nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

What do you believe happens when we die

sallyanne12

Complete the poll and let us know

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

Some (not me) have made the claim but not for something trivial but assistance with their life or someone close to them etc.

Peregrinus

Prayers are answered all the time. It's just that often the answer is "no".

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

Some (not me) have made the claim but not for something trivial but assistance with their life or someone close to them etc.

All very vague alas. But peoples lives change all the time in great numbers. People pray all the time in great numbers. That these two thing coincide sometimes is statistically uninteresting on it's own.

monara

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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!".

I understand your earlier and well expressed points. I wont comment on your reference to prayer as it is I think off the topic. But something always happens when someone prays but this brings us into the question of the nature of prayer. A good topic for discussion on the Theist Board and I may ask that it be explored there.

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.

I'm not sure I understand your point. How can we see patterns if they are not there?. I agree that seeking patterns is not at all mental impairment but is entirely natural to our species.

You mention science. Yes. Science is a methodology by which we negate that human tendency to see patterns where none exist.

Again I dont understand this point. I never understood the scientific method as seeking to negate non existent patterns; rather with examining reality to establish verifiable and testable truths and assembling them into a coherent and organised body of knowledge.

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".

I would look for the creationists but your description of them suggests I should look for them in a mental institution. I have no desire to seek out people who see non existent designs.

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.

Again is this what evolution does? Evolution of man or just creationists? And what life forms give the impression of design and may indeed be without design? Again we are going a little off topic and into the realm of epistemology and the reliability of our senses and reason to discern and establish the truth of our observed phenomena.

So go ask a creationist why they see design there. I sure don't. Nor, it would seem, did Darwin.

Again, I dont understand what you are looking at. We may very well agree that
the phenomena you observe has no design.

I dont understand your reference to Darwin in this context. Surely his great impact on evolutionary science owed much to his ability to see the development of purposeful adaptation (design) of species where none or few had noticed it before. But again we seem to have gone off topic.:)

sbsquarepants

My own view is the exact same thing happens when we die as when a hedgehog, a seagull or a daffodil dies - we decompose and get recycled into new organisms. And just like the recycling paper or aluminium or whatever, we retain no recollection or characteristics of any of the previous things we've been.

After all our basic building blocks have been forged inside stars and scattered around the universe by explosions that make hiroshima look like those throwing snap things you give kiddies at halloween.

We're made of stuff older than the planet we inhabit but yet i don't remember any of my atoms being fused and it really seems like that would sting enough to leave an imprint, i don't remember the dinousaurs and they also seem very memorable. Although that being said, these events were a long time ago and i also can't really remember what i had for dinner last Wednesday, so read into that what you will.

Anyway, long story short - we get recycled!

El_Duderino 09

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 think the question of evidence is really important no matter what we're discussing. The fact that nobody has evidence for an afterlife is a really crucial point and can't be swept ubder the rug as "pointless". It's only pointless to ask fir evidence because the answer is always to the effect that there isn't any evidence for an afterlife. But that says a lot about the issue at hand.

Why would anyone believe in something in the complete lack of evidence for it? If there's no evidence for an idea, then discard it until some evidence comes along. It's the only sensible course of action.

monara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My own view is the exact same thing happens when we die as when a hedgehog, a seagull or a daffodil dies - we decompose and get recycled into new organisms. And just like the recycling paper or aluminium or whatever, we retain no recollection or characteristics of any of the previous things we've been.

After all our basic building blocks have been forged inside stars and scattered around the universe by explosions that make hiroshima look like those throwing snap things you give kiddies at halloween.

We're made of stuff older than the planet we inhabit but yet i don't remember any of my atoms being fused and it really seems like that would sting enough to leave an imprint, i don't remember the dinousaurs and they also seem very memorable. Although that being said, these events were a long time ago and i also can't really remember what i had for dinner last Wednesday, so read into that what you will.

Anyway, long story short - we get recycled!

I agree with much of what you say. And I understand from physicists that the elements from which our bodies are composed began formation at the Big Bang, 16 billion years ago or so; so we were a long time coming. And physicists assure me that if we were reduced to these elements only, we would be microscopic particles invisible to the naked eye; and that the particles of all the people on earth would fit into a cube the size of a cube of sugar. I am not a physicist but take it for what its worth.

And yes I too consider our bodies will go for recycling. But our spirit part? There is the rub!:)

monara

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I

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

I agree with your reasoning. There can be no evidence of what happens after death which would satisfy an evidential realist. Death marks the end point of our material existence and no material evidence can be produced to support our after death state if any. The argument could be pursued in the Theist section using arguments acceptable to theists.

Nothingness as a concept cannot by definition be established either by reference to natural evidence. I myself have said earlier that I am unable to imagine nothingness but that does not mean nothingness cannot exist. Though if we could prove that nothingness cannot exist, it would suggest to me that, whatever happens after death, we would not be able to fade into nothingness or to return to the state we were in before birth, if indeed we could be sure we were nothing before birth. Again, we can produce no evidence one way or the other.:)

smacl

monara wrote: »

And yes I too consider our bodies will go for recycling. But our spirit part? There is the rub!:)

If I create a very intricate ice sculpture and watch it melt in the sun, where has that ice sculpture gone? That it was something I may have really wanted to keep isn't going to bring it back. I'd be of the opinion that the notion of a human consciousness that can exist outside of the substrate of the human brain is a fantasy. A highly desirable fantasy that people are drawn to believe, but a fantasy nonetheless. Fear of death and loss of a loved one are without a doubt very difficult to deal with. To my mind organised religion exploits the fearful and vulnerable for its own end in this regard. Promising life eternal for those who fall in line and eternal damnation for those who don't where we have no reason to believe these promises are anything other than empty.

smacl

monara wrote: »

Nothingness as a concept cannot by definition be established either by reference to natural evidence. I myself have said earlier that I am unable to imagine nothingness but that does not mean nothingness cannot exist. Though if we could prove that nothingness cannot exist, it would suggest to me that, whatever happens after death, we would not be able to fade into nothingness or to return to the state we were in before birth, if indeed we could be sure we were nothing before birth. Again, we can produce no evidence one way or the other.:)

It surprises me that you can't imagine nothingness as human consciousness is not continuous from birth to death. It is regularly punctuated by periods where we are entirely oblivious, whether dreamless sleep, under anesthesia or a sufficiently hard knock to the head. On the basis you have been oblivious at some point before in your adult life how hard is it to imagine that that could not be a permanent state on death? A bit bleak for sure, but not difficult to imagine.

saabsaab

smacl wrote: »

It surprises me that you can't imagine nothingness as human consciousness is not continuous from birth to death. It is regularly punctuated by periods where we are entirely oblivious, whether dreamless sleep, under anesthesia or a sufficiently hard knock to the head. On the basis you have been oblivious at some point before in your adult life how hard is it to imagine that that could not be a permanent state on death? A bit bleak for sure, but not difficult to imagine.

Yes I don't think it's difficult to imagine nothingness. The fact that something other than nothingness exists at all is the real puzzler.

Bannasidhe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the question of evidence is really important no matter what we're discussing. The fact that nobody has evidence for an afterlife is a really crucial point and can't be swept ubder the rug as "pointless". It's only pointless to ask fir evidence because the answer is always to the effect that there isn't any evidence for an afterlife. But that says a lot about the issue at hand.

Why would anyone believe in something in the complete lack of evidence for it? If there's no evidence for an idea, then discard it until some evidence comes along. It's the only sensible course of action.

It is pointless in this context because as of yet there is zero evidence for any belief.
We all know this.
Demanding evidence from a poster here as to what happens after death is disingenuous because there is no evidence. And those demanding it be supplied are very aware of this.

However, my main point was that those who state there is absolutely an afterlife are being subjected to demands for evidence while those who equally categorically state there is nothing are getting off uninterrogated.

Double standards no?

nozzferrahhtoo

Your post was an unreadable mess I am afraid. Between your formatting and your decision to ignore things as being off topic (not your call) there is not much left to reply to. Perhaps you can contact a moderator or someone for instruction on how to use the QUOTE function correctly? I will pick out what I can from the rubble:

monara wrote: »

How can we see patterns if they are not there?.

I gave you examples of how this can happen. You decided to declare them off topic and not acknowledge them. But to repeat what you ignored: We tend to ignore the majority of data that does not fit a pattern and notice only what we imagine does fit the pattern. And hence see a pattern that is not there. This is how people can think prayer works, that taxi drivers are bad, or that they are psychic.

It is called confirmation bias. We see data that fits our pre-conceived notion of a pattern and simple "miss" the data that does not. Our brain is actually evolved to do this. We can imagine a pattern from a small amount of data. We do not need to see the entire leopard behind a tree to discern there is a lepord there. We see a bit of fur and a few spots and our brain fills in the blanks.

And, for the same reason as "agency detection" our brain has evolved towards false positives rather than false negatives too, given that a false negative gets you killed when a false positive usually would not.

monara wrote: »

Again I dont understand this point. I never understood the scientific method as seeking to negate non existent patterns

Then you have only half understood science it would seem. One great field to use as an example here is epidemiology. Or medical trials on drugs. This is an example of good science. Here we might think a medicine or treatment works because we think we have seen patterns that suggest it to be so. But when we do actual trials and science on it, we often find it does nothing or.... in some cases.... is actually making things worse!

Thinking there are patterns there which are not, and confirmation bias, are two things the methodology of science is designed to negate.

monara wrote: »

I would look for the creationists but your description of them suggests I should look for them in a mental institution.

That is your conclusions. Nothing I have said however suggests that, or suggests I think that. You have made this bit up entirely on your own without anything from me.

monara wrote: »

And what life forms give the impression of design and may indeed be without design?

Much flora and fauna are so suited to their "task" or environment or life process that people like creationists use it as evidence they must have been designed for purpose. I do not see the world as they do but I have enough empathy and sympathy for their way of thinking that I can understand it without declaring they are fit for a mental institution.

When some life cycle, or some process, or some behaviour in the animal or floral kingdoms seems so incredibly contrived.... then the impression that it was intentionally designed that way does not suggest mental illness on the part of an observer like for example William Paley. At best it simply suggests mental laziness.

It was you who brought Darwin up though, not me. So strange for you to tell me you do not understand my reference to him when it was not me who made one.

monara wrote: »

And yes I too consider our bodies will go for recycling. But our spirit part? There is the rub!:)

For it to be a "Rub" you would need to establish we do have some kind of "spirit part" in the first place. The issue is when people wonder where it "goes" no one has established it was "there" in the first place anyway. It is like wondering where the "Light part" of a candle "goes" when the candle stops burning. The light does not "go" anywhere. Rather it was an emergent attribute of the burning process and is simply not being produced any more.

So this thing you call "spirit" could be similar. It might not actually be "there" in any meaningful sense but is rather just something emergent and produced by the human processes and simply stops being produced when those processes stop.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

Yes I don't think it's difficult to imagine nothingness. The fact that something other than nothingness exists at all is the real puzzler.

Only if you assume the "nothingness" is the default and the "somethingness" therefore needs to be explained or puzzled out.

I do not share that assumption. I see no reason to assume either. It is equally likely to me that "somethingness" is the default and it would be "nothingness" that would be weird or puzzling.

That one is difficult to imagine and the other not difficult to imagine says precisely nothing about the question however. It is irrelevant entirely. What our brains are good at, or bad at, conceiving places no constraints on reality.

sbsquarepants

monara wrote: »

And yes I too consider our bodies will go for recycling. But our spirit part? There is the rub!:)

The spirit part is indeed the rub. I personally don't subscribe to the notion of a spirit or a soul. I won't even pretend to have even any concrete proof of what consciousness is or where it comes from, but if i had to guess (which i do:D) i'd guess that it is an emergent property stemming from complexity in brains, a by product of raw computational power.

I think the acid test for this will be if we ever create a conscious AI (which will then likely go on to kill us all, but that's a different argument). The day that a conscious machine exists will be the final nail in the coffin of the human soul i think.

And as such - when the power goes out, the "spirit" just stops working.

El_Duderino 09

monara wrote: »

...And yes I too consider our bodies will go for recycling. But our spirit part? There is the rub!:)

Without evidence for the spirit or the spirit living on, then there's no rub. Just a wish.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think the acid test for this will be if we ever create a conscious AI (which will then likely go on to kill us all, but that's a different argument). The day that a conscious machine exists will be the final nail in the coffin of the human soul i think.

Interestingly, it will also have the potential to be persistent, scalable, replicable and heavily interconnected. I'd love to see what this will look like though I rather doubt man will make God in his own image

While I'm dubious about many aspects of transhumanism I could see a possible future of expanded intelligent consciousness created by humanity that supersedes us.

nozzferrahhtoo

On the down side you will have to listen to me re-hash all my sentience based "morality and rights" arguments.... from the abortion debates.... all over again as I argue for AI rights and well being

Apologies in advance for this, should the day come.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

While I'm dubious about many aspects of transhumanism I could see a possible future of expanded intelligent consciousness created by humanity that supersedes us.

Transhumanism is fascinating, but I'm very much on the fence as to it's merits - i think it's coming one way or the other, it's inevitable in all probability. There's even a case to be argued that it's already here, with artificial body parts etc being quite common now. What concerns me is that in the entirety of human history we have used any advanced technology for nefarious ends and i really can't see AI, or any human / machine hybrids being used any differently. If Ug figured how to nap a nice sharp tip for his spear on Monday, odds are he used it to stab Og on Tuesday and steal his dinner. The first people to be getting these "upgrades" en masse will almost certainly be soldiers.

I think there is a very real chance we will loose control of any really advanced AI either through a mistake or by some form of hacking / outside interference and then all bets are off. Worse again if it somehow manages to seize control of itself and lock us out

In time it has limitless potential to make things better or to make things worse. Will it be a star trek style paradise on earth or will it be more a dystopian matrix or genocidal terminator themed soirée? Only time will tell :eek::eek:

monara

smacl wrote: »

It surprises me that you can't imagine nothingness as human consciousness is not continuous from birth to death. It is regularly punctuated by periods where we are entirely oblivious, whether dreamless sleep, under anesthesia or a sufficiently hard knock to the head. On the basis you have been oblivious at some point before in your adult life how hard is it to imagine that that could not be a permanent state on death? A bit bleak for sure, but not difficult to imagine.

I can't imagine nothingness. I have been oblivious and sleep soundly every night but I can't imagine nothingness; or infinity or eternity for that matter. Even a simple statement like "nothing comes from nothing" leaves me perplexed.:)

monara

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Without evidence for the spirit or the spirit living on, then there's no rub. Just a wish.

No, not a wish. Only a fool would want to live forever based on the evidence of the natural world. A continuation of this world and its angst and anguish would hardly be anyones wish.:)

El_Duderino 09

monara wrote: »

I can't imagine nothingness. I have been oblivious and sleep soundly every night but I can't imagine nothingness; or infinity or eternity for that matter. Even a simple statement like "nothing comes from nothing" leaves me perplexed.:)

Does your idea of the soul live on for ever?

monara

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think the acid test for this will be if we ever create a conscious AI (which will then likely go on to kill us all, but that's a different argument). The day that a conscious machine exists will be the final nail in the coffin of the human soul i think.

And as such - when the power goes out, the "spirit" just stops working.

The day we ever create anything is the day we become God. But would we then be conscious of our own existence? And how upsetting would it be for us if some of those pesky humans started looking for material proofs of our existence. It would spoil our party. No?

monara

Yes.

monara

If man is to create God what image could he use if not that of himself?

El_Duderino 09

monara wrote: »

Yes.

Is this in response to my question about whether your idea of the soul lives on for ever?

El_Duderino 09

monara wrote: »

If man is to create God what image could he use if not that of himself?

Lots of people create Gods in their own image. That's what Christians do. But other people create Gods who are different. Pantheists, for example, didn't create their God in their own image. They don't anthropomorphisr their God at all.

Making a god in your own image isn't the only way to make a god.

sbsquarepants

monara wrote: »

If man is to create God what image could he use if not that of himself?

I take it so, that you've never heard of the flying spaghetti monster (sauce be upon Him)

monara

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does your idea of the soul live on for ever?

Yes. My earlier response seemed to develop a mind of its own:)

monara

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lots of people create Gods in their own image. That's what Christians do. But other people create Gods who are different. Pantheists, for example, didn't create their God in their own image. They don't anthropomorphisr their God at all.

Making a god in your own image isn't the only way to make a god.

ok. We could get together on this. I rather like the idea of creating a god in my own image.:)