What Happens After I Die?

[Fnord]

Faith in the one true God comes from reading the scriptures so you need to try it yourself.

Tried it, and came away with the impression that the people that wrote the Bible were either ignorant, schizophrenic, or had an agenda to create a slave-labor class through religious indoctrination.

No other book has stood the test of time...

And what would be the parameters of that test? if it is mere endurance, then Hammurabi's Code of Law has stood an even longer test than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the misogynistic testimonies of Paul (ne: "Saul of Tarsus") and Peter (a.k.a., "Cephas").

... and all the hundreds of prophecies of Jesus were absolutely fullfilled...

Depending on how far you are willing to stretch the truth to fit the concept.

... except of course for his return to earth which is getting closer each day.

The same old promise, with the same old rationalization.

Jesus is no myth...

Evidence, Please?

... my friend...

Try again.

... that's why we know without a doubt...

So you claim that "X is real, and that's why we know it is". This is an error of tautology. We only know that something is real when it or its effects can be measured, and that its existence does not violate any physical law or reasonable extrapolation thereof.

... it's God's word...

Evidence, Please?

... and the spirit brings truth into our hearts and changes our lives.

Yet Christians are as deceitful and stubborn as any other people.

God really did send his son to earth to redeem what was lost, it's the absolute truth.

Evidence, Please?

And before you claim that God is real because the Bible tells us so, keep in mind that you will be expected to prove the infallibility of the Bible itself. If it fails on even one point, then it can not be deemed 'infallible'. And if we know that it fails on even one point, then it may be safe to assume that it also fails on those points for which there is no supporting physical evidence.

Also, the concept expressed by the statement "I believe that it is true, therefor it must be true" is called the "Appeal to Faith" fallacy (among other things); and as we all know, Faith Proves Nothing.

 

[Paulhoff]

Faith in the one true God comes.........

Bottom line KK, is that if you guys didn't have fear to work with, you would have nothing.

Paul

 

[Minarvia]

I hope to help some other people live thru my organ donation.

The rest of me will decay...........

 

[Glite]

This is where the non-believer will tell you that they "do not need to believe in sky fairies and the afterlife to enjoy life and find meaning in it."

Sorry for not quoting your whole post.

But, can I not agree with this statement, and take some time to ponder my own existence, life, the universe and everything...and consider beyond what is testable, detectable and repeatable?

No, I am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor am I even a beliver in anything specific. But to those claiming there is not an afterlife, in an absolute manner, prove it.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Sorry for not quoting your whole post.

But, can I not agree with this statement, and take some time to ponder my own existence, life, the universe and everything...and consider beyond what is testable, detectable and repeatable?

No, I am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor am I even a beliver in anything specific. But to those claiming there is not an afterlife, in an absolute manner, prove it.

It is difficult or impossible to disprove the existence of something. The current level of evidence suggests if there is an afterlife it has no meamingful impact on the current life. It is perfectly valid to test the assertion there is no after life, but accepting something does not exist when no evidence supports its existence is also a valid stance to take.

The non-believers do not need an afterlife to enjoy this one. However the skeptics would be interested if evidence appropriate to the claim was discovered to alter our view of the universe. Discovering something beyond what is currently proven to exist is not exactly a shattering prospect when you accept that evidence can suggest a different assertion than the currently trusted models.

 

[Paulhoff]

No, I am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor am I even a beliver in anything specific. But to those claiming there is not an afterlife, in an absolute manner, prove it.

So, we have to prove everything is not true that some people and/or someone believes in.

I think that is.......

No.

The burden of proof is on the one saying something is.

Paul

 

[Mister Agenda]

Sorry for not quoting your whole post.

But, can I not agree with this statement, and take some time to ponder my own existence, life, the universe and everything...and consider beyond what is testable, detectable and repeatable?

No, I am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor am I even a beliver in anything specific. But to those claiming there is not an afterlife, in an absolute manner, prove it.

I'm not claiming there's no afterlife. I'm claiming there's no good reason/credible evidence to believe there is one. People's NDE's are clearly biased by their culture, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that these experiences are dreams or hallucinations. There is no mechanism known to science that would allow an afterlife under current and past circumstances. People are afraid of death so there is a strong motivation to seek comfort in soothing stories of post-death existence, which means there is a motivation to make up the idea of an afterlife and cling to it whether it is supported by evidence or not.

It's reasonable to conclude there is no afterlife, given the lack of evidence to support the notion, the fact that it is in contradiction to what we know about physical law, and the motivation to believe despite lack of evidence. My conclusion is only absolute in the sense that there is absolutely no evidence-based reason to believe. It is not absolute in the sense that if credible evidence were to come along I would not evaluate it and change my mind if the evidence warranted it. I absolutely would. I've changed my mind about a number of things once I discovered evidence that I was mistaken. I doubt you'll find a skeptic here whose position on the matter is substantially different.

No one is claiming absolute knowledge, merely that there is no sound premise from which the afterlife follows. If that is not sufficient reason for you to not to believe in the idea, that's fine, but without logic or evidence on your side, your belief is not rational.

 

[readme.txt]

No, I am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor am I even a beliver in anything specific. But to those claiming there is not an afterlife, in an absolute manner, prove it.

Prove there's nothing before life.

Prove invisible unicorns don't exist.

Prove there's nothing "outside" the known universe.

 

[Fnord]

... to those claiming there is not an afterlife, in an absolute manner, prove it.

Argument From Ignorance.

This is a logical fallacy in which it is assumed or claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. Better luck next time, perhaps.

If you claim that there is an 'Afterlife' then it is up to you to prove it -- the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim for a theory to be valid, or for something to exist.

If you are going to cite Bible passages, then you must first provide evidence that the Bible is both complete and without errors. If I can provide even one instance where the Bible is in error, or that its accuracy is in doubt, then this implies doubt for any claim that is made in the Bible that is not supported outside the Bible.

And please don't expect anyone to take your word (or that of the Bible) "on faith". For as we all know...

Faith Proves Nothing.​

 

[Glite]

I don't believe in anything. I accept that which is testable, demonstrable, and repeatable. Anything less is not worth my consideration.

This was the quote that origionally bothered me.
This person would not investigate concepts not fitting in a rigid criteria. Period.
I find it far too close minded.
And for the record, I am usually the first one in the room to call BS on wooish ideas.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

This was the quote that origionally bothered me.
This person would not investigate concepts not fitting in a rigid criteria. Period.
I find it far too close minded.
And for the record, I am usually the first one in the room to call BS on wooish ideas.

How do you investigate that which is neither testable, demonstrable or repeatable? How is this criteria too close minded?

 

[kerikiwi]

This was the quote that origionally bothered me.
This person would not investigate concepts not fitting in a rigid criteria. Period.
I find it far too close minded.
And for the record, I am usually the first one in the room to call BS on wooish ideas.

How do you decide something is BS if it is not testable, demonstarble and repeatable?

 

[Fnord]

This was the quote that origionally bothered me.
This person would not investigate concepts not fitting in a rigid criteria. Period.
I find it far too close minded.
And for the record, I am usually the first one in the room to call BS on wooish ideas.

.
How do you perform a Biblical exigesis when your base data is not testable, demonstrable or repeatable? When does blind faith that excludes all contrary evidence stop being an indicator of a closed mind?

 

[Glite]

I find the statement "Anything less is not worth my consideration" lacks imagination.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I find the statement "Anything less is not worth my consideration" lacks imagination.

It is unimaginative to focus cognitive efforts towards concepts that are testable, demonstrable and repeatable? So Einstein was unimaginative because he focused his efforts towards developing relativity instead of Christian Apologetics?

 

[Dr. Keith]

The Surgeon General's warning message on every carton of cigarettes.

Another fun book on this topic: Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives

I'm only a quarter of the way into it and it is a lot of fun so far.

 

[Fnord]

I find that ignoring common questions in favor of rote dogma and veiled Ad Hominem attacks indicates a lack of imagination.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I find the statement "Anything less is not worth my consideration" lacks imagination.

And what the does "imagination" have anything to do with this?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

This was the quote that origionally bothered me.

And what makes you think I care about what bothers you?

This person would not investigate concepts not fitting in a rigid criteria. Period.

How the do you propose we investigate anything without being able to prove it? Ouija board? Diving rod? The mental masturbation so common to believers of newage.

I find it far too close minded.

And I find you gullible.

And for the record, I am usually the first one in the room to call BS on wooish ideas.

I'm officially calling bs here. This "I'm a skeptic, but..." crap is typical woo rhetoric.

 

[mike3]

Evidence, Please?

If you're referring to the earlier "Not even black" comment, the poster was referring to what the dead person senses. "Not even black" means that the dead person perceives nothing -- not even the "blackness" of nothing.

And also no regret for having lived their life wrong...