• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do you believe there is some form of self-conscious life after death?

Do you believe there is some form of self-conscious life after death?

  • Total voters
    177
As much as I would want it to be so, I also voted no. My desires and wishes have no effect on reality (sadly).
 
No. I'd like someone to provide at least a model of how a "soul" would work, other than "Well, it's spiritual, see...."
How does something non-physical retain memory and consciousness and have sensory input?

Our bodies devote about 25% of all resources to keeping our brain functioning. How does a "soul" do all that with no resources whatever?
 
Life after death?

Whatever do you mean?

Life has been going on (in compliment with death) for a long time.

Life and death exist. No doubt.

Now, if you mean YOUR life, well that one is up for consideration and speculation. Evidence would be cool.

There is an end to life's story, but only if the story is only all about YOU.

(It's not.)
 
Well, in fairness, I think there is a lot of self-conscious life after death.

Just not, ya know, for the person that died.
 
Malbec said:
One hundred per cent yes . I suspect that those who have yet to embrace this are young souls who have " all ahead of them " in terms of spiritual enlightenment .
Click to expand...

Or perhaps "all behind them" in terms of intellectual enlightenment. You won't persuade skeptics by continually insinuating they are somehow stunted in some aspect of their grown compared to you. That's just narcissism.
 
JayUtah said:
Or perhaps "all behind them" in terms of intellectual enlightenment. You won't persuade skeptics by continually insinuating they are somehow stunted in some aspect of their grown compared to you. That's just narcissism.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure if it's narcissism or a cop-out or just Dunning-Kruger, to be honest. I mean, ever notice how the ones supposedly the most enlightened actually have the least to offer?

I mean actually the ordinary theologian or just guy on the street will try to make SOME kind of argument, if pressed. I mean, Anselm came up with the argument from necessity, Aquinas came up with a whole book's worth of arguments for god, etc. They're broken arguments invariably, but at least they tried.

But when the "because I'm enlightened" or "because you're not enlightened enough to understand" arguments enter the scene, it's just about meaning that the fellow doesn't even have that to offer. It's actually one grade dumber than even the related Sophisticated Theology BS, because that one at least asserts that a good argument exists SOMEWHERE, that would make sense to a logical person. They don't say (or know) where, nor what it is, but at least they believe there is. Arguments from enlightenment on the other hand, don't even assert that.

And at that, has anyone noticed that enlightenment invariably brings at best some worthless truisms, and at worst nothing usable?

I mean, take the statement our englightened friend here brought us: everyone will get to believe, at some point between here and infinity. Not only it's not making any usable (or not) prediction for any tangible point in time, but it's not useful for anything else either even IF it came to pass, some trillions of years into the future. I mean, at one point (and no, I don't mean the middle ages) everyone believed that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean it was true. And thus it's doing nothing to actually justify that belief or anything.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
I'm not even sure if it's narcissism or a cop-out or just Dunning-Kruger, to be honest.
Click to expand...

The Dunning-Kruger effect is, as I understand it, considered a form, manifestation, or symptom of narcissism, so we're probably in agreement.

I mean, ever notice how the ones supposedly the most enlightened actually have the least to offer?
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why they have to define a different mode of thinking in which they are presumably superior. Jabba does this. Malbec alludes to it. Practically every school of thought that sets itself against mainstream science does so with the presumption that a more intuitive form of thought exists, is superior to scientific methodology at solving the same kinds of problems, and is an unlearnable property of the individual proposing it.

Arguments from enlightenment on the other hand, don't even assert that.

And at that, has anyone noticed that enlightenment invariably brings at best some worthless truisms, and at worst nothing usable?
Click to expand...

That's what makes them special pleading. Pleading ceases to become special when a rational connection exists between facts and the concession desired. When on simply offers nothing, but demands you must respect his claim to individual merit as a substitute for reason, that's special pleading.
 
Thanks to those that have voted so far. Disappointing that some have commented but haven't voted. Perhaps the software could do with an “If you don't vote you can't comment” feature. I'm sure there are many more believers than the relative few that have voted. The main reason I started the pole was an attempt find out the believer/non-believer ratio of members. Seems to me there might be quite a few believer members at present.

Rather than increase the options, I would've preferred not to have included the “Not sure” options. It's not like it's a new question that everyone hasn't had amply time to consider. I also see it like the “Do you believe in a god?” question. Unless and until you DO believe then you DON'T by default. To have added an “I would like there to be” option would've been silly as who wouldn't?

Thought the question would have been self-obvious without the need of detailed explanation. But for the nit-pickers I mean YOUR life and I don't mean your genes that live on in subsequent generations. I also don't mean if you body is consumed by mold, insects or animals that you live on as part of their lives. Perhaps if would've been clearer/better if I'd asked - “Do you believe we have a non-physical spirit or sole that continues to live after our physical bodies die?”
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Perhaps if would've been clearer/better if I'd asked - “Do you believe we have a non-physical spirit or sole that continues to live after our physical bodies die?”
Click to expand...

That might have been better. I think a lot of us are lawyers at heart, if not by profession. I confess I answered the wrong question; I don't believe in an immortal soul. But if you ask me as a proposition, "Is there an immortal soul?" I wouldn't say no because that's an argument from ignorance; there's no evidence of one, but there could one day be.
 
JayUtah said:
That might have been better. I think a lot of us are lawyers at heart, if not by profession. I confess I answered the wrong question; I don't believe in an immortal soul. But if you ask me as a proposition, "Is there an immortal soul?" I wouldn't say no because that's an argument from ignorance; there's no evidence of one, but there could one day be.
Click to expand...
"Do you . . . ?" means right now, today. Not "May you in the future?".

If I was asked "Is there an immortal soul?" I would answer "Given the total lack of current credible evidence that there is an immortal soul, I can only answer no".

To ask "Is there?" for something that no credible evidence currently exists is essentially asking "Do you believe there is?"
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Ah, reincarnation... or as I like to call it, the soap opera theology. You get shot in the head on NCIS, you get to star on Rizolli And Isles next year. And if you've been really good, it might even be a better role ;)
Click to expand...
The highlighted is the reincarnation/reanimation of Cagney and Lacey.
 
I voted no. While it might be comforting to think that death is not the end, there seems to be no evidence to suggest any kind of continuing consciousness.

We don't exist before we were born, we won't exist after death other than in the memories of those we leave behind.
 
Agatha said:
I voted no. While it might be comforting to think that death is not the end, there seems to be no evidence to suggest any kind of continuing consciousness.

We don't exist before we were born, we won't exist after death other than in the memories of those we leave behind.
Click to expand...
And genes :)
 
I would love to see what my children and grandchildren do with their lives, and their children and grandchildren and so on. But realistically I'm in my fifties (how the hell did that happen?) so I can't expect to be around more than another 50 years or so at most. Not knowing their lives and not being around to share it with them is a horrible prospect, but one that has to be faced.
 
Agatha said:
I would love to see what my children and grandchildren do with their lives, and their children and grandchildren and so on. But realistically I'm in my fifties (how the hell did that happen?) so I can't expect to be around more than another 50 years or so at most. Not knowing their lives and not being around to share it with them is a horrible prospect, but one that has to be faced.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately a gene "immortality" is one we won't get to experience. A "What does the future hold?" curiosity is the main reason I want as long and healthy a life as possible (I'm even older than you).
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Yes, which is why they have to define a different mode of thinking in which they are presumably superior. Jabba does this. Malbec alludes to it. Practically every school of thought that sets itself against mainstream science does so with the presumption that a more intuitive form of thought exists, is superior to scientific methodology at solving the same kinds of problems, and is an unlearnable property of the individual proposing it.
Click to expand...

It's alternative breathing; we'd explain it to you, but you can't hear words of alternative breath. First you must transition to alternative air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom