• 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.

There is no afterlife - its just woo peddler's fantasy

smartcooky

Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
29,044
Location
Nelson, New Zealand
ChristianProgressive said:
It is entirely appropriate to point out that there is so possible way to "know beyond doubt" that an afterlife does not exist. It is not scientifically testable. Therefore the OP still has room and reason to hope, which should be encouraged.
Click to expand...

There is no afterlife... its woo. People like you believe in that fantasy, the rest of us have more sense.

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking."
- Carl Sagan - (Billions & Billions)

The facts are that when you die, that's it, you end. The only place you live on is in the memories of others. Peddling your woo about afterlives causes more harm than good
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure Carl Sagan is the right person to quote if you want to cite an authoritative figure in an argument against the idea that we should doubt the non-existence of an afterlife.

Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.

Conversations with Carl Sagan (2006)
Click to expand...

An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.

"A tribute to Carl Sagan: A Sagan File", Joel Achenbach, Skeptic, Vol 13, No. 1 (2006)
Click to expand...

Sagan, like Dawkins, took very seriously the scientific canard that you must always be prepared to doubt what you know, and that what you do know can be overturned by superior evidence. And he seemed to think that an argument which claimed to know about the existence or non-existence of God "beyond doubt" was "stupid".

I'm sure, if you try, you can find an authority to quote who hasn't elsewhere called your position "stupid", though.
 
I might not know beyond all doubt, but I know beyond reasonable doubt, scientific doubt, and practical doubt. That should be enough for anybody.
 
There is a saying ' The mind is the great slayer of the real'

All you clever people may simply be outsmarting yourselves. But simple people can experience spiritual feelings in their hearts. God would not deny the simple people comfort, but intellectuals deny it from themselves.
There have always been religions, and there always will be no matter how illogical that seems, because it is part of human nature to seek for something greater than themselves.
 
Scorpion said:
There is a saying ' The mind is the great slayer of the real'

All you clever people may simply be outsmarting yourselves. But simple people can experience spiritual feelings in their hearts. God would not deny the simple people comfort, but intellectuals deny it from themselves.
There have always been religions, and there always will be no matter how illogical that seems, because it is part of human nature to seek for something greater than themselves.
Click to expand...

Part of that is correct, something of the human condition is the search for meaning and the greater, to attempt to find a purpose.
I personally very much doubt there is one.
But, not so sure that god, if she exists would be there for comfort, much more as a method of control.
 
Scorpion said:
There is a saying ' The mind is the great slayer of the real'

All you clever people may simply be outsmarting yourselves. But simple people can experience spiritual feelings in their hearts. God would not deny the simple people comfort, but intellectuals deny it from themselves.
There have always been religions, and there always will be no matter how illogical that seems, because it is part of human nature to seek for something greater than themselves.
Click to expand...

I'll wooslate: smart people are not human.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm not sure Carl Sagan is the right person to quote if you want to cite an authoritative figure in an argument against the idea that we should doubt the non-existence of an afterlife.


... ....


Sagan, like Dawkins, took very seriously the scientific canard that you must always be prepared to doubt what you know, and that what you do know can be overturned by superior evidence. And he seemed to think that an argument which claimed to know about the existence or non-existence of God "beyond doubt" was "stupid".

I'm sure, if you try, you can find an authority to quote who hasn't elsewhere called your position "stupid", though.
Click to expand...



It is not a case of "doubting what you know"; almost all genuine scientists now agree that we probably cannot ever say that we truly "know" things (where "know" means that we are claiming the thing as a literal 100% certainty).

The reason is that we have learned from progress in Quantum Theory that we live in a universe that appears to be determined by and based upon principles of probability, and not upon events that are literal certainties.

So, few genuine scientists in the real core sciences like physics, chemistry, biology or even most of maths, would seriously claim that we can know things as a matter of literal certainty.

If you are talking about atheists, then if they are scientifically informed they should never claim more than to say that they believe a supernatural god is extremely unlikely (based upon all known genuine evidence).

And if we are talking about the possibility of a so-called "afterlife", then similarly, the most we should say is that it seems highly unlikely given all of the evidence that we have to the country from science and from everything else.

And that's all scientists, atheists, or anyone else really needs to say about it. We don't need to claim to "know" anything as if no other possibility could ever occur. All we need to do, to be as accurate and truthful as possible (in view of all known genuine evidence), is to say that such things appear to be highly unlikely to put it mildly.
 
When religious fuzzy wuzzies stop claiming to know that god exists and that they know it's mind, then they can take atheists to task for claiming to know the opposite.

Atheists are merely using the vocabulary of the woosters.
 
When Atheist fuzzy wuzzies stop claiming to know that no god exists, then they can take the faithful to task for claiming to know the opposite.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm not sure Carl Sagan is the right person to quote if you want to cite an authoritative figure in an argument against the idea that we should doubt the non-existence of an afterlife.
Click to expand...

I am 100% certain that he is.

A man who lived his life by the credo "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is the perfect person to quote because the claim of the existence of an afterlife is a most extraordinary one. Furthermore, it is a claim for which their is not one iota of supporting evidence.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Sagan, like Dawkins, took very seriously the scientific canard that you must always be prepared to doubt what you know, and that what you do know can be overturned by superior evidence. And he seemed to think that an argument which claimed to know about the existence or non-existence of God "beyond doubt" was "stupid".
Click to expand...
Well, he was wrong about there being no evidence; I mean, his statement "[a]n atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence" is not only using a contentious definition of 'atheist' but also a classic argument from incredulity.

But he's also making the same mistake that is extremely common in these arguments in that he's using a single term 'god' and trying to apply some common meaning to it, rather than understanding that it's really an incoherent term which must be defined before anyone can begin to speak intelligently about existence.


I'm sure, if you try, you can find an authority to quote who hasn't elsewhere called your position "stupid", though.
Click to expand...
Isn't that considered an argument from authority? If the position itself is sound, who cares who said it first?
 
IanS said:
It is not a case of "doubting what you know"; almost all genuine scientists now agree that we probably cannot ever say that we truly "know" things (where "know" means that we are claiming the thing as a literal 100% certainty).
Click to expand...

You're right, I was sloppy in my choice of words. I should have said "think that we know".

The reason is that we have learned from progress in Quantum Theory that we live in a universe that appears to be determined by and based upon principles of probability, and not upon events that are literal certainties.
Click to expand...

No, it predates quantum theory. I'd say that it's part and parcel of the scientific method.

So, few genuine scientists in the real core sciences like physics, chemistry, biology or even most of maths, would seriously claim that we can know things as a matter of literal certainty.

If you are talking about atheists, then if they are scientifically informed they should never claim more than to say that they believe a supernatural god is extremely unlikely (based upon all known genuine evidence).

And if we are talking about the possibility of a so-called "afterlife", then similarly, the most we should say is that it seems highly unlikely given all of the evidence that we have to the country from science and from everything else.

And that's all scientists, atheists, or anyone else really needs to say about it. We don't need to claim to "know" anything as if no other possibility could ever occur. All we need to do, to be as accurate and truthful as possible (in view of all known genuine evidence), is to say that such things appear to be highly unlikely to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

I think "know" works fine in a casual context. But we should definitely not claim that we know "beyond doubt", because scepticism necessarily implies the ability to doubt.
 
The Greater Fool said:
When religious fuzzy wuzzies stop claiming to know that god exists and that they know it's mind, then they can take atheists to task for claiming to know the opposite.

Atheists are merely using the vocabulary of the woosters.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that atheists would want to use the vocabulary of scepticism and science.
 
smartcooky said:
A man who lived his life by the credo "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is the perfect person to quote because the claim of the existence of an afterlife is a most extraordinary one. Furthermore, it is a claim for which their is not one iota of supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

You quoted him in support of the proposition that we can know without doubt that there isn't an afterlife. This is a position that Sagan himself called "stupid". I'd have thought you'd be better off quoting someone who didn't call your position "stupid".
 
The Greater Fool said:
When religious fuzzy wuzzies stop claiming to know that god exists and that they know it's mind, then they can take atheists to task for claiming to know the opposite.

Atheists are merely using the vocabulary of the woosters.
Click to expand...

aleCcowaN said:
That's plain nonsense. It has no bearing in the real world nor it affects "atheists", "faithful" or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Change out faithful with religious and I expect that your comment applies with equal force to the above quoted post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom