Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife
- Thread starter psionl0
- Start date
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
I'll agree that one should, simply for epistemological reasons. But your argument is ignoring the fact that someone could believe in some natural mechanism by which consciousness and experience are maintained after the death of the brain. It doesn't have to be supported by a good argument, it doesn't have to be the least bit rational. Hell, it could be based in Scientology. But your argument depends on the assertion that all afterlife beliefs must be deistic, which is simply not true, so your argument fails.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Peter F Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy imagines such a scenario. Peoples' "souls", a copy of their consciousness created during their lifetimes by a natural process in some kind of higher dimension and then trapped there impotently, are finally able to return due to a freak combination of circumstances and proceed to "possess" the bodies of the living.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
As long as we have not discovered exactly how our consciousness functions (although some see that as a harder problem than others), the possibility that there is some function that is somehow independent of the physical brain cannot be ruled out. This could be individual "souls", or a collective astral being of some kind, or .... whatever you would want to imagine.
Hans
Try having this argument about something other than religion, and you'll see how idiotic it is:
Do you lack belief in the invisible monster under your bed or do you believe the invisible monster under your bed doesn't exist?
Theists believe that the invisible monster under their bed exists.
Agnostics believe that the invisible monster under their bed might exist.
Atheists look at the above two beliefs and are convinced that the world must have gone absolutely bonkers. It's not even about belief. We looked under the bed and poked around with a pencil, and nothing happened, so we shrugged and left the others to their madnesss.
If only they weren't trying to inflict their madness on us every once in a while, but here they are, trying to sell me monster repellent and telling me that the monster doesn't like what I get up to on my bed.
Based on what we know about the known forces and the energies involved in the world there simply isn't any gap left to shove in something perinormal never mind paranormal. However the brain works it works via the forces we now know about.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
... And usually with the addition that the monster is good and benevolent and only threatens to do nasty things to me in order to save me from myself.
Hans
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Let the scrolling begin.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Once again I seem to find myself mostly at least agreeing with Leumas.
Of course it's impossible to prove a god does not exist because we can't prove a negative. But it's trivially and obviously true that a god could prove itself if such a god existed and wanted to do so. I'm a dyed-in-the wool atheist and I really do believe that there is no god and that the universe exists without a purpose or a guiding principle, and so on and so forth. If a god, even the dread Jehovah himself, cared to, he could change my mind in a jiffy. Any god would know this, and know how to do it, and have us all, even the most adamant, singing halleluias to the rafters.
Of course it's impossible to prove a god does not exist because we can't prove a negative. But it's trivially and obviously true that a god could prove itself if such a god existed and wanted to do so. I'm a dyed-in-the wool atheist and I really do believe that there is no god and that the universe exists without a purpose or a guiding principle, and so on and so forth. If a god, even the dread Jehovah himself, cared to, he could change my mind in a jiffy. Any god would know this, and know how to do it, and have us all, even the most adamant, singing halleluias to the rafters.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I guess I am missing even the point of this split thread.
The original quoted text states that the afterlife does not exist.
How, in any way shape or form, does this lead to, therefore the person believes in a god or god?
How does it in any contradict atheism, regardless of which definition is used?
"I don't believe a god or gods exist, and I think there is no afterlife" is just as much atheist as "I don't believe a god or gods exist and I see no reason to think there is an afterlife" which is just as much atheist as "I believe god doesn't exist and I don't believe in an afterlife" which is just as much atheist as "I believe god doesn't exist but I have no idea about life after death"
None of these positions would be theist, as such they would be without theism, hence atheist.
What am I missing? The original quote asserts there is no afterlife. How is that theistic?
The original quoted text states that the afterlife does not exist.
How, in any way shape or form, does this lead to, therefore the person believes in a god or god?
How does it in any contradict atheism, regardless of which definition is used?
"I don't believe a god or gods exist, and I think there is no afterlife" is just as much atheist as "I don't believe a god or gods exist and I see no reason to think there is an afterlife" which is just as much atheist as "I believe god doesn't exist and I don't believe in an afterlife" which is just as much atheist as "I believe god doesn't exist but I have no idea about life after death"
None of these positions would be theist, as such they would be without theism, hence atheist.
What am I missing? The original quote asserts there is no afterlife. How is that theistic?
No, no and no again.
I have proved time and time again that Joe's dragon doesn't exist, he keeps it in his garage so I went in (sounds better than broke in during the middle of the night using a crowbar) and there wasn't a dragon there. I have proved Joe's dragon doesn't exist. (Albeit there was an outline of man like shape on one wall formed by scorch marks around the outline.)
Yes, the thread needs another split: Atheism and lack of belief and Does an afterlife require a deity?
But the latter idea is so simple to solve logically that I'm not sure anyone wants to bother.
Besides, psionl0 has been pretty clear what he's truly concerned about. Okay, he hasn't, but he has been pretty clear what he wants to voice vague discontent about, and that something is the definition of atheism.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
But that's not even the issue here, is it?
It is more like, "Does NO afterlife require a deity?"
Because Roger's original quote in the first post says, "After death there is nothing for us...just nothing"
That is not a claim there is an afterlife, that is an assertion there is NO afterlife.
So how does "no afterlife" = "not atheism"?
By what definition of atheism excludes "no afterlife"?
It's not even a starting point.
"If dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?"
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
You are missing the point. I'd like to explain it to you, but I can't. In fact I don't think there is one.
Hans
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
In a thread that has devolved to semantics, it's best to be precise. I knew you meant that you can't prove a universal negative.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Obviously, that agency or mechanism had to be created.
You can't prove anything doesn't exist.
Only with God is this brought up as an issue to suggest "Okay so maybe it exists."
This is exactly zero percent complicated.
The Godly Folks demand the discussion start already under the rules that "God must be discussed differently because I say so" and then bootstrap "Well lookit at that, we're discussing God differently, that just prove blah blah blah.
There is no God. There is no dragon in my garage. These are exactly equal statements that require exactly equal defense and validation. But only one of them (naturally and organically in actual real conversations) sets people off into a hissy fit.
Stop pretending you don't get this.
Only with God is this brought up as an issue to suggest "Okay so maybe it exists."
This is exactly zero percent complicated.
The Godly Folks demand the discussion start already under the rules that "God must be discussed differently because I say so" and then bootstrap "Well lookit at that, we're discussing God differently, that just prove blah blah blah.
There is no God. There is no dragon in my garage. These are exactly equal statements that require exactly equal defense and validation. But only one of them (naturally and organically in actual real conversations) sets people off into a hissy fit.
Stop pretending you don't get this.
Exactly!!!
Theists of course know jolly well they cannot prove their gods...
Which by any honest rational reasoning ought to be CASE CLOSED.
Nevertheless, to alleviate their Cognitive Dissonance they desperately resort to all sorts of special pleading and rationalizations and bare assertions in order to EQUIVOCATE the lack of proof for their gods with the lack of proof for the nonexistence of their sky daddy.
Of course, all the while being obliviously clueless about rationality or logic or proof or reality altogether.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
Which would make it a natural phenomenon, like erosion, or natural selection.
Right. If it's a conscious entity that creates an afterlife for human consciousness to continue existing, and it chooses who does and doesn't get to experience this extension of existence, we might as well call it God.
Yes, we get that belief in an afterlife that involved gods in any way would be a contradiction of atheism. But the point is that someone could believe in some sort of afterlife - a continuation of conscious experience - that doesn't involve gods in any way, and still be an atheist. I don't personally know any atheists who believe in such a thing, but said belief isn't excluded by an absence of belief in gods.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
It is an idiotic argument when applied to religion as well.
In spite of quoting dictionaries that offer several definitions of "atheist" and in spite of positively declaring that there are no gods, many in this forum will nevertheless insist that atheism means only a lack of belief and nothing else.
It's ridiculous!