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

smartcooky

Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
28,062
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
 
The Norseman said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of this suggests that he is a good person to quote in support of a position he disagreed with.

Isn't that considered an argument from authority? If the position itself is sound, who cares who said it first?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an argument for authority, which is another reason why it's a bad argument to make. That's exactly why I used that word in that context - to acknowledge that that's what it was.
 
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...
Zeus doesn't exist, the trinity God of the Roman Catholics doesn't exist, Loki does not exist. Which God should I remain doubtful about existing?
 
Argumemnon said:
I might not know beyond all doubt, but I know beyond reasonable doubt, scientific doubt, and practical doubt. That should be enough for anybody.
Click to expand...

Science can have nothing to say about God or the afterlife because those are not questions amenable to scientific inquiry. Corporial means, being bound their corporial nature, can only measure corporial things. Since there is no known or expected means to detect or measure things that exist outside of the physical universe, it is impossible and inappropriate to declare scientific certainty on the subject.
 
Darat said:
Zeus doesn't exist, the trinity God of the Roman Catholics doesn't exist, Loki does not exist. Which God should I remain doubtful about existing?
Click to expand...

You should be prepared to concede that you could be wrong about everything and anything. That's why even Richard Dawkins rates himself as a 6 (or 6.9) on his theistic scale of probability where 1 is "100% convinced God exists" and 7 is "100% convinced God does not exist".

There is a lack of evidence that Zeus exists, therefore we should conclude that he does not. However, our opinions should be open to being changed by new evidence. This means we should not be convinced "beyond doubt" that he does not. We should always be open to doubt, no matter how vanishingly small that doubt may be. If we are not then what we are doing is engaging in dogmatism, rather than scepticism.

You can apply the above to any deity, and indeed to anything we think we know about the universe.
 
I usually look at it this way. (Keeping in mind that even something like "we are all in a simulation" would count as "there is an outside creator".)

Theists and atheists make the same type of mistake. One believes there is an outside creator even though they have no convincing evidence. The other does not believe there is an outside creator even though they have no convincing evidence.

That does not mean they are making the same level of mistake. Occam's razor alone tells us that the theist position is the stupider mistake.

(As far as I understand it the agnostic position would simply be that we have no evidence whether or not there is a creator. With perhaps an addendum about why one position is more illogical than the other. :))
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Science can have nothing to say about God or the afterlife because those are not questions amenable to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Sean Carroll argues, for example, that quantum field theory means that there are no known ways in which consciousness could interact with any afterlife, and that there is no way for any of the possibilities that are as of yet unknown to allow that to happen, either.

Since there is no known or expected means to detect or measure things that exist outside of the physical universe, it is impossible and inappropriate to declare scientific certainty on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd argue that there may be scientific consensus on things, but that there will never be true scientific certainty of anything - just the fact that the probability of certain scientific theories and laws being overturned are vanishingly small.

But, while you're right that we cannot as yet make any statements about what does or does not exist outside of the physical universe, we certainly can make statements about things within it, and how they could or could not interact with things outside of it.
 
Scorpion said:
There is a saying ' The mind is the great slayer of the real'

All you clever people may simply be outsmarting yourselves.
Click to expand...


Just like we did when we sent people to the moon and eradicated smallpox.

Anti-intellectualism isn't noble. It's just a bunch of flat-earthers inhaling evil spirits.
 
This is The End said:
(As far as I understand it the agnostic position would simply be that we have no evidence whether or not there is a creator. With perhaps an addendum about why one position is more illogical than the other. :))
Click to expand...

Agnosticism is not a weaker form of atheism, it's a different question. Theism and atheism are about belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge.

A theist believes there is a God or gods. An atheist does not believe there is a God or gods. A gnostic thinks we can know whether or not there is a God or gods. An agnostic thinks we can not know whether or not there is a God or gods.

I would argue that many theists are gnostic theists - they believe there is a God, and they are completely certain of this. I think that a higher percentage of atheists are likely agnostic atheists - they do not believe there is a God, but concede that this is not something that can be known for certain. As said above, both Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan were/are agnostic atheists.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Those are statements of opinion and belief.
Click to expand...
How so. I can visit Mount Olympus and find no trace of Zeus, I can examine lightning around the world and see no Zeus flinging lightning bolts. These are two attributes of Zeus, since neither can be found it means Zeus as the god is actually described cannot exist.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You should be prepared to concede that you could be wrong about everything and anything. That's why even Richard Dawkins rates himself as a 6 (or 6.9) on his theistic scale of probability where 1 is "100% convinced God exists" and 7 is "100% convinced God does not exist".

There is a lack of evidence that Zeus exists, therefore we should conclude that he does not. However, our opinions should be open to being changed by new evidence. This means we should not be convinced "beyond doubt" that he does not. We should always be open to doubt, no matter how vanishingly small that doubt may be. If we are not then what we are doing is engaging in dogmatism, rather than scepticism.

You can apply the above to any deity, and indeed to anything we think we know about the universe.
Click to expand...
Nope. Zeus as he is described has certain attributes if those can't be found then he cannot exist. If you want to change the definition of Zeus you are no longer actually talking about the existence of Zeus.
 
This is The End said:
(As far as I understand it the agnostic position would simply be that we have no evidence whether or not there is a creator. With perhaps an addendum about why one position is more illogical than the other. :))
Click to expand...

Even Bertrand Russell said he was an agnostic, because there is not enough information to determine if there is a God or not, either in science or Philosophy. That might indicate that confirmed atheists are intellectual light weights.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Agnosticism is not a weaker form of atheism, it's a different question. Theism and atheism are about belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge.

A theist believes there is a God or gods. An atheist does not believe there is a God or gods. A gnostic thinks we can know whether or not there is a God or gods. An agnostic thinks we can not know whether or not there is a God or gods.

I would argue that many theists are gnostic theists - they believe there is a God, and they are completely certain of this. I think that a higher percentage of atheists are likely agnostic atheists - they do not believe there is a God, but concede that this is not something that can be known for certain. As said above, both Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan were/are agnostic atheists.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is you have to use a definition of God that is not what those professing a belief in a god or gods believe exists. Therefore you are in fact talking about something quite different when you use the word god. In other words your word god means "something may exist that we don't know about", but says nothing about what that thing is. Whereas when a Roman Catholic priest says God exists he has an actual definition of the thing he believes exist (the RC doctrine).

I freely admit there are more than likely things that we don't know about, may even be things we will never know about, but I know none of them will be the god Zeus as people defined him.
 
Scorpion said:
Even Bertrand Russell said he was an agnostic, because there is not enough information to determine if there is a God or not, either in science or Philosophy. That might indicate that confirmed atheists are intellectual light weights.
Click to expand...


Hey what do these guys look like? Is there some kind of wafer eating ritual they go through?

I am thoroughly sick of this agnostic, atheist (or strong and weak atheist) crap. I wish the term atheist had never been coined. I just don't believe in woo .... got it?
 
This is The End said:
Theists and atheists make the same type of mistake. One believes there is an outside creator even though they have no convincing evidence.
Click to expand...

There is no primary evidence or direct evidence, but then there never can be because there is no possible way to use material science to measure things that transcend the material.

There is a great deal of convincing secondary or indirect evidence, such as the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis, the finely tuned engineering of the universe, etc.

That does not mean they are making the same level of mistake. Occam's razor alone tells us that the theist position is the stupider mistake.
Click to expand...

Why?

Neither position can be scientifically tested, so that's out. Evaluating the secondary competing theories based on reasoning shows that:

Case for God: God exists. (1 assumption)

Case for no-God/Random chance: an extremely long series of 'just randomly happened' events, each one their own assumption.

Occam's Razor says the theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be true. In that case, God wins every time.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Strawman. That is not the atheist position.

The atheist position is that there is no reason to believe in any deity.

In fact, this is a position that you, TBD also take. Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Coazetcoatal? Vishnu? And so on.

Of course you don't. Those would be stupid. right?
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Case for God: God exists. (1 assumption)

Case for no-God/Random chance: an extremely long series of 'just randomly happened' events, each one their own assumption.
Click to expand...


No. You've got all the same things happening with a god and without one. With a god, you have to explain how the things happened and then add god's will on top of that. How does gravity work without a god? It's a property of mass. How does gravity work with a god? It's a property of mass AND god's will. The god hypothesis is more complex every single time.


Occam's Razor says the theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be true. In that case, God wins every time.
Click to expand...


That's not even remotely what Occam's Razor says. Witness:

A. Red sunsets are a function of an invisible dragon.

B. Red sunsets are a function of a spinning planet. That planet orbits a sun. That planet has an atmosphere that diffuses light. The more oblique the angle, the more red is visible. The more of certain particulates, the more red is visible.

A has far fewer assumptions than B. But A is ridiculous nonsense.

Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation that fully accounts for all observations without contradiction should be preferred over the more complex one.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
There is no primary evidence or direct evidence, but then there never can be because there is no possible way to use material science to measure things that transcend the material.

There is a great deal of convincing secondary or indirect evidence, such as the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis, the finely tuned engineering of the universe, etc.



Why?

Neither position can be scientifically tested, so that's out. Evaluating the secondary competing theories based on reasoning shows that:

Case for God: God exists. (1 assumption)

Case for no-God/Random chance: an extremely long series of 'just randomly happened' events, each one their own assumption.

Occam's Razor says the theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be true. In that case, God wins every time.
Click to expand...

And between aliens who live in an ocean of liquid methane and resemble sea horses and aliens who live on solid surfaces, have 6 feet and love to dance cancan, what does the razor tell you?

I mean, if you depart from stupid assumptions like "devil/god doesn't exist" or "devil/god exists" and try to substantiate them...
 
abaddon said:
Strawman. That is not the atheist position.

The atheist position is that there is no reason to believe in any deity.

In fact, this is a position that you, TBD also take. Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Coazetcoatal? Vishnu? And so on.

Of course you don't. Those would be stupid. right?
Click to expand...

I am quite certain that you are not purporting to speak on behalf of all atheists, and certainly not the poster in this thread said that atheists "hold the opposite" position.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
There is no primary evidence or direct evidence, but then there never can be because there is no possible way to use material science to measure things that transcend the material.
Click to expand...

You can't prove god exists because you can't prove god exists?

We can always count on bleevers to regale us all with their circular reasoning!

The fact is anything that cannot be proved doesn't exist... therefore, no god - end of story.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom