Atheism and Afterlife

[Estro Felino]

Atoms are atoms.

It's not afterlife...by the way.
Because even rocks have atom.
So I am not understanding why you guys are mentioning physics in a merely religious thread.

 

[Estro Felino]

As you definition suggests, atheist isn't a type of person, it's a singular characteristic a person may or may not have. I don't think anyone can answer your questions "as an atheist", any more than anyone could answer "as a theist". You're asking about related elements of a personal world view of which theism/atheism is just another of the consequential elements, not a key driving force.

So, speaking personally, it is undeniable that the idea of an afterlife extends beyond the idea of gods, certainly beyond the idea of the Abrahamic monotheistic god you're inevitably thinking of. There are lots of different concepts around the continuation of some element of a person after their death, many of which don't involve (or wouldn't require) the existence of any gods, especially if you include things like reincarnation or influences from "ancestral spirits". In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these kind of ideas developed first (due to, at the time, unexplained phenomena and events) and the concept of gods were subsequently built up around them (as largely comforting explanations for those and similar unknowns).

I personally don't believe in any afterlife, but as a rationalist rather than as an atheist. There is simply no evidence to support any such idea and not even any coherent and internally consistent hypothesis presented for any. Of course it is possible, with or without the existence of gods, but anything is possible so that is a very bad reason for any practical response.

Thank you for the thorough answer.

 

[ChristineM]

It's not afterlife...by the way.
Because even rocks have atom.
So I am not understanding why you guys are mentioning physics in a merely religious thread.

You made the OP asking a particular questions of atheiests. Physics is the only known answer to your questions. Anything else is just guessing. You want me to guess?

 

[Altfish]

a) Do you believe, as atheists, that the afterlife is a consequence of the existence of a God?

Yes, it is an invention to get people in line - if you are good you get heaven; if you are bad it is hell.

b) Do you believe in an afterlife? And why not? And do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

No, this is the only life we have, So make the most of it. Hopefully, when I'm gone my family and friends will remember me, look at photos and tell anecdotes.
Why do I not believe ... total lack of evidence.
No, I have no hope that there is another life.

 

[Estro Felino]

You want me to guess?

Yes.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes.

So you don't want an honest answer, just one to massage your sensibilities... Ok

@Revoltingest does it all. He has the keys...
i guess

 

[Audie]

Happy Saturday, guys.
I would like atheists to answer a couple of questions about their vision of life and the afterlife.
Etymologically a-theism means to believe in the absence of a deity (or more deities).
It doesn't imply, philologically and theologically, that because a deity doesn't exist, neither does the afterlife.
That is:
a) Do you believe, as atheists, that the afterlife is a consequence of the existence of a God?
b) Do you believe in an afterlife? And why not? And do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

Thank you in advance.

No. It means I don't believe in any God.

 

[Audie]

What do you think of Pascal's wager?

Like you could fool "god".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

Yes, but only because I have no way to rule it out, not because there is any evidence that an afterlife exists or is even possible. There is no observation, experiment, argument or algorithm that can rule the possibility out, so to do so is to take a leap of faith. One can learn to stop doing that, and if he does, he left with agnosticism on this issue. The alternative is making unfalsifiable metaphysical claims that cannot be called either correct nor incorrect if they can't be ruled in or out.

The best evidence we have is that we have no memory of being aware before birth, and there is no reason to think that it would be different after death. But this doesn't allow us to conclude that after death will be the same as before birth.

By afterlife, I mean a state of consciousness after death that is continuous with my pre-death sense of identity, a consciousness that remembers that it existed before corporal death.

What do you think of Pascal's wager?

It's been convincingly refuted, not to mention not an option for a critical thinker, who doesn't choose what he will believe, but rather, using valid reasoning, discovers which propositions are sound and therefore believable. When you take that bet, assuming one can still just choose to believe what he finds unbelievable, you're actually taking several bets. You're betting that despite choosing the right god, you've offended it with your insincerity and the trap door to hell opens for you anyway. You're betting that you haven't chosen the wrong god and offended your actual creator. And if one embraces Pascal's religion after choosing to take his bet, he might lose a lot.

A god belief can come at great cost if one chooses a god with an associated religion and embraces its worldview of what is proper and decent that is irrational and impedes self-development.

I wonder what my life would have been like had I not left Christianity as a young man. How many hours have been saved not reading scripture, praying, or attending churches, and how were they spent instead? How many thousands of dollars would have been given away in support of spreading a religion that I now hope to see become less influential? Could I have retired early had I done that, or would I still be working? Would I be homophobic or atheophobic? Would I have chosen a life that would push me away from the pursuits and skills that were and are so valuable to me now? We opted against having children. We travelled the world. We performed rock music in restaurants and coffee houses. I think all of that likely disappears and becomes raising kids and giving up the travel and music, with me probably still working.

So, the argument that there is no cost to taking Pascal's wager is flawed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Happy Saturday, guys.
I would like atheists to answer a couple of questions about their vision of life and the afterlife.
Etymologically a-theism means to believe in the absence of a deity (or more deities).
It doesn't imply, philologically and theologically, that because a deity doesn't exist, neither does the afterlife.

For practical purposes, it kind of does. Afterlives tend to be features of theistic belief systems.

It's not like there are many people out there selling a belief system that includes an afterlife but not a god.

If you're going to propose an invisible, unevidenced realm like an afterlife, you're going to need to grapple with an important question at some point: why should we think it's real?

With many theistic belief systems, an afterlife is a logical inference from other tenets, but those tenets all tie back to a god, so those justifications aren't available to an atheist.

I'm not saying that you'll never find an atheist who believes in an afterlife, but there are a lot fewer pathways to that belief for an atheist than for a theist.

 

[stvdv]

But if you are immortal, it means afterlife does exist.

No, only Life exists

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is:
a) Do you believe, as atheists, that the afterlife is a consequence of the existence of a God?

It's generally a package deal with theistic belief systems.

It's not an absolute logical requirement that belief in a god implies belief in an afterlife, but the correlation is very high.

b) Do you believe in an afterlife? And why not? And do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

No. I live as if the odds are zero for all practical purposes.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, only Life exists

I think that no human being has been immortal, so far.

 

[Estro Felino]

For practical purposes, it kind of does. Afterlives tend to be features of theistic belief systems.

It's not like there are many people out there selling a belief system that includes an afterlife but not a god.

If you're going to propose an invisible, unevidenced realm like an afterlife, you're going to need to grapple with an important question at some point: why should we think it's real?

With many theistic belief systems, an afterlife is a logical inference from other tenets, but those tenets all tie back to a god, so those justifications aren't available to an atheist.

I'm not saying that you'll never find an atheist who believes in an afterlife, but there are a lot fewer pathways to that belief for an atheist than for a theist.

Very good reasoning. Thank you.

 

[Nimos]

a) Do you believe, as atheists, that the afterlife is a consequence of the existence of a God?

Not, necessarily.

But I will hold the same principle to this idea as to that of a god, meaning I have no reason to assume that anything such as an afterlife exists. And I would put it in the category of the supernatural, which means that I will be sceptical of the idea in general.

However unable to know for certain, even what an afterlife could consist of, I see no reason to limit or link such belief to only apply to the belief in god(s).

If we live in a kind of simulation, which I don't think either, but being open to the idea, such a thing would not require a god and an "afterlife" could be possible.

b) Do you believe in an afterlife? And why not? And do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

I don't believe in an afterlife, simply because I see no evidence for it being the case. The possibility might be there in one form or another, but see no reason to live one's life as if it were equal to that of it not being there.

 

[Nakosis]

Happy Saturday, guys.
I would like atheists to answer a couple of questions about their vision of life and the afterlife.
Etymologically a-theism means to believe in the absence of a deity (or more deities).
It doesn't imply, philologically and theologically, that because a deity doesn't exist, neither does the afterlife.
That is:
a) Do you believe, as atheists, that the afterlife is a consequence of the existence of a God?
b) Do you believe in an afterlife? And why not? And do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

Thank you in advance.

I have no belief in an afterlife.
That simply means that regardless of the existence of an afterlife or not, I don't pretend to have any knowledge about what it is like.

To have a belief, you have to make some assumptions about it.
Never having been dead before, as far as I know, there is no experience of being dead to base any belief on.

 

[Polymath257]

Happy Saturday, guys.
I would like atheists to answer a couple of questions about their vision of life and the afterlife.
Etymologically a-theism means to believe in the absence of a deity (or more deities).
It doesn't imply, philologically and theologically, that because a deity doesn't exist, neither does the afterlife.
That is:
a) Do you believe, as atheists, that the afterlife is a consequence of the existence of a God?

Not exactly. But I don't believe in a supernatural, which is why I don't believe in either an afterlife or a deity.

b) Do you believe in an afterlife? And why not? And do you believe in a remote possibility that it might exist?

See above. I believe our consciousness is a result of the physical-chemical processes in our brains. When we die, those processes stop. We then no longer exist. Our atoms and energy diffuse into the environment.

 

[icehorse]

I value science very highly, and I understand how little we know about anything. We're just starting to barely scratch the surface in our understanding of how the universe and biology work. So I don't put a lot of stock in the following idea, but I hold out a little hope:

It seems odd that a billion years ago life got started on the planet, and we could say that all the life that's ever been has just been one long braided chemical reaction. And that an individual is conceived, lives out their life as one separate branch, does their chemical reaction thing for some decades, and then the chemical reaction we call life just stops. Whatever "spark" was keeping that chemical reaction going just, what, disappeared?

So I hold out some faint hope in something like "the force".

 

[Estro Felino]

I value science very highly, and I understand how little we know about anything. We're just starting to barely scratch the surface in our understanding of how the universe and biology work. So I don't put a lot of stock in the following idea, but I hold out a little hope:

It seems odd that a billion years ago life got started on the planet, and we could say that all the life that's ever been has just been one long braided chemical reaction. And that an individual is conceived, lives out their life as one separate branch, does their chemical reaction thing for some decades, and then the chemical reaction we call life just stops. Whatever "spark" was keeping that chemical reaction going just, what, disappeared?

So I hold out some faint hope in something like "the force".

This is a very interesting approach.
After all...I think that we living beings (and I include animals and plants and others) are made up thanks to carbon chemistry. Carbon chemistry creates a very heavy kind of matter.
I will not and cannot believe that carbon chemistry is the only kind of chemistry that exists in our universe.
or in our solar system.

 

[osgart]

I'm atheist, and believe in and underlying, unconditioned foundational reality where the source of intellect is unknown. I believe that because of the mystery of life on earth. There's no good reason that I've heard as to why creatures with intellect emerged here. My logic takes me off the map of science into philosophy. There are things imagined that have actuality; The capacity for character, and morality to be actualized. The mental world, or spiritual world has capacities that defy our present reality.

Perhaps a less magical force exists. That would be the afterlife. It takes intellect for intellect to arise basically.

Also if space and time are not fundamental but emergent properties of existence then there must be a source reality that lies beyond sense perception.

There are no Gods because that invokes far too much fantasy powers. However something of a soul vessel must exist because the self exists with abilities of character.