Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

Mutant z · 12-03-2017 02:08AM

Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life.

bou · 13-03-2017 12:43PM

I find the many worlds theory equally beyond natural. It's like a universe that is infinity to the power of infinity. Imagine the branching possibilities for every atomic/molecular interaction among > 10^70 atoms, and not just nearest neighbour interactions but longer range EM and gravitational effects. Mind-boggling. All of these possibilities equally existing and branching over an infinity of time?

On the measurement of neuron activity at the time of death, that could be interesting. From the tradition I follow, after ordinary consciousness has died, the remaining consciousness coalesces from above and from below at the heart centre which is somewhere around the spinal column at chest level. Perhaps some residual activity could be there after the brain activity has ceased. In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body. There is a good description of the subjective experience of the dying process in this book "Mind beyond death":https://selfdefinition.org/zen/Dzogchen-Ponlop-Rinpoche-Mind-Beyond-Death.pdf. See pages 130-140.

On the subject of neurons and mind, I noticed someone looking at the activity of dendrites and seeing them behave in more complex ways than previously understood: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-research-upend-long-held-belief-about-how-neurons-communicate It seems to point to different ways in which neurons might operate less like a digital neural network.

I've been browsing over some very interesting articles on brain activity to do with attention and habitual/addictive behavior and how that is modified by meditation, e.g. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/psy/people/ytang/2015TiCS.pdf and http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/08/13/024174.full.pdf.

There is so much research being done in brain science. I look forward to it's further development. I'd love to develop a greater understanding of this area but alas, there are other things I need to do.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-03-2017 03:19PM

bou wrote: »

In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body.

Riiiiiight.

looksee · 13-03-2017 05:54PM

bou wrote: »

On the measurement of neuron activity at the time of death, that could be interesting. From the tradition I follow, after ordinary consciousness has died, the remaining consciousness coalesces from above and from below at the heart centre which is somewhere around the spinal column at chest level. Perhaps some residual activity could be there after the brain activity has ceased. In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body. There is a good description of the subjective experience of the dying process in this book "Mind beyond death":https://selfdefinition.org/zen/Dzogchen-Ponlop-Rinpoche-Mind-Beyond-Death.pdf. See pages 130-140.

I read the pages you indicated - pretty quickly I admit - and I do agree from my limited experience the four stages of dying do reflect the physical process. However the rest is just creative waffle and proves nothing. Anyone who came back to relate the detail given of the mental effects of dying was not dead in the first place.

Can you offer any information or evidence of how the knowledge of any of this was gathered?

seamus · 13-03-2017 06:00PM

Mutant z wrote: »

Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life.

Being pedantic, that's not what it means at all.

"Atheist" specifically relates to belief in God, or lack of one.

One does not need to believe in God to believe in the supernatural.

It just so happens that for most atheists in the western world, that lack of belief in a God was something that they had to realise for themselves through critical analysis and consideration.

The exact same kind of analysis consequently leads you to realise that all proposed supernatural phenomena are without sufficient evidence.

However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief. Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.

smacl · 14-03-2017 12:14PM

seamus wrote: »

However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief.

What's your logic on this one? I was raised atheist and consider myself less superstitious or inclined towards supernatural belief than most. My experience is that people who've bought into one inexplicable faith based belief system (e.g. Christianity) are prone to buy into others (ghosts, homeopathy, reiki, etc..) on the basis they're brought up to accept given truths from trusted sources without question.

Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.

You also have religions that simply don't have deities, such as Jainism and some schools of Taoism. These are technically atheistic.

seamus · 14-03-2017 06:00PM

smacl wrote: »

What's your logic on this one? I was raised atheist and consider myself less superstitious or inclined towards supernatural belief than most. My experience is that people who've bought into one inexplicable faith based belief system (e.g. Christianity) are prone to buy into others (ghosts, homeopathy, reiki, etc..) on the basis they're brought up to accept given truths from trusted sources without question.

What I meant is that people raised atheist were probably a bit less suspicious than people who became atheist in later life. I definitely didn't mean that they were more susceptible to nonsense than your average religious person.
No, once someone accepts religion, pretty much anything goes for them, in my experience. Ghosts, reiki, homeopathy, leprechauns, whatever you imagine, "could be real, you never know!".

I guess my rationale here is that people who've been raised religious and later become atheist probably have their bullsh1tometer set overly sensitive when compared to someone who was raised atheist.

vrt12 · 21-03-2017 04:52PM

seamus wrote: »

What I meant is that people raised atheist were probably a bit less suspicious than people who became atheist in later life. I definitely didn't mean that they were more susceptible to nonsense than your average religious person.
No, once someone accepts religion, pretty much anything goes for them, in my experience. Ghosts, reiki, homeopathy, leprechauns, whatever you imagine, "could be real, you never know!".

I guess my rationale here is that people who've been raised religious and later become atheist probably have their bullsh1tometer set overly sensitive when compared to someone who was raised atheist.

How is someone raised atheist?

smacl · 21-03-2017 05:30PM

vrt12 wrote: »

How is someone raised atheist?

Simply raised without any theistic religion. Both my folks were atheist so at no stage in my life was I ever presented with the notion that a god or gods existed by them. Didn't do Santa either FWIW, though did do the tooth fairy. No idea why.

seamus · 21-03-2017 05:31PM

vrt12 wrote: »

How is someone raised atheist?

Raised in a household where the parents do not impose any religion on their children or propose as fact the existence of a god-like being.

smacl · 21-03-2017 05:33PM

vrt12 wrote: »

The best hope an atheist who wants to cling to the belief of an after life has is the theory of multiple universes.

Or you could buy into something like tranhumanism, as outlined in last weeks IT

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 12:16PM

recedite wrote: »

The simulation/hologram theory of life seems to be gaining more followers every year. Elon Musk last year.
Maybe its because people are becoming more familiar and comfortable with the idea of advanced computer programs and virtual realities.

Does this qualify as "an afterlife"? I wouldn't know.

Maybe our souls/individuated units of consciousness get recycled back to the "server". Maybe our learning experiences/karma etc are recorded and taken with us to the next level of the game. If our soul/IOUC can't hack it in the "server", perhaps we return to this level for more game time.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 12:19PM

seamus wrote: »

Mutant z wrote: »

Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life.

Being pedantic, that's not what it means at all.

"Atheist" specifically relates to belief in God, or lack of one.

One does not need to believe in God to believe in the supernatural.

It just so happens that for most atheists in the western world, that lack of belief in a God was something that they had to realise for themselves through critical analysis and consideration.

The exact same kind of analysis consequently leads you to realise that all proposed supernatural phenomena are without sufficient evidence.

However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief. Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.

The whole God delusion? Is that not a bit arrogant?

Walter H Price · 02-05-2017 12:38PM

Theocracy and Spirituality are two very different things , for me personally I'm very anti Theocracy and Organised religion , i also have no sense of spirituality , i don't believe in God , a higher power , reincarnation or any sort of afterlife. But i know plenty of people who would disagree with organised religion and theocracy but do feel some greater sense of self or contentedness to the universe , I've never felt it , never understood it but i believe it is absolutely possible to be both atheist (opposed to theocracy) and spiritual.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 12:45PM

Walter H Price wrote: »

Theocracy and Spirituality are two very different things , for me personally I'm very anti Theocracy and Organised religion , i also have no sense of spirituality , i don't believe in God , a higher power , reincarnation or any sort of afterlife. But i know plenty of people who would disagree with organised religion and theocracy but do feel some greater sense of self or contentedness to the universe , I've never felt it , never understood it but i believe it is absolutely possible to be both atheist (opposed to theocracy) and spiritual.

Step 1. Take magic mushrooms
Step 2. Put on some classical music
Step 3. Lie down and stick a blindfold on

Or practice meditation/lucid dreaming. Considering you said you don't understand the connection your spiritually inclined friends feel, mate ignore the bit about the mushrooms

seamus · 02-05-2017 01:17PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

The whole God delusion? Is that not a bit arrogant?

I don't think so. Certainty in the existence of God would seem to qualify as delusion to me.

the_syco · 02-05-2017 01:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Some concepts of the after life don't make any sense though. If christians genuinely believed they would see their loved ones in heaven when they die, people would be offing themselves left right and centre.

I think it was mentioned in the film Ghost Rider that if you commit suicide, you goto hell, as it was a sin? But looking at the amount of things that are sins, I'd say heaven is completely empty.

seamus · 02-05-2017 01:41PM

the_syco wrote: »

I think it was mentioned in the film Ghost Rider that if you commit suicide, you goto hell, as it was a sin? But looking at the amount of things that are sins, I'd say heaven is completely empty.

Reminds me of a study from a US university where they theorised that up to 300 children were murdered in Germany (in the 18th or 19th century) by suicidal people (almost all women), who believed they'd found a loophole.

Murder a child, child goes to heaven (being an innocent), murderer is sentenced to death and begs forgiveness and absolution for their crime, priest must oblige, murderer is executed and goes to heaven, everyone wins.

German authorities removed the death penalty and the problem went away.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 02:28PM

seamus wrote: »

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

The whole God delusion? Is that not a bit arrogant?

I don't think so. Certainty in the existence of God would seem to qualify as delusion to me.

There's the arrogance again. People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding. I'm saying perhaps because I can't be too arrogant in my assumptions.

robindch · 02-05-2017 02:36PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

There's the arrogance again.

Indeed, it is - please cut out the ad-homs or I'll be reaching for my stack of cards.

thanking youze.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 02:44PM

robindch wrote: »

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

There's the arrogance again.

Indeed, it is - please cut out the ad-homs or I'll be reaching for my stack of cards.

thanking youze.

You're confusing ad-Homs with something else.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-05-2017 02:50PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding.

So too have some people who think Obama is actually a lizard alien in human costume, or those who believe they were abducted and probed anally (so often anally for some reason) by aliens as a prelude to global invasion.

It leaves one wondering if whatever experience they had is not beyond my understanding, but theirs. Certainly wondering it enough to warrant a demand of even a MODICUM of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to validate or lend any level of credence to the things they claim to believe which...... invariably....... they can not provide.

So experiences beyond understanding likely happen all the time, but I would suggest they are beyond the understanding of the person experiencing them........ before I would put them beyond the understanding of the person they are selling a related narrative to off the back of the experience.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 02:56PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding.

So too have some people who think Obama is actually a lizard alien in human costume, or those who believe they were abducted and probed anally (so often anally for some reason) by aliens as a prelude to global invasion.

It leaves one wondering if whatever experience they had is not beyond my understanding, but theirs. Certainly wondering it enough to warrant a demand of even a MODICUM of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to validate or lend any level of credence to the things they claim to believe which...... invariably....... they can not provide.

So experiences beyond understanding likely happen all the time, but I would suggest they are beyond the understanding of the person experiencing them........ before I would put them beyond the understanding of the person they are selling a related narrative to off the back of the experience.

More arrogance disguised as rationality. I understand that you have an emotional attachment to the concepts agreed upon with atheistic circles, but until you experience something yourself, I don't think it's wrong for me to call it arrogance if you automatically decide that the person experiencing something doesn't understand what they experienced.

robindch · 02-05-2017 03:03PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

You're confusing ad-Homs with something else.

And you're confusing a moderator instruction with something else.

Cut out the ad-homs or you will be carded.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 03:08PM

I'm not confusing your instructions with anything else at all, you just didn't like the reaction they got. It's probably because you know quite well that there was no ad-hom. If you genuinely believed that then perhaps you would have pointed them out by now.

AtomicHorror · 02-05-2017 03:11PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

I'm not confusing your instructions with anything else at all, you just didn't like the reaction they got. It's probably because you know quite well that there was no ad-hom. If you genuinely believed that then perhaps you would have pointed them out by now.

Calling someone arrogant is an ad-hom...

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 03:17PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

I'm not confusing your instructions with anything else at all, you just didn't like the reaction they got. It's probably because you know quite well that there was no ad-hom. If you genuinely believed that then perhaps you would have pointed them out by now.

Calling someone arrogant is an ad-hom...

I didn't call the poster arrogant.

AtomicHorror · 02-05-2017 03:25PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

I didn't call the poster arrogant.

Then what, the argument?

seamus · 02-05-2017 03:34PM

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding.

Perhaps.

Of course "qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding" is meaningless.

Another way of saying "they had a personal experience, which therefore means nobody else can understand it". Which doesn't make it any less delusional.

Delusion: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact

A personal experience is by definition one which is unprovable and therefore resistant to reason and fact.

Just to doorstep your argument; I don't state there definitely isn't a God. But anyone who claims certainty of the existence of one is by definition delusional since any God they posit is provably false.

Pat D. Almighty · 02-05-2017 03:42PM

seamus wrote: »

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding.

Perhaps.

Of course "qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding" is meaningless.

Another way of saying "they had a personal experience, which therefore means nobody else can understand it". Which doesn't make it any less delusional.

Your "another way of saying" just proves your arrogance. What I said does not compare to what you are suggesting. I never said nobody else can understand it. You're confusing can with could.

Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

Comments