to date cannot be proven nor disproven.

You have your opinion and that's fine. I respect both your opinion and your right to hold it. But in the absence of definitive proof one way or the other it is, was and will remain just that. An opinion.

That is an odd way to look at things. Yes, you are stating your opinion, but you are stating your opinion about a factual element of reality. Like with most things in the universe it either exists or it doesn't. Not being able to disprove something gives absolutely no value towards the thing actually existing. As others have pointed out, you have turned the "I just believe god exists" argument into "I just believe X exists".

Essentially what you are purporting to exist is magic. The only evidence you have for it is personal experience, both yours and those of many others, but personal experience is worth diddly squat. The existence of scientific studies does not count as evidence as all they study are people's experiences and while some of the accounts by people can be eerily accurate they can also be explained by lies, guesses and modified memories e.g. Forgetting that you heard a doctor talk about the family in the next room and just remembering that the family was in the next room.

Now by all means, you're free to believe what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but it just seems that whatever logic you may apply to the question of the existence of god, and presumably fairies and leprechauns, you don't seem to be applying it here.

The Bishop Basher

s.welstead wrote: »

I had an experience once before. I woke up during the night and I could feel another presence in the room with me. I knew the person so wasn't too scared even though I had just been at their funeral that day. As my eyes cleared I saw that person standing at the end of the room. I was speechless.
Turns out it was a pile of clothes. The mind is an amazing thing but untrustworthy at best. You should always question yourself and what your mind tells you, especially when dealing with fanciful notions of NDE or any other flapdoodle not grounded in facts.
I was 9 at the time OP, what's your excuse?

Again, see above. You can distinguish between the fantasy and the reality. Maybe not at the time, but afterward.

The Bishop Basher

Mark Tapley wrote: »

No . To be honest you really lost me with "intelligent design". I think it is a mistake to indulge this credulous nonsense. You posit a ridiculous theory and expect me to disprove it. An intangible thing that you just believe without rhyme or reason.
Other posters are more polite or diplomatic than I am so I will leave you to it.

I have no expectation of you or anyone else. You are as free to leave the discussion as you were to join it. And that's all it is, a discussion. I don't understand some of the views here, others i completely get. You clearly hold strong opposing views and struggle with how I can hold mine.

That's fine. We're all different.

Thanks for your input.

Mark Tapley

Swanner wrote: »

I have no expectation of you or anyone else. You are as free to leave the discussion as you were to join it. And that's all it is, a discussion. I don't understand some of the views here, others i completely get. You clearly hold strong opposing views and struggle with how I can hold mine.

That's fine. We're all different.

Thanks for your input.

Quote you-
I believe in that instance, the burden of proof is on you - No ?

So to prove you wrong I have to prove the force isn't with you?

You come up with some hokey theory that allows you to delude yourself into thinking that you will exist forever and think it is worthy of debate.

Stealthfins

Looks like there's a few new kid's on the block here.

I miss the old you're deluded,delusional Shi T,creating division,ignorance and I'm more clever than you....
Keep up the good work guy's ðŸ˜႒

The Bishop Basher

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You come up with some hokey theory that allows you to delude yourself into thinking that you will exist forever and think it is worthy of debate.

It's hokey to you. That's fine. I can understand why you think it's hokey.

Lot's of things seem hokey to me too. I don't categorically discount them on that basis though. I will happily discount them when presented with definitive proof that they're hokey, but never because "I think it's hokey"..

As to whether it's worthy of debate or not, well, you're here debating of your own free will so...

The Bishop Basher

Stealthfins wrote: »

Looks like there's a few new kid's on the block here.

I miss the old you're deluded,delusional Shi T,creating division,ignorance and I'm more clever than you....
Keep up the good work guy's ðŸ˜႒

I could start a thread "there's no such thing as an atheist" if you want

But i don't believe that to be the case and i'm not here to stir ****...

I just enjoy bouncing these ideas around and getting other perspectives...

That's all..