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.
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?
monara wrote: » 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.
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?
monara wrote: » 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?
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?
monara wrote: » 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.
monara wrote: » 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?
monara wrote: » 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.
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?
monara wrote: » 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.
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
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?
monara wrote: » 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.
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.
monara wrote: » 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.
saabsaab wrote: » 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?
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.
smacl wrote: » 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.
monara wrote: » 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.
monara wrote: » 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.
monara wrote: » Design too is a problem. When I see evidence of design my mind does naturally wonder at its source.
monara wrote: » I would have thought that pattern seeking was a desirable trait of the human species.
monara wrote: » 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.
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.
saabsaab wrote: » What if you pray and it's answered all the time?
