Is there life after death or maybe life on other planets?

CWMMC

I do not believe there is a life after death per say but I think when you die your subconscious will be active for a little while in which it is almost like dream state in which seconds turn into hours.

Given the vast size of space and how undiscovered most of it is I do believe there is some form of life on other planets.

positron

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121599939#Comment_121599939

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

So if someone's idea of God is beyond "science" (which by definition, is learning, changing, evolving), the problem is not with science, is it?

dexterden6

Positron,

Scientific understandings are inherently flawed and biased due to the philosophical assumptions of materialism and naturalism (the belief that nature/ natural processes, is all there is, ever was or ever will be).

Science is based on philosophical materialism or methodological atheism. If the foundation is rotten the whole unit will collapse, this includes evolutionary science that deals with the origin of humanity including all the dating methods as they all contain underlying assumptions and beliefs derived from naturalistic worldviews.

Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory are all derived from this worldview. Science either has to prove God doesn't exist (no spirit / no supernatural realm) to be confident in their convictions about the nature of reality.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121597170#Comment_121597170

In my experience it tends to be people with no evidence of something whatsoever, that start equivocating over what does or does not constitute "evidence" in the first place. Equivocation that if I am forced into I tend to simply say that for me "evidence" has always been a process rather than a thing. The process being 1) Establish as clearly as possible what you are claiming 2) Establish as clearly as possible the things you think support that claim and 3) Explain as clearly as possible how each thing offered in 2 support the claim in 1 and why you think so.

A simple process. One might think. But it is not a process that goes anywhere with the "god" conversation in my experience.

I for one am all for "opening your mind to other ways of thinking" but unfortunately all too often in my experience when someone says "open your mind" they are actually saying "accept what I am saying wholesale without any basis whatsoever". Which is not what I Think being "open minded" means. Not even a little bit.

Being "open minded" to me simply means being willing to adopt a new idea, or divest yourself of an old idea, if given sufficient reason to do so. And I have simply been shown zero reasons ever to even suspect there may be a "god" let alone to actually start beleiving there is one. So there would be nothing whatsoever "open minded" about me beleiving there is one. That would be delusion.

However as a slight nod towards what you are saying, I did myself well over 20 years ago stop asking theists solely for "Evidence of a god" in conversations on the topic. And I entirely avoid the word "proof" because I think that is too demanding. And I did these things because it always ended up in equivicating over what "evidence" is and what "god" is with all their rhetorical hand waving and dodging to distract from the fact they had NOTHING to offer.

So whenever I enter such a conversation nowadays (almost never to be honest) I tend to ask "Do you have any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning to offer that lends even a modicum of credence to the notion a non-human intelligent intentional agency is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe"? Because if they have nothing for the first half, then the conversation is over. If their idea of "god" differs from the second half then the conversation is also likely over as we are talking about different things than, say, the Monotheistic god of Christianity or Islam or similar and we are just talking past each other.

So it is a sentence that has served be very well in saving my time AND theirs.

Guess what? They STILL got nothing. Despite my casting of this new, wider, more inclusive, less demanding net. Nadda. Zilch. Nuffin. Bugger all. Diddly Squat.

There are any number of hypothesis to the question of why/how we come to find outselves in this universe. And hypothesese are good things. They fuel innovation, immagination, inquiry and intellect. But the fact remains that that vast majority of these hypotheses remain not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated at this time with nothing to move them off a zero credence point. Should that at any point change, or if you yourself become aware of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that I might have missed (and hopefully pass even the most basic of the tests for the common list of fallacy) then I remain as I have always been.... absoutely agog to hear them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600099#Comment_121600099

I am not convinced you know what the word "Faith" means given you are misuing it quite a lot. I am also not sure you understand the concept of "Percent" given you are asking "a million percent" sureness on the topic. Surely 100% is the maximum by definition? Yet scientists will often tell you that pretty much nothing in Science is considered 100% true for example.

However I do not think using "faith" or "%" is in and of itself meaningful in the first place for a conversation like this. Rather what you could be doing is thinking of ANY idea.... be it "god" or the "Big bang" or "my wife is cheating on me" or "homoepathy is effecious medicine" and placing every single one on the zero point of a continuum of "belief". One end of the continuum is "Definitely 100% true" and the other is "Defnitely 100% false". And any new idea starts exactly in the middle at the "zero" point.

You can then look for actual reasons to move the idea along that continuum from the zero point. In either direction.

There are many evidences in science for the "Big Bang" for example. So this idea gets moved by each evidence along the continuum TOWARDS "Definitely 100% true" but it never reaches "100%". Nothing does in my opinion. Things just get closer than others. In science for example when something gets very far along it gets the label "Theory". Which is pretty much the highest accolade an idea gets in science. It does not mean the same as "theory" in vernacular speech. "Atomic Theory" or "Evolution Theory" basically means we are as sure about these things being true as science allows. But again no one here claims 100%. And any scientist that does should be reminded of this.

Other ideas like the idea there is a god have no reasons to move them off the 0 point. There would appear to be no evidences for OR against such a hypothesis. So it just languishes on the zero point with anything else people have just dreamed up. Like Leprauchans and fairies.

This does not mean there is a god. This does not mean there is no god. It just means there is nothing there to motivate belief in either direction that I have found. So I dismiss the hypothesis as unsubstantiated at this time and move on without it.

Not one ounce of what I described there is how I treat the big bang or god demends or even requires any "faith" whatsoever. Which is why I suspect you are misusing the word somewhat.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121599980#Comment_121599980

As for life on other planets? There is no proof

But there is "proof". There's life on THIS planet. In fact it's teeming with life. So there's proof enough to posit a theory that given the fact that there are trillions and trillions of planets out there, on he balance of probability, there has to be some that will have a form of life on them.

The problem, though, with these kind of conversations is that people tend to think of "alien" life as something akin to us, when it could be more akin to fish or plankton, or even the humble amoeba.

By the way, in about 3 to 5 billion years time, this planet will be a lifeless rock too. The slow death of our sun will destroy all life on Earth.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600023#Comment_121600023

There is no proof we're here for any reason at all. This idea comes from humanity's chauvinistic belief that we are important somehow and the reality is is that we're not. We are a mere blip in a wider universe that we have little understanding of. We prefer to believe that we are the centre of things, because the realisation that we are not and that eventually we become nothing is a very difficult idea to come to terms with.

There is no reason you or anyone else exists. You just do so for a limited time and you are entirely insignificant to the universe.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. - Carl Sagan

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058330656/is-there-life-after-death-or-maybe-life-on-other-planets

...im not sure id agree with that....

...theres clearly some serious issues in the here and now, on this planet.....

...but anyhow, no theres probably not a life after death, its here and now, and thats it....

....definitely microbial life on other planets, but as for intelligent life, maybe not....

...if you believe otherwise, shur best of luck to you and yours....

dxhound2005

My great great something grandfather was probably a bacterium. I'd hate to think I am descended from a microbe. Or something from Africa.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago."

Baseball72

Life after death? Yes, 100%

Life on other planets - maybe, but not necessarily "life as we know it"

Sleepy

The entire concept of life after death is a childish form of self-delusion clung by those to weak to accept reality or too gullible to resist the false promises of organised religion. Every living thing dies and our remains decompose (unless eaten, burned, dissolved in acid or the like).

Life on other planets seems a probabilistic certainty but whether that life exists/existed in the same timeframe as that of our species / planet is unfortunately rather less likely.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601475#Comment_121601475

...thats a bit harsh, those of us that dont believe should have the decency to respect others beliefs, maybe we re the ones that are wrong!

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600024#Comment_121600024

Would a supernatural presence be measurable by science though? 'God' is apparently invisible to us and cannot be detected or recorded by any scientific equipment - if we could see him or detect his existence using science, it would surely mean he is just another physical aspect of the universe like light, energy, radiation, gravity etc.

I take your point about Jesus, but he was seemingly sent to earth as a physical manifestation of the supernatural presence, in a form that would be recognisable to humans (assuming that one believes he was the son of God).

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601546#Comment_121601546

...always wondered what disorders that jesus chap had....

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601559#Comment_121601559

Even if he wasn't God, he was definitely one of the good guys and well ahead of his time : preaching forgiveness, tolerance, understanding, kindness etc.

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601500#Comment_121601500

Is it?

People's nonsensical belief in religion has caused untold suffering: enforced marriage and rape, child abuse, torture, human sacrifice and murder have all been done on the excuse that it's the "will" of one deity or another throughout human existence.

Tolerating or respecting the self-delusion of those too weak to accept that their chosen (or more often inherited) deity is a creation of the human imagination may seem to be the "nice" thing to do but you're actually help perpetuate such nonsense by not treating it with the scorn it deserves. Humans have worshipped an estimated 18,000 or so deities throughout our existence. The sheer number is evidence not of the existence of any such deities but more the arrogance of humans that they'll invent a deity, or adopt the deity invented by another , rather than simply accept they can't answer the "big" questions of where we came from, why we're here etc.

I'm not advocating we actively persecute anyone for their religious beliefs but they should be viewed as the delusions that they are. Christianity or Islam are no more valid a belief system than healing crystals or astrology and organisations built on them shouldn't be receiving any preferential legal or taxation treatment. In many cases those organisations should be taxed out of existence. If you want proof that even those at the top of the Catholic Church don't believe their own professed beliefs, visit the Vatican some time. The Christ they wrote about in their bible would be disgusted by their hoarding of wealth and even their running of a bank in his "father's temple".

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601580#Comment_121601580

...or another way to look at it, slightly deluded, arrogant, possible even narcissistic....

...theres a hell of a lot of well known disorders linked to such behavior's...

...but in saying that, he did promote some goods things, as you mentioned, so was he really all that harmful, maybe he just needed appropriate folks to discuss his issues with....

Sleepy

History is written by the victors and the Bible was written centuries after the touted life of Jesus Christ. Assuming he actually existed, for all we know he was the David Koresh of his day and spent his time raping his many child brides.

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601676#Comment_121601676

The new testament was written about 40 to 60 years after jesus. Tell me do you slag of Muslim prophets also or do you limit it to Christianity ?

martingriff

There is no evidence of either but you will find people talking more authorities on here on the second then the first been a yes.

As for what I think on the first I would hope there is because a) love to meet my loved ones and b) consequences of living a good life (not on what various religions say)

For the second I believe the universe is too big not to be.

For those who wrote close thread after your answer very snobbish

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601720#Comment_121601720

The books of the New Testament were written in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

I'm no more tolerant of Islam than Christianity, both are nonsense (as are Judaism, Sikhism, Scientology et al). To be fair, while I've read both the Bible and the Quran, it was some time ago and I was raised in 80's Ireland and subjected to the attempted indoctrination of a Catholic education so it's the easier religion for me to pick apart (and being on an Irish forum where many have had the same background as myself) more likely for references about to be understood.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601500#Comment_121601500

Nah I don’t think it’s harsh at all tbh, it’s about the equivalent of how some of the more feverish ideologues promote their ideas, and I sure as hell wouldn’t expect anyone should have to respect ideas which they don’t share. That sort of acquiescence is how some ideologues get the impression their ideas are superior or the gold standard by which everyone should live their lives. In the same way, I don’t have to respect Sleepy’s opinion, water off a ducks back. It’s only for those whom it hits close to home that they get all uppity about it. Most people in any given faith group aren’t likely to be all that bothered about the idea that other people don’t share their world view.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601546#Comment_121601546

A lot of things in science are inferred rather than directly observed. Because of their effect and influence on the universe we observe.

So if you are talking about a non interventionalist god you are entirely correct. Our methodologies of science are likely incapable of having any say on it's existence or non existence unless we find more data on the formation of our universe that can only be explained by a conciousness intervention.

However if we are discussing a god that did more than merely create the universe and stand back.... but in fact interacts with it and influences it and effects change within it then this is certainly not beyond the purview of science. If the god in question for example not just listens to, but answers prayer then this could be measured. In fact this was attempted and it was found that not only does prayer appear to do nothing for people recovering in hospital.... in fact being told you are being prayed for correlated with WORSE outcomes for the patients. Meaning that if you pray for the sick A) you are likely acheiving nothing and B) keep it to yourself lest you want to actively harm the person you are praying for.

A character like Jesus coming back from the dead would be useful data to have for example. Unfortunately theists are unable to show such a thing actually happened. Hell they struggle at times to show this person existed at all. A case study of how many really bad arguments can be made to this effect can be done on this very forum by reading the historic posts of Philologos/Jackass.

Other things related to the topic can also be evidenced by science one would hope. Reincarnation or Out of Body experiences would, if validated, show that their concept of a soul operarting apart from, or even after the death of, the body is real. Which would be strong evidence for many things. Another good case study on this very forum about how poor the arguments for reincarnation are would be ngarric's posts. And scientists have constructed what I thought seemed like very well constructed studies of OBE and NDE (Sam Parnia always comes first to mind) and found absolutely nothing at all.

So while I think you are right that we can not limit the conversation to mere science and only science, I would still be wary about any suggestion it can not be applied to the discussions at all. Remember "science" is not itself a thing. It is a methodology. And the methodology remains so far the best (least imprefect) we have to preclude self delusion and error and narrative and bias.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601500#Comment_121601500

I would not think it was harsh. I think it was just too general and intellectially lazy. Merely dismissing all holders of a belief in an afterlife as "weak" is just too easy and dismissive and throw away. In fact much like a virus, ideas can infect the very healthy indeed just as readily as the most unhealty and unfit among us. Some unsubstantiated nonsense might even be MORE prone to infecting the stronger than the weaker. Newton always springs to mind. Probably one of the greatest minds our species ever produced. But he believed some abject nonsense at times too.

But I am with Johann Hari when they said "I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs."

There is nothing "harsh" about attacking, mocking, rebutting, or destroying a belief. You can respect a person while dispresecting some belief they hold. Just like you can kick a ball as hard as you like, and not go for the other ball player. And if the other player gets sad you kicked the ball too hard, then they can go play another game because THEY have the problem, not you.

I am not my beliefs. I am at best a vehicle for them. Unfortunately some people do see any attack on a belief as an attack on the holder of that belief. They are married to their beliefs to the point they feel synonymous with them. Such people, I do not find it at all harsh to suggest, may just need to grow up a bit.

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601761#Comment_121601761

That's a nothing answer to be fair, you know as well as I know why jesus was mention and not another prophet from another religion. It was an easy way for you to slag of a religion that is quiet tolerant of you slagging it off. Easy target.

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600708#Comment_121600708

Your being a bit pedantic tbh. Faith, 1000 percent ....

The biblical definition of Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen... Not dissimilar to atheism's belief in science and the big bang theory considering .

The origins of the universe remain a subject of theoretical exploration and scientific inquiry and the big bang is the best science can provide, give me a break it's no difference than believing in Santa clause. Science struggles massively in explaining what happened before the big bang, the same as all other belief systems. Atheism, organised religions etc are all the same at the end of the day and you are trying to quantify that one is better than the other. Bigger brains than all us on here have been asking this question but because a few read Dawkins they think they have the answer - no difference to any other religion imo.

rob316

Life after death and eternal life with some imaginary figure in the sky? Na aint buying that. Just like you didn't exist before birth, you cease to exist after death. Its frightening to think of at times but there is nothing you can do about it, it doesn't bear worth thinking about.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601891#Comment_121601891

Atheism, organised religions etc are all the same at the end of the day

They’re not though. Organised religions may be all the same, and that’s predicated on the fact that they are an organised belief system. Atheism is not organised, nor is it a belief system, and though there were attempts to organise atheists and have them attach atheism to a social philosophy or movement akin to organised religion, it came to nothing and petered out fairly quickly -

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

Slightly Kwackers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121599980#Comment_121599980

A similar concept crossed my mind, in an infinite universe could we just start again taking it in turns to become king, peasant, Palestinian, Israeli?

Life does not stop with an absence of brain activity. There are a lot of eejits across the way that would never have put a cross in the Brexit box it life ended when brain activity ceased.

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601949#Comment_121601949

Every democratic country in the world has an atheist organisation where it is allowed. They might not have a certain laid down set of rules etc but they do have one major belief in common so they are organised to a certain extent. Guess what I am saying is that the unwavering belief and certainty that there is no god is the same as the reverse in religion. Personally , I don't have the foggiest but whatever makes people happy ..

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121602014#Comment_121602014

I know what you’re saying, but you’re making a false equivalence between atheism and organised religion. Sure there are atheist organisations whose aim is to promote atheism and awareness of atheism and all the rest of it, but that’s nothing like organised religion which has a set of beliefs, principles, doctrines, traditions, practices and texts. Atheism doesn’t infer any of that, and unlike organised religions, there’s no such concept as adherents of atheism.

There’s a popular misconception that atheists have come to believe that there is no God, through rigorous application of scientific principles and reasoning and all the rest of it, but that ignores the overwhelming evidence that atheists simply don’t give a toss, the idea of a deity or deities simply has no meaning to them.

randd1

What I find amazing is the difference in attitude to God/gods by atheists and the religious.

As an atheist, I have a completely opposite view; for argument sake, if the God of Abraham (the one we're most familiar with in Ireland) was to appear to humanity and say the time has come to be seen, I wouldn't be scared, I would be fascinated. It would be the single most important moment in human history. We'd know for certain that there's life beyond our own, that the supernatural exists, the concept of omnipotence and omniscience are real. I'd have a million questions to ask, and I'd love dearly to ask them.

Meanwhile the religious are either $hitting themselves in fear or celebrating the "rapture" and the death of all human life. No thought to what it actually means, just mindless thoughts.

Meanwhile, the Plaxons from the Plaxaron Star System of the Galactic Peoples Confederation in the Crab Nebula who are tasked with observing Earth for last 400,000 years while masquerading as humans until humans have developed faster-than-light travel and can be approached by the Galactic Peoples Confederation are wondering why the fu€k has Dave done pulled another one of his "I Am God, Hear Me Speak" pranks on the dimwitted humans, likely leading to massive loss of life again, via nuclear war. Just when they started having potential and all.