• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Belief in the Afterlife

Speaking as a skeptic, show me the proof of an afterlife and I will believe.
 
Stray Cat said:
I'm fairly sure beastiality is frowned upon in the afterlife... even in the Mormons version of it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're on your own on your own world a pet or two would be a great comfort.
 
Last edited:
Krikkiter said:
ufology's stance is a classic example of why people believe in an afterlife.

I've had conversations in the past with people whom I thought were fairly logical thinking individuals that have been essentially no different than the conversations that have been taking place in this thread.

The topic of an afterlife comes up and the statement is made: "I think some part of us lives on after we die, like, you know, our soul or something." So I ask the question: "What evidence is there?" After that out come the logical fallacies.

ufology started out with some science fictional musings but when asked to provide evidence he resorted to logical fallacies because he felt like he had to defend his musings otherwise he'd lose face. I'm not even sure he believes what he's saying but out of pride he feels like he has to defend his position.
Click to expand...


More proclamations and misrepresentations. I have not said I believe in an afterlife and I am not religious. Nor do I believe in new ageism or the supernatural. So I am by no means a "classical example" of a believer. My initial statement was that I think an afterlife is possible based on a certain theory regarding what constitutes our reality, and I gave an example of how the concept is taken seriously by some scientific minds. Any suggestion of logical fallacy is purely a misinterpretation. For example, my example was not an appeal to authority as was claimed because I never made the appeal that because the scientist in my example takes it seriously it must be true. I only made the claim it is taken seriously ... which obviously it is ( if you bothered to check the links I posted ) ... well I suppose except for that last one which was for humor ... I thought at least one person here would find it funny enough to lighten the mood.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Donny Osmond World. What a thought.
Click to expand...

Great singing though.

One life is enough for me. Eternity would be a crashing bore.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to give it a shot.

ufology said:
More proclamations and misrepresentations. I have not said I believe in an afterlife and I am not religious. Nor do I believe in new ageism or the supernatural. So I am by no means a "classical example" of a believer.
Click to expand...

These "proclamations and misrepresentations" about you were never made. The parallel was drawn between your arguments and those of believers. Nothing more.

ufology said:
For example, my example was not an appeal to authority as was claimed because I never made the appeal that because the scientist in my example takes it seriously it must be true. I only made the claim it is taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Gah!! This IS the appeal to authority. You cite no references just "a scientist". Not who the scientist is, not what his/her actual theories are, no link to his/her papers. You just make this claim, with no evidence to support it, as an appeal to authority for why we should listen to what you have to say. Without any support whatsoever, this is a fallacious argument! Cite your source, link to some articles, hell, provide a name and you start removing the fallacy.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
More proclamations and misrepresentations. I have not said I believe in an afterlife and I am not religious. Nor do I believe in new ageism or the supernatural. So I am by no means a "classical example" of a believer. My initial statement was that I think an afterlife is possible based on a certain theory regarding what constitutes our reality, and I gave an example of how the concept is taken seriously by some scientific minds. Any suggestion of logical fallacy is purely a misinterpretation. For example, my example was not an appeal to authority as was claimed because I never made the appeal that because the scientist in my example takes it seriously it must be true. I only made the claim it is taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Ok, except for the highlighted part.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A certain idea would be nearer the mark.
 
Stray Cat said:
An "ill thought out fantasy" would hit the bullseye (as long as it didn't get stuck in the bullpoo surrounding it).
Click to expand...

See, that's not fair. A computational model could provide for a kind of continuation of life, but not an afterlife. The idea is sound enough. The execution, on the other hand, is not. Nor is the way in which ufology is trying to pretend a computational model actually works.
 
ufology said:
More proclamations and misrepresentations. I have not said I believe in an afterlife and I am not religious. Nor do I believe in new ageism or the supernatural. So I am by no means a "classical example" of a believer. My initial statement was that I think an afterlife is possible based on a certain theory regarding what constitutes our reality, and I gave an example of how the concept is taken seriously by some scientific minds. Any suggestion of logical fallacy is purely a misinterpretation. For example, my example was not an appeal to authority as was claimed because I never made the appeal that because the scientist in my example takes it seriously it must be true. I only made the claim it is taken seriously ... which obviously it is ( if you bothered to check the links I posted ) ... well I suppose except for that last one which was for humor ... I thought at least one person here would find it funny enough to lighten the mood.
Click to expand...


I think you missed the point of my analogy and I think you also missed my attempt to gently steer your postings back on topic.

Yes I did look at the links you posted and I found them interesting but I didn't see any supporting evidence and your links constituted an appeal to authority because of that.

I think my analogy is correct because you've asked yourself the question: Why do I believe an afterlife is possible? But then you gave up after that and instead of looking for evidence, started employing logical fallacies to defend a position you hadn't given enough thought to in the first place. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I have had with people (people that tell me that they're not religious too!) regarding an afterlife.

I'm also wondering what you mean when you say "I have not said I believe in an afterlife" and "... I think an afterlife is possible ..."
 
ufology said:
Then you can explain how I'm sure. Please do.
Click to expand...

Sure, here you go.

RobRoy said:
<sigh>

There are two different concepts here, and you're not understanding them. It's starting to look like you're doing that on purpose, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The concepts are:

1 - A legitimate appeal to authority.
2 - A fallacious appeal to authority.​

You cited the Wikipedia definition for the legitimate appeal to authority, which is perfectly, well, legitimate, as the name implies. Saying that Einstein believed in relativity, and therefore we should as well is a legitimate appeal of authority. The fallacious appeal to authority fails, usually because it misapplies the authority in question. Saying that Einstein believed in God is a fallacious appeal to authority. Einstein was a physicist, not a theologian or philosopher, so his opinion on this matter, while interesting, is a misuse of his name as an authority.
Click to expand...
 
Krikkiter said:
I think you missed the point of my analogy and I think you also missed my attempt to gently steer your postings back on topic.

Yes I did look at the links you posted and I found them interesting but I didn't see any supporting evidence and your links constituted an appeal to authority because of that.

I think my analogy is correct because you've asked yourself the question: Why do I believe an afterlife is possible? But then you gave up after that and instead of looking for evidence, started employing logical fallacies to defend a position you hadn't given enough thought to in the first place. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I have had with people (people that tell me that they're not religious too!) regarding an afterlife.

I'm also wondering what you mean when you say "I have not said I believe in an afterlife" and "... I think an afterlife is possible ..."
Click to expand...


Still more unsupported proclamations above. I never, "started employing logical fallacies". I was asked to look at video and I gave my comments on how the logic used in the video for one hypothetical example ( ectoplasm and software run on the brain ) doesn't apply to why I think an afterlife is possible, which is because a computational model ( of the universe ) could facilitate an afterlife. Perhaps you need to review. Or if you think the computational model itself has some logical fallacies associated with it, then you still need to illustrate them. So far I've seen nothing. Lastly, when I say something is possible, what I am saying is that I can see no reason why it couldn't be the case, not that I believe it is the case. I hope that clarifies.
 
Last edited:
RobRoy said:
See, that's not fair. A computational model could provide for a kind of continuation of life, but not an afterlife. The idea is sound enough. The execution, on the other hand, is not. Nor is the way in which ufology is trying to pretend a computational model actually works.
Click to expand...
I was more thinking about the way it was represented by it's proponent than the concept itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom