Belief in the Afterlife

[ufology]

I wasn't responding to that. You asked me a question, someone else answered it nicely, and there wasn't anything more to add.



Sure thing, I'll do anything you say as soon as you apologize for insulting me, admit where you've been wrong, and actually start having a discussion, rather than arguing your own point of view for arguments sake.

Deal?

The comments that offended you were aimed at another poster altogether. I already mentioned that. So far as I'm concerned we're still having a civil discussion.

 

[Stray Cat]

The comments that offended you were aimed at another poster altogether. I already mentioned that. So far as I'm concerned we're still having a civil discussion.

And how has 'So far as you're concerned' worked out for you so far?

 

[ufology]

Then you're dead.

No large mammal brought back out of cryonic freezing has survived.

Cryonics is still the realm of science fiction.
The hypothesis that memories will be preserved in the frozen brain cells is still unproven.

Agreed ... but the context is obviously hypothetical. What about in that context?


NOTE: Then there are stories like this of people who have been revived after being presumed dead. What about them?

 

[RobRoy]

The comments that offended you were aimed at another poster altogether. I already mentioned that. So far as I'm concerned we're still having a civil discussion.

Allow me to jog your memory.

So again:

1 - Apologize for insulting me
2 - Admit where you've been wrong
3 - Actually start having a discussion, rather than arguing your own point of view for arguments sake​

Then we might start having a “civil discussion”.

Agreed ... but the context is obviously hypothetical. What about in that context?


NOTE: Then there are stories like this of people who have been revived after being presumed dead. What about them?

Still not an afterlife. Your use of this term, along with your use of a number of other terms, has constantly been an example of moving the goal posts in order to suit your arguments. That's not discussion, that's argumentation for its own sake. Afterlife is what we're talking about. Not continuing this life.

 

[EHocking]

Agreed ... but the context is obviously hypothetical. What about in that context?


NOTE: Then there are stories like this of people who have been revived after being presumed dead. What about them?

I answered that in the post you actually replied to ?!

Cryonics is still the realm of science fiction.
The hypothesis that memories will be preserved in the frozen brain cells is still unproven.

 

[ufology]

Still not an afterlife. Your use of this term, along with your use of a number of other terms, has constantly been an example of moving the goal posts in order to suit your arguments. That's not discussion, that's argumentation for its own sake. Afterlife is what we're talking about. Not continuing this life.

So if being dead, and then being alive again doesn't literally constitute life after death, then what context would you say is required for it to be considered to be "literally" that way ( which was the context I used at the time ), and because I've not changed that context, I've not changed the goalposts at all with respect to my original comment. But perhaps you would like to expand on the concept a bit ... Go ahead outline what else you think would be required to qualify for an afterlife ... in a literal sense or otherwise.

 

[Akhenaten]

And how has 'So far as you're concerned' worked out for you so far?

 

[RobRoy]

So if being dead, and then being alive again doesn't literally constitute life after death, then what context would you say is required for it to be considered to be "literally" that way ( which was the context I used at the time ), and because I've not changed that context, I've not changed the goalposts at all with respect to my original comment. But perhaps you would like to expand on the concept a bit ... Go ahead outline what else you think would be required to qualify for an afterlife ... in a literal sense or otherwise.

Allow me to jog your memory.

So again:

1 - Apologize for insulting me
2 - Admit where you've been wrong
3 - Actually start having a discussion, rather than arguing your own point of view for arguments sake​

Then we might start having a “civil discussion”.*


*Clearly, you missed that last part, so I've reposted.

 

[Stray Cat]

So if being dead, and then being alive again doesn't constitute life after death, then what context would you say is required for it to be considered to be "literally" that way ( which was the context I used at the time ), and because I've not changed that context, I've not changed the goalposts at all with respect to my original comment. But perhaps you would like to expand on the concept a bit ... Go ahead outline what else you think would be required to qualify for an afterlife ... in a literal sense or otherwise.

I'm not sure that "Afterlife" (as in the thread title) is exactly the same as life after death, though the two are quite interchangeable. The concept of "Afterlife" is that everyone thinks you're dead (all your life has gone), but actually you're off somewhere having an afterlife.

 

[RobRoy]

I'm not sure that "Afterlife" (as in the thread title) is the same as life after death. The concept of "Afterlife" is that everyone thinks you're dead (all your life has gone), but actually you're off somewhere having an afterlife.

It's practically (except for ufology) a universally accepted concept, although the particulars are what get tricky.

 

[ufology]

It's practically (except for ufology) a universally accepted concept, although the particulars are what get tricky.

Fair comment. So for an afterlife to qualify as genuine we need at least two conditions then:

1. To have been presumed dead ( clinically ) in this reality ( universe ).
2. To have been moved to some other location, presumably in some other reality analagous to Valhalla where we continue living.

Do these conditions seem to agree with you?

 

[Stray Cat]

It's practically (except for ufology) a universally accepted concept, although the particulars are what get tricky.

Yes, I realised I wasn't being precise enough and edited my post.
The distinction between "the Afterlife" and "life after death" is the perspective you look at it from.
Afterlife being from the perspective of those still alive.
Life after death being from the perspective of the one who's actually having a life after death.

But the main thrust is that the people left alive perceive the person to be dead even if they believe that person has gone somewhere else and there is a dead body for proof of death.

It certainly doesn't cover what ufology is trying to pass off as afterlife.

 

[Marduk]

Fair comment. So for an afterlife to qualify as genuine we need at least two conditions then:

1. To be dead in this reality2. To have been moved to some other location, presumably in some other reality analagous to Valhalla.

Do these conditions seem to agree with you?

ftfy

 

[RobRoy]

Fair comment. So for an afterlife to qualify as genuine we need at least two conditions then:

1. To have been presumed dead ( clinically ) in this reality ( universe ).
2. To have been moved to some other location, presumably in some other reality analagous to Valhalla.

Do these conditions seem to agree with you?

Allow me to jog your memory.

So again:

1 - Apologize for insulting me
2 - Admit where you've been wrong
3 - Actually start having a discussion, rather than arguing your own point of view for arguments sake​

Then we might start having a “civil discussion”.*


*Clearly, you missed that last part, twice now, so I've reposted again.

 

[RobRoy]

It certainly doesn't cover what ufology is trying to pass off as afterlife.

Sorry, I was actually agreeing with you. The term ufology is trying to pass off isn't the generally accepted term for "afterlife" which was, and remains, the thrust of the thread. We're on the same page. I was actually just lending additional support to your post.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry, I was actually agreeing with you. The term ufology is trying to pass off isn't the generally accepted term for "afterlife" which was, and remains, the thrust of the thread. We're on the same page. I was actually just lending additional support to your post.

Sorry for the confusion.

Everything in the world is good.
I too apologise for any confusion. I knew you weren't disagreeing. I was just clarifying my self further. I thought my post preceding that one was a little clumsy.

The addition of my comment about ufology was just because I knew he wouldn't see it*.



* Unless someone quoted it.

 

[RobRoy]

Everything in the world is good.
I too apologise for any confusion. I knew you weren't disagreeing. I was just clarifying my self further. I thought my post preceding that one was a little clumsy.

The addition of my comment about ufology was just because I knew he wouldn't see it*.



* Unless someone quoted it.

I quoted it, so likely it was seen.

 

[ufology]

ftfy

You haven't really "fixed" anything, just restated the position with a slightly different perspective. For the sake of discussion it amounts to about the same thing either way. So fine, let's say we have met those two conditions, are we in agreement that such would constitute a genuine afterlife ... or is there something else we are missing? For example is a mythological, supernatural or religious component a strict requirement? Or would some other reality that facilitates atheism like this one still be sufficient?

 

[Paul2]

One thing that he makes very clear though is that if any part of our consciousness survives the death of our physical body then it would be mentally very different to what we are today, as I said to UFOlogy above.

I missed that part: can you transcribe his words, or give the time-stamp where he says that?

 

[AdMan]

I missed that part: can you transcribe his words, or give the time-stamp where he says that?

I just watched it again. Harris didn't say that. How would he know, anyway?