Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What do you believe happens when we die
Options
Comments
-
When I die and they lay me to rest I’m gonna go to the place that’s best0
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It is not that it moulds our minds to the god idea. It is that it moulds our minds to OTHER things which in turn leave us prone to the god idea.
A useful, and topical, analogy is to viruses. We did not evolve to catch viruses. That would be weird. We evolved to do OTHER things and viruses evolved in turn to take advantage of those things and infect us / use us.
Similarly there are things about humans that have evolved for good purpose, but can be commandeered by nonsense ideas like gods.
For example we have what has been termed "hyper active agency detection". That is basically a fancy smancy way of saying that historically humans who presumed there was no agency where there actually was.... promptly died. Those that presumed there was agency where there actually wasn't did nothing but look a little silly.
If the trees rustle and you react with "ah its nothing" you might die if it is something. If however they rustle and you automatically think "Who/what is there... and what does it want from me?!?!" you are more likely to survive if there is something there.
It is not a small leap to think that this hyper active tendency to see agency and design and motive and intent behind everything might get misapplied to the universe itself. And thus we get notions like a god.... and what does it want and what is it's designs and intentions towards me?
There is also another evolved trait which has been given the fancy term "The intentional stance". This is again just a fancy term for a relatively simple concept. Which is basically that we tend to represent the minds of others in our own minds. Often exaggerated. We can even do it for imaginary people or dead people. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett explains:
"Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do."
This too can misfire and be applied to the universe and existence itself, and quite quickly you arrive at a kind of god concept that way too.
Third, and finally for now as this is already long, our purpose and intention and narrative driven mind is one that seeks meaning in everything we do. Every tool we make is "for" something, as is every action. We impute he narrative of intention and design quite readily therefore. And so when this misfires we easily start to ask "What am I for" "what is the universe for" "what is the purpose of life/universe/everything". And the moment you start to imagine a design or a purpose.... you have to posit a designer or a purpose driven entity.
So these evolves traits here in the "middle universe" are not traits we evolved to leave us open to the god concept. They are traits we evolved for other good reasons but as a consequence also leave us open to a god concept.
Some can't find one I suppose. Seemingly I do not suffer from this issue.
I remember some time ago now I was asked to go for a walk. It seemed pointless to me. I was home. Why would I want to randomly go for a walk for the sake of it, only to have the goal of returning to the place I started? I was already there! Why would I walk unless I had some kind of destination, what was the purpose or meaning or utility of that?
The person inviting me simply said to me that "The journey is the destination". And I realised later this is true of life too. I was seeking my meaning in the walk at the end of it, the "final" destination and looking solely for a narrative to justify it and give it meaning and purpose. Just like many do with life itself. Allowing death (whether they see it as final and total, or a step to the next life) as the defining end point.
But I realise now that with life, just like with the walk, the journey itself IS The destination. I do not need a "source of meaning" therefore for that life, it is it's own destination, it's own meaning, and justifies itself. Probably the one thing that does therefore lift itself by it's own bootstraps.
I can of course find transient meanings WITHIN that journey, events along the road I walk in life too. But ultimately the journey will always be the destination for me. Not marked by either it's end points or it's beginning. But every step in between worth of it's own footfall, for it's own sake.
Thank you for your carefully crafted thoughts on both questions. I appreciate the care you have taken in your expressing your ideas.
Regarding our proneness to the god idea, it still puzzles me that having been born free, our minds would be prone to seeking an entity which would limit our freedom of thought and action. We are prone to seeking our chains? Speaking personally I certainly did not seek such a restriction. Is there any other animal which seeks for a way to limit its powers and freedoms?
Design too is a problem. When I see evidence of design my mind does naturally wonder at its source. And the why and wherefore questions seem to naturally arise and suggest, but not compellingly at least for me, a designer. But this designer idea does not necessarily lead me to the god idea, at least as it is understood by many.
I like your journey and destination analogies. I suppose the inherent purpose (that awful word again) of any journey may be the journey itself but I suspect these footsteps own transient meanings may at least suggest something of the character of our common destination. And the character of that destination has been a puzzle for man from the moment he first began to wonder at the world in which he found himself.
I value your views and will reflect on them further.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Nobody can be sure that the self does not persist after death. But the time to think it's likely is when there's evidence for it.
If it's easy to imagine the 'self' and our subjective experience beginning at birth, then isn't it equally easy to imagine the self and our subjective experience ending at death also?
I believe the self does persist after death despite the silence of the 100 billion or so people who have died already. Some pagan philosophers, Socrates and others, thought the soul would persist after death because it consisted of only a single element. This did not lead them to a belief in god.
We don't imagine the self beginning at birth; we know it did insofar as we can know anything. But our birth marked the beginning of our lives and it is not easy, at least for me, to imagine that death necessarily will return us to a state of nonexistence or nothingness. We can all grasp the concept of life but who can grasp the concept of nothingness?
The belief in our return to nothingness is shared by 80% of our contributors many of whom might call themwselves christians. But if this proves to be true, it will mean that Christ and God were liars and that they were so afraid of man that they had to lie to him. And that man ultimately is superior to God as man is able to escape life while God is destined to be self absorbed in his lying self for ever. For this reason alone, I believe in life after death, whether we like it or not.0 -
I believe the self does persist after death despite the silence of the 100 billion or so people who have died already. Some pagan philosophers, Socrates and others, thought the soul would persist after death because it consisted of only a single element. This did not lead them to a belief in god.
We don't imagine the self beginning at birth; we know it did insofar as we can know anything. But our birth marked the beginning of our lives and it is not easy, at least for me, to imagine that death necessarily will return us to a state of nonexistence or nothingness. We can all grasp the concept of life but who can grasp the concept of nothingness?
The belief in our return to nothingness is shared by 80% of our contributors many of whom might call themwselves christians. But if this proves to be true, it will mean that Christ and God were liars and that they were so afraid of man that they had to lie to him. And that man ultimately is superior to God as man is able to escape life while God is destined to be self absorbed in his lying self for ever. For this reason alone, I believe in life after death, whether we like it or not.
Why do you believe that the self does persist after death despite the lack of evidence?
The bit in bold is the opposite approach to the one above. You say you believe the soul persists in spite of the lack of evidence, and believe that life begins at birth also in spite of complete lack of evidence.
Is it just because you can't imagine your non existence that leads you to believe there's an afterlife?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Why do you believe that the self does persist after death despite the lack of evidence?
The bit in bold is the opposite approach to the one above. You say you believe the soul persists in spite of the lack of evidence, and believe that life begins at birth also in spite of complete lack of evidence.
Is it just because you can't imagine your non existence that leads you to believe there's an afterlife?
You need evidence that your life began at birth? Have you evidence that you exist now? Do you need evidence of non existence or just existence. Do you believe in anything that is not evidence based? Beauty?0 -
Advertisement
-
You need evidence that your life began at birth? Have you evidence that you exist now? Do you need evidence of non existence or just existence. Do you believe in anything that is not evidence based? Beauty?
You asked some questions in that post and I'll answer your questions, but I'd like you to then answer the questions i asked in my last post.
I have evidence that I'm alive now. But, if I'm being honest, I have no evidence whether i was or wasn't in existence before i was born. So, in the absence of evidence that i was alive before i was born, I don't believe that i was alive before i was born.
I take the completely consistent position on life after we die. I have no evidence of anything (life or the continuation of the self) beyond death, so i don't believe in any life beyond death.
I believe in subjective beauty but I don't think anyone needs to agree with me on what I find beautiful (same as humour I find something funny and I don't need everyone to agree with me). But the existence of an afterlife is objective, not subjective. It's a yes/ no question.
Now would you answer the questions i asked?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »You asked some questions in that post and I'll answer your questions, but I'd like you to then answer the questions i asked in my last post.
I have evidence that I'm alive now. But, if I'm being honest, I have no evidence whether i was or wasn't in existence before i was born. So, in the absence of evidence that i was alive before i was born, I don't believe that i was alive before i was born.
I take the completely consistent position on life after we die. I have no evidence of anything (life or the continuation of the self) beyond death, so i don't believe in any life beyond death.
I believe in subjective beauty but I don't think anyone needs to agree with me on what I find beautiful (same as humour I find something funny and I don't need everyone to agree with me). But the existence of an afterlife is objective, not subjective. It's a yes/ no question.
Now would you answer the questions i asked?
Thank you for your considered response to my thread. I will answer your three questions as well as I can.
1. I do believe in life after death though I believe there can be no natural evidence on the question as the 100 billion dead are silent. I am however a theist and a christian and I suppose the evidence from these sources would not be suitable for this thread. I have given an off the cuff reason for my theist/christian belief in the last paragraph of my post.
2.Regarding life before birth, I agree completely with your own analysis and conclusion. You have dealt with the question with more eloquence than I could have.
3.Your third question I find offensive, whether I believe in the afterlife because I am unable to imagine my own nonexistence. To believe in my after death existence for this reason would be the height of self-centred arrogance and would mean that I equated my own existence with that of God Himself. I don't believe I gave you any reason in my threads to suggest I could ever entertain such an imbecilic idea. Your question is unworthy of you.
I am indeed unable to conceive of nothingness. But I do not think because of this that I must automatically exist forever.
I hope I have answered your questions with the sincerity with which you asked them.0 -
I omitted in my post to deal with the question of the existence of an afterlife being objective, not subjective. If there is no afterlife, the question is indeed objective; if there is an afterlife, the question is both objective and subjective. It's not a yes/no question; it's a yes/no/maybe question.0
-
Thank you for your considered response to my thread. I will answer your three questions as well as I can.
1. I do believe in life after death though I believe there can be no natural evidence on the question as the 100 billion dead are silent. I am however a theist and a christian and I suppose the evidence from these sources would not be suitable for this thread. I have given an off the cuff reason for my theist/christian belief in the last paragraph of my post.
2.Regarding life before birth, I agree completely with your own analysis and conclusion. You have dealt with the question with more eloquence than I could have.
3.Your third question I find offensive, whether I believe in the afterlife because I am unable to imagine my own nonexistence. To believe in my after death existence for this reason would be the height of self-centred arrogance and would mean that I equated my own existence with that of God Himself. I don't believe I gave you any reason in my threads to suggest I could ever entertain such an imbecilic idea. Your question is unworthy of you.
I am indeed unable to conceive of nothingness. But I do not think because of this that I must automatically exist forever.
I hope I have answered your questions with the sincerity with which you asked them.
In response to 1. I did ask why you believe there's life after death and here is as good a place as anywhere to lay out your evidence for a life after death since that's the thread topic.
I see the question of whether there is life before birth and life after death as having the exact same answer and conclusion - i have no evidence so i don't believe. You agree there is no evidence of life before death and seem to agree that there's no reason to believe in a life before death, but then you have a different conslusion about life after death based on the same observable evidence. So, why?
Q3 was based on what you said in the post i quoted and wasn't meant to be offensive. I was responding to this post which is based on what you can and can't imagine.We don't imagine the self beginning at birth; we know it did insofar as we can know anything. But our birth marked the beginning of our lives and it is not easy, at least for me, to imagine that death necessarily will return us to a state of nonexistence or nothingness. We can all grasp the concept of life but who can grasp the concept of nothingness?
So i think it's a fair question to ask if your belief in an after life is connected to your ability to imagine life ending at death. I think its a silly conclusion based on the evidence we have (no observable evidence) but your post does seem to suggest that's the reasoning you've employed.
I took you at your word and if you think it's foolish, maybe you need to have another look at your reasons. But if you demonstrate your evidence for why ou beleive theres an afterlife, then it might become clear what you meant0 -
I omitted in my post to deal with the question of the existence of an afterlife being objective, not subjective. If there is no afterlife, the question is indeed objective; if there is an afterlife, the question is both objective and subjective. It's not a yes/no question; it's a yes/no/maybe question.
If there is an afterlife then how you experience it might be subjective. But the existence or non existence of an afterlife is a yes/no question. the statement "an afterlife exists" and is either true or is not true. It's not subjective.
How cold an afterlife exist and the answer to the question "does an afterlife exist?" be maybe?0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »If there is an afterlife then how you experience it might be subjective. But the existence or non existence of an afterlife is a yes/no question. the statement "an afterlife exists" and is either true or is not true. It's not subjective.
How cold an afterlife exist and the answer to the question "does an afterlife exist?" be maybe?
Because we have failed to establish a naturally evidenced yes/no answer.
I think we have exhausted the question and might leave further comments to others.0 -
Because we have failed to establish a naturally evidenced yes/no answer.
I think we have exhausted the question and might leave further comments to others.
OK. Do you think you'll share your evidence of an afterlife or not? If you have good evidence of an afterlife then i's a pretty big secret to keep to yourself.
Also do you accept that my earlier question was based on your own post about what you can and can't imagine?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »In response to 1. I did ask why you believe there's life after death and here is as good a place as anywhere to lay out your evidence for a life after death since that's the thread topic.
I see the question of whether there is life before birth and life after death as having the exact same answer and conclusion - i have no evidence so i don't believe. You agree there is no evidence of life before death and seem to agree that there's no reason to believe in a life before death, but then you have a different conslusion about life after death based on the same observable evidence. So, why?
Q3 was based on what you said in the post i quoted and wasn't meant to be offensive. I was responding to this post which is based on what you can and can't imagine.
So i think it's a fair question to ask if your belief in an after life is connected to your ability to imagine life ending at death. I think its a silly conclusion based on the evidence we have (no observable evidence) but your post does seem to suggest that's the reasoning you've employed.
I took you at your word and if you think it's foolish, maybe you need to have another look at your reasons. But if you demonstrate your evidence for why ou beleive theres an afterlife, then it might become clear what you meant
Question 1 has been answered in my post and in the absence of natural evidence from someone, I am unable to advance the question.
Question 2 has been answered admirably by yourself and I have nothing to add to your own comments.
Question 3 has I think been answered in my post and my reasons for believing in an afterlife. I have indicated the reasons for my beliefs and am disappointed that it was not clear to you what I meant.
I suggest we leave further comments to others who may be able to add to the
discussion and further clarify the ideas involved.
Again my thanks for the way you have advanced the discussion.0 -
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1240806/Life-after-death-NASA-scientist-proof-of-afterlife-Wernher-von-Braun-life-after-death-real
Leading scientist believes in an afterlife.
also this
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEmrOEpZbsAhVFUBUIHfvPC74QFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F68381%2Flife-beyond-death-the-science-of-the-afterlife-2%2F&usg=AOvVaw0WsQRm0rNzzow6lDNpd0150 -
I have been reading the recent posts with interest and pleasure.
On a personal note it is really refreshing to see civil discussion between theists, agnostics and atheists.
One thing that strikes me is this request for 'evidence'. I think we can all agree that (as far as I am aware) there is no evidence to support any belief of what happens after death - be that a belief in an afterlife or a belief that there is nothing.
Demands for 'evidence' is imo pointless, but if that is the route a person wants to take the surely anyone who states categorically there is nothing should also be asked for their evidence.
Hands up I don't know what happens. I don't 'believe' in anything bar my own complete ignorance of what happens next and am willing to wait and 'see'... if such a thing is possible. And if I'm gone - then I'm gone.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »OK. Do you think you'll share your evidence of an afterlife or not? If you have good evidence of an afterlife then i's a pretty big secret to keep to yourself.
Also do you accept that my earlier question was based on your own post about what you can and can't imagine?
I have indicated my reasons for believing in an afterlife. The reasons for belief in an afterlife are published by virtually all theist and christian apologists and are not a big secret. Your suggestion that they are my secret only is offensive to me and would I believe be seen as such by all fair minded people.
Your earlier question about my ability to imagine an afterlife being linked to my own existence after death was I think based on a particularly inept interpretation of my comment. Your comment was and still is offensive to me.
For reasons which must be obvious to you, I suggest we leave further comments to others0 -
The belief in our return to nothingness is shared by 80% of our contributors many of whom might call themselves christians. But if this proves to be true, it will mean that Christ and God were liars and that they were so afraid of man that they had to lie to him. And that man ultimately is superior to God as man is able to escape life while God is destined to be self absorbed in his lying self for ever. For this reason alone, I believe in life after death, whether we like it or not.
I think from an atheist perspective God and Christ are characters invented by mankind and thus not in a position to lie. In terms of how many Christians don't believe in an afterlife, that might be better understood as a separate poll on the Christianity forum. I would guess most posters here would be atheists or agnostics, which probably corresponds to the 80% you're looking at as an atheist believing in an afterlife is as unlikely as a Christian not believing in one. If you're putting a poll in the Christianity forum you might also want to include the persons stated faith position.
You also have the possibility that there are very many agnostic Christians here and elsewhere. i.e. people who were raised as Christians and hence consider themselves Christian but have come to question the bona fides of their religion. Looking at collapsing mass attendance rates and vocations tends to support this.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I have been reading the recent posts with interest and pleasure.
On a personal note it is really refreshing to see civil discussion between theists, agnostics and atheists.
One thing that strikes me is this request for 'evidence'. I think we can all agree that (as far as I am aware) there is no evidence to support any belief of what happens after death - be that a belief in an afterlife or a belief that there is nothing.
Demands for 'evidence' is imo pointless, but if that is the route a person wants to take the surely anyone who states categorically there is nothing should also be asked for their evidence.
Hands up I don't know what happens. I don't 'believe' in anything bar my own complete ignorance of what happens next and am willing to wait and 'see'... if such a thing is possible. And if I'm gone - then I'm gone.
I welcome your comments on the threads. It is refreshing not to be asked for natural evidence on life after death, given the 100 billion dead who remain silent on the topic. And going to the theist/christian evidences may be offensive to those reading the thread.
I do appreciate the atheist and agnostic views on this topic the answers to which we will all experience one day if indeed there is life after death; if there is not (sadly?) we will not even know we ever existed.0 -
I welcome your comments on the threads. It is refreshing not to be asked for natural evidence on life after death, given the 100 billion dead who remain silent on the topic. And going to the theist/christian evidences may be offensive to those reading the thread.
I do appreciate the atheist and agnostic views on this topic the answers to which we will all experience one day if indeed there is life after death; if there is not (sadly?) we will not even know we ever existed.
I think it is the word 'evidence' that causes the issues.
From an atheist perspective (hesitant to speak for agnostics) theist/Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc etc 'evidence' is not actually evidence. It is supposition based on a belief system. It is hearsay at best.
Let me put it this way - such 'evidence' would be inadmissible in a court of law, even one that has people swear to tell the truth on a Bible.
The word 'life' is another one where people may be talking at cross purposes - while some 'thing' may continue (energy, consciousness, that kind of thing) - for me anyway 'life' is what is happening now and is part and parcel of occupying a physical body.
When the body dies = 'life' ends but is there something 'more' inside us that continues in some form?
Not all non-Theists think death is the end of all - Buddhists - who are non-Theists - believe there is more after death but (I confess I am not overly familiar with the nuances of their beliefs) afaik it is not a case of the deceased simply carrying on as before but in a non-corporeal way.0 -
I was reading a while back about time's arrow and that there was no reason that time should have to go in one direction. What if it reversed and those that died lived again? Strange concept but perhaps in a parallel universe this what is happening?0
-
Advertisement
-
I was reading a while back about time's arrow and that there was no reason that time should have to go in one direction. What if it reversed and those that died lived again? Strange concept but perhaps in a parallel universe this what is happening?
A very interesting idea which I had not heard. Many scientists and creationists believe that time and space began at the Big Bang. And of course theists believe that at death we exit time but continue our existence. Sorry to mention Theism on this thread but it seemed pertinent to your comment which has given me much food for thought.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I think it is the word 'evidence' that causes the issues.
From an atheist perspective (hesitant to speak for agnostics) theist/Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc etc 'evidence' is not actually evidence. It is supposition based on a belief system. It is hearsay at best.
Let me put it this way - such 'evidence' would be inadmissible in a court of law, even one that has people swear to tell the truth on a Bible.
The word 'life' is another one where people may be talking at cross purposes - while some 'thing' may continue (energy, consciousness, that kind of thing) - for me anyway 'life' is what is happening now and is part and parcel of occupying a physical body.
When the body dies = 'life' ends but is there something 'more' inside us that continues in some form?
Not all non-Theists think death is the end of all - Buddhists - who are non-Theists - believe there is more after death but (I confess I am not overly familiar with the nuances of their beliefs) afaik it is not a case of the deceased simply carrying on as before but in a non-corporeal way.
I read with interest your comments on evidence and life. The problem in seeking natural evidence for life after death is that there cannot be any, unless the dead return to life and even then their testimonies could be challenged. Were they really the persons who had died. What proof or evidence could they give to convince us they had really died? Or that they had ever lived. Because of the nature of death, evidence must be sought elsewhere and that evidence may not understandably be acceptable to atheists or agnostics.
I agree with your own view of life and what it means. Being an anonymous part of a universal mind or energy does'nt do it for me any more than flapping my angel wings in joyful perpetuity.0 -
A lot of neurons fire off in your brain.Seconds out you're brown bread.Then the maggots queue in time to take their turn.End of.Nothing.0
-
I think from an atheist perspective God and Christ are characters invented by mankind and thus not in a position to lie. In terms of how many Christians don't believe in an afterlife, that might be better understood as a separate poll on the Christianity forum. I would guess most posters here would be atheists or agnostics, which probably corresponds to the 80% you're looking at as an atheist believing in an afterlife is as unlikely as a Christian not believing in one. If you're putting a poll in the Christianity forum you might also want to include the persons stated faith position.
You also have the possibility that there are very many agnostic Christians here and elsewhere. i.e. people who were raised as Christians and hence consider themselves Christian but have come to question the bona fides of their religion. Looking at collapsing mass attendance rates and vocations tends to support this.
I have considered your comments with interest.
I have questioned why any sane people would invent a deity to limit their independence of thought and action. Born free, man, alone of all animals, seeks chains to limit his freedoms? And many theists and christians would be of a mind to reject those chains and many do.
The question of Christians and their beliefs are understandably not for discussion on this thread. But atheists and agnostics would do well to learn from the experiences of theists and christians and not invent for themselves chains which will limit their freedoms to think and act.0 -
I have considered your comments with interest.
I have questioned why any sane people would invent a deity to limit their independence of thought and action. Born free, man, alone of all animals, seeks chains to limit his freedoms? And many theists and christians would be of a mind to reject those chains and many do.
Even from a purely Christian perspective, many sane people have clearly created deities along with various creation stories and mythologies. To suggest otherwise would imply every pre-Christian religious society, such as the Romans, Greeks or Norse, and every non-Christian religious society such as Hindus, are either less sane than Christians or worship real gods. It is worth remembering that of the multitude of gods invented by humanity, atheists believe in just one less than Christians and other monotheists.
Also worth remembering that for many nominally theistic people, including most Christians in this country until relatively recently, religious belief was not a matter of choice. Theists by and large have been raised with religion from a young age, they have not arrived at it through a rational intellectual process. For many in the past and some still today, rejecting religion was a crime (apostasy) with punishments up to and including death. The rise of Roman Catholicism in particular has been a bloody course through history. On that basis, I don't think it is reasonable to consider the sanity or lack thereof of the individual Christian (or Muslim or Hindu), who might have had very little say in the matter.The question of Christians and their beliefs are understandably not for discussion on this thread. But atheists and agnostics would do well to learn from the experiences of theists and christians and not invent for themselves chains which will limit their freedoms to think and act.
With respect, it is not for you to declare what is or is not up for discussion on this thread. Suggesting that on the one hand that Christian beliefs are not up for discussion and on the other advocating atheists and agnostics to act more like their Christian counterparts comes across as somewhat arrogant. What I think you'll find if you read through the posts in this forum is that many atheists here were once Christians but through careful consideration in adulthood have rejected religion for one reason or another. If anything, this is an unshackling from religious dogma and the very narrow and outdated body of material on which it is based. To move back to the opening topic, one reason many religions remain popular is that they prey on peoples understandable fear of death. As you can see from the poll on this thread however, atheists don't consider the alternative offered to be credible.0 -
it still puzzles me that having been born free, our minds would be prone to seeking an entity which would limit our freedom of thought and action.
Perhaps the supposition that you were born "free" is where the error lies. We are born in a universe with rules that constrain our freedoms in all kinds of ways. Further we are born helpless and scared and requiring parental guidance.
Some people seem not to lose that need to be a child with a parent guiding figure.
But yes I think we are indeed prone to seek our chains. We are always prone to giving up just a little of our freedoms in order to be "looked after". It is how dictatorships are formed. It is how we give up tiny bits of our rights at a time to anti privacy laws and more as the government erode our freedoms slowly. It is how they sell the idea "If you just give up this tiny bit of freedom here, we the government can enhance your safety or your security". It is how we download and use "free apps" on our phone which are never free because you ARE the product and you are giving away your privacy, and your data, when you do so.
We are more than happy as a species, it seems, to put on one extra chain here and there if we are tricked or convinced into thinking the benefits are worth it.Design too is a problem. When I see evidence of design my mind does naturally wonder at its source.
The problem is often seeing design where none exists. If you ASSUME design where none exists, you will naturally then also assume a designer that does not exist either. We are a pattern seeking chimp. We see patterns, and hence design, where none exist all the time.
One of the great beauties of evolution, and hence why certain groups of theists hate it so much, is that it shows how a very powerful illusion of design can form without any requirement for any designer, any intent, any goal, or any intelligence behind it at all.0 -
We are more than happy as a species, it seems, to put on one extra chain here and there if we are tricked or convinced into thinking the benefits are worth it.
We are in agreement on this. But I suspect that in dropping one set of chains, we may also be prone to taking up another set which may be equally limiting to our freedom of thought.
We are a pattern seeking chimp. We see patterns, and hence design, where none exist all the time.
I would have thought that pattern seeking was a desirable trait of the human species. Most sciences are based on the recognition and testing of patterns and it is difficult to imagine human life without it. To see patterns where none exist would suggest mental impairment, while to deny apparent patterns without sufficient reasons is hardly the mark of intellectual strength.
One of the great beauties of evolution, and hence why certain groups of theists hate it so much, is that it shows how a very powerful illusion of design can form without any requirement for any designer, any intent, any goal, or any intelligence behind it at all.
As a theist, I regard the theory of evolution as one of the great advances in science, showing the development of animal species in a purposeful and patterned way. Did Darwin base his theory of evolution on illusion? I would be interested in learning how an illusion of design can form in a sane human mind without pattern or design being present in the observed phenomena. If you have a reference in the Origin of Species which support your views, you might share it .
I would refer to our previous posts and would apologise for taking offence at your very legitimate questions which, on reflection, I accept were perfectly reasonable from the comments I had posted. Mea culpa.0 -
I would have thought that pattern seeking was a desirable trait of the human species.
It is, but much like "hyper active agency detection" which I spoke about before, it is prone to misfiring and being trigger happy. We see patterns where there are none. And then we often notice things that fit that pattern, but ignore many many things that do not.
One non-magical example of this is when people get a bad impression of taxi drivers. Shouting things like "They think they own the road!". What happens here is they get an idea (Taxi drivers are bad) and then simply miss the many many good taxi drivers, and many many bad non-taxi drivers. But when a taxi driver does something bad.... it confirms the "pattern".
A magical example is when people think of someone they have not seen in many many years, then suddenly as if by magic that person phones the out of the blue. Again they seem not to notice the many many times they thought of someone who then did not contact. But the special "coincidence" of someone you think of ringing, fits a magical pattern and seems like an amazing event. Also many stories like "I thought of someone I had not thought of in years and then I found out they had died the day before!" or "I swear I saw someone I know in the airport.... but when I mentioned it to my wife she went pale and showed me in the news paper that person had just died!".
Prayer is a good one. You can pray 1000 times and nothing happens. You pray one more time and something happens and "Wow, there must be a god!".
The list goes on. It is a good thing we seek and see patterns. It is a bad thing that we tend to seek and see them even when they are not there. IT is not "mental impairment" as you put it. It is entirely natural in our species.
You mention science. Yes. Science is a methodology by which we negate that human tendency to see patterns where none exist.I would be interested in learning how an illusion of design can form in a sane human mind without pattern or design being present in the observed phenomena.
For that you need to go talk to the creationists. It is them to whom I refer, not Darwin. They see "design" where there is no reason to see "design". That is what evolution does. It produces life forms that give the IMPRESSION they are designed, or look designed, without any requirement for a desigher.
So go ask a creationist why they see design there. I sure don't. Nor, it would seem, did Darwin.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It is, but much like "hyper active agency detection" which I spoke about before, it is prone to misfiring and being trigger happy. We see patterns where there are none. And then we often notice things that fit that pattern, but ignore many many things that do not.
One non-magical example of this is when people get a bad impression of taxi drivers. Shouting things like "They think they own the road!". What happens here is they get an idea (Taxi drivers are bad) and then simply miss the many many good taxi drivers, and many many bad non-taxi drivers. But when a taxi driver does something bad.... it confirms the "pattern".
A magical example is when people think of someone they have not seen in many many years, then suddenly as if by magic that person phones the out of the blue. Again they seem not to notice the many many times they thought of someone who then did not contact. But the special "coincidence" of someone you think of ringing, fits a magical pattern and seems like an amazing event. Also many stories like "I thought of someone I had not thought of in years and then I found out they had died the day before!" or "I swear I saw someone I know in the airport.... but when I mentioned it to my wife she went pale and showed me in the news paper that person had just died!".
Prayer is a good one. You can pray 1000 times and nothing happens. You pray one more time and something happens and "Wow, there must be a god!".
The list goes on. It is a good thing we seek and see patterns. It is a bad thing that we tend to seek and see them even when they are not there. IT is not "mental impairment" as you put it. It is entirely natural in our species.
You mention science. Yes. Science is a methodology by which we negate that human tendency to see patterns where none exist.
For that you need to go talk to the creationists. It is them to whom I refer, not Darwin. They see "design" where there is no reason to see "design". That is what evolution does. It produces life forms that give the IMPRESSION they are designed, or look designed, without any requirement for a desigher.
So go ask a creationist why they see design there. I sure don't. Nor, it would seem, did Darwin.
What if you pray and it's answered all the time?0 -
Advertisement
-
What if you pray and it's answered all the time?
Then that would be worth of study, by all means. Find a decent study group or present yourself to the Randi Association or whatever.
Such a person could pray now. Pray that for no reason whatsoever 246 euro will appear in my bank account, but 5 minutes later 123 euro will be removed twice therefore balancing the account.
After all if it is answered ALL the time, that should be pretty doable
Depending what it is the subject prays for "All the time" I guess. If they are praying every night that the sun rises the next day.... I have no doubt it appears their prayer is answered all the time 0
Advertisement