Faith in permanent death

[averageJOE]

So what is the benefit for faith in an afterlife?

 

[Copernicus]

That answer covers the Abrahmic religions, but not the Dharrmic religions.

Is it your belief that there is no concept of an immaterial spirit in dharmic religions? What is it that gets reincarnated?

 

[waitasec]

That doesn't mean those possibilities aren't true. All it means is that we can't tell. It may happen that in the future, through technology, consciousness may be proven to exist beyond death.

To put your faith in permanent death, I think, is not reason. Simply faith. And it is faith that is put into one of the most hopeless ideas out there.

can you live with the understanding that because we do not know what happens some hope that something will and others just don't think that way?

in fact it could be argued that if one doesn't adhere to the idea of an afterlife their life would be more meaningful...as comparing to those who think they get another chance? sort of like socialism to the extreme...
me personally, i like the idea of deadlines;
i function better and i have more focus...

do you see what i mean?

 

[839311]

can you live with the understanding that because we do not know what happens some hope that something will and others just don't think that way?

in fact it could be argued that if one doesn't adhere to the idea of an afterlife their life would be more meaningful...as comparing to those who think they get another chance? sort of like socialism to the extreme...
me personally, i like the idea of deadlines;
i function better and i have more focus...

do you see what i mean?

Sure. Its like what Achilles says in the movie Troy. It has a certain appeal to it. The subtitles offer a different spin on it though lol.

[youtube]dulxL0t5l7U[/youtube]
‪Troy - The Gods Envy Us‬‏ - YouTube

Personally, I like the mystery. But I need to know what the possibilities are, because being ignorant about them is being ignorant about truth, and that I won't do.

 

[Koldo]

But I need to know what the possibilities are, because being ignorant about them is being ignorant about truth, and that I won't do.

You can not determine the truth by thinking on possibilities without seeking to prove them to be true.

 

[idav]

What is it that gets reincarnated?

What we need most of course. Our mojo!

 

[Copernicus]

I don't believe in an afterlife. I think it is probable. Ive already said this a number of times.

And you seem oblivious to the fact that you have been contradicting yourself with such statements. When you say that no afterlife is less probable than an afterlife, that is advocating belief in an after life. It is just that you allow for the possibility that you may be wrong. But that is no different from anyone else here.

Yes, that is precisely what my logic leads to lol (/sarcasm). Please, don't waste my energy on these ridiculous accusations.

If you are basing "probability" on the fact that you can imagine a lot of alternative explanations for a phenomenon, then you have abandoned a basic principle of empirical reasoning--that you should adopt the conclusion that requires the fewest number of gratuitous assumptions. I may be wasting your time, but I sense that you are capable of understanding the power of Occam's Razor. We all rely on it to navigate through life.

Ahh, you simply don't understand the connection and why I raised this point. The connection is that in both cases we lack evidence, and yet are compelled to examine the issues and try to understand them, because they have important consequences. So, when we don't have the answers, we try to figure out what the possibilities are.

I understand your point perfectly well. You keep claiming that there is no evidence that the mind perishes with brain death, even though I and several others have pointed that evidence out to you repeatedly. The evidence that the condition of a brain controls consciousness is quite overwhelming. For example, there is the fact that alcoholic beverages invariably make people drunk and affect their mental judgment. Even the ancients had that evidence, not to mention the effects of head injuries on mental faculties. It is reasonable to conclude (not "assume", but "conclude") that the mind dies when its controlling brain is destroyed. Partial destruction of a brain leads to partial destruction of a mind. Observation and fact.

On the other hand, the speculations you listed in the OP were just that--speculation. They had no grounding in observation of reality. You can adopt them as gratuitous assumptions, but you have nothing in reality to ground your assumptions with.

Does your brain death argument matter? Not much, because this explanation doesn't even address the 4 options I listed. As far as I can tell, your assuming that God(s) doesn't exist, which I think he might...

No, I accept the possibility that gods exist, but I consider that possibility no greater than the possibility that immaterial minds exist independently of brains. That is, the possibility is an implausible one, based on what I know about how the world works. I have listed some reality-based reasons for rejecting belief in gods elsewhere. Chief among those reasons is that brainless minds likely do not exist.

...Your assuming that this isnt a simulation, which I think it might be...

No, I accept that as a possibility. After all, we experience dreams, which are mental simulations of real life, and we believe all kinds of silly things during our dreams. However, the assumption that we are living in a simulated reality is gratuitous. We have no reason to adopt the assumption, so Occam's Razor applies.

I actually love imagination and speculation. I am a lifelong fan of science fiction, and I go to the movies all the time. So, hard as it may be for you to accept, I am not ignorant of such possibilities or lacking in imagination. I just do not consider them anything more than unfounded speculation. Speculation does no harm unless we start to take it seriously. Then it can cross over to delusion.

...I dont know what you think about the idea that we live in a closed system that is eternal, or whether you are just being ignorant regarding this point, which I think might be true. I dont know what you think about the possibility that the system is open and eternal, or if youve even thought about it, and how that would affect the possibility of having our consciousness reborn, which I think might happen...

I suppose I would be ignorant of such thoughts if I had just fallen off a turnip truck. Look, everyone here has an active imagination. Just because we don't all accept your claim that the extension of life beyond brain-death is equally as plausible as its termination, that does not mean that we've never thought about it. The argument against belief in an afterlife is grounded in the observation that brains appear to cause mental states. Remove the cause, and the effect disappears. You can speculate as to how it might continue, but all such speculation is by nature gratuitous. Unless, of course, you want to start talking about Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and that sort of thing. Then you would actually be discussing evidence for your claim.

...All these assumptions. And we don't even know that much about consciousness. The fact that you are alive should tell you its possible for you to exist...

OK, now you are becoming incoherent. Some of us know a lot more than others about consciousness. A great many scientists have actually been studying it for quite a while, and they know things that people who have not been studying it do not know. Furthermore, the fact that I am alive does not just tell me that it is "possible" for me to exist. It tells me that it is an absolute certainty that I exist.

Why, then, would you assume that after you die its no longer possible?

I don't. I have repeatedly said that it is possible, just not likely.

Because you no longer exist? Maybe you didn't exist before you were born either? Yet, here you are. The chance obviously isnt zero percent. There are people being born all the time. But we don't say that before they are born their probability for being born is zero. What a ridiculous claim that would be. Yet that is exactly the implication of what you are claiming.

How many times do I have to deny the words you are putting in my mouth? I never said that there was "zero percent" probability of life after death. Empirical arguments are not absolute proofs, and most of what we believe is grounded in empirical reasoning. This has been a discussion about the plausibility of an afterlife, not its possibility. If you do not understand the difference between possibility and plausibility, then I suppose that it is useless to try to have a discussion with you.

You don't think your qualified to address the issue of infinity? Its really not that complicated. This question actually falls in the realm of philosophy. How are scientists supposed to find proof for it? Go to the other side of infinity and come back? Mathematicians working on infinity, that is actually very funny lol.

Infinity is actually an extremely important mathematical concept, believe it or not. I encourage you to look into the matter.

 

[waitasec]

So what is the benefit for faith in an afterlife?

procrastination...

 

[waitasec]

Personally, I like the mystery. But I need to know what the possibilities are, because being ignorant about them is being ignorant about truth, and that I won't do.

but you do realize these possibilities are purely speculative...about truth
ignorance has nothing to do with speculation.

 

[waitasec]

You can not determine the truth by thinking on possibilities without seeking to prove them to be true.

i wish i had read this first...


you said it better...

 

[Quagmire]

You can not determine the truth by thinking on possibilities without seeking to prove them to be true.

So you're actually advocating confirmation bias?

 

[Koldo]

So you're actually advocating confirmation bias?

No, certainly not.

 

[Quagmire]

No, certainly not.

Then what is this?:

You can not determine the truth by thinking on possibilities without seeking to prove them to be true.

"Seeking to prove" something true isn't the same as seeking truth.

If someone says "Hey, I was in the forest just now and I saw a tree with a knothole shaped liked a man's face" and you go into the forest to see if it's true, this is seeking truth.

If, on the other hand, you go into the forest seeking to prove that there is in fact a tree with a knothole shaped like a man's face, every knothole is going to look like a man's face to you.

 

[Koldo]

"Seeking to prove" something true isn't the same as seeking truth.

If someone says "Hey, I was in the forest just now and I saw a tree with a knothole shaped liked a man's face" and you go into the forest to see if it's true, this is seeking truth.

If, on the other hand, you go into the forest seeking to prove that there is in fact a tree with a knothole shaped like a man's face, every knothole is going to look like a man's face to you.

Perhaps it would be better if the sentence was written like this then:

"You can not determine the truth by merely thinking on possibilities without seeking to find out whether they correspond to the truth".

 

[Quagmire]

Perhaps it would be better if the sentence was written like this then:

"You can not determine the truth by merely thinking on possibilities without seeking to find out whether they correspond to the truth".

It might be better if the mind behind the sentence started thinking in those terms, yes.

 

[Copernicus]

Then what is this?:If, on the other hand, you go into the forest seeking to prove that there is in fact a tree with a knothole shaped like a man's face, every knothole is going to look like a man's face to you.

Nonsense. That would be confirmation bias if that was what happened, but not everyone falls victim to confirmation bias. Sometimes, an attempt to prove a hypothesis true leads to the conclusion that it is false. Koldo did not endorse confirmation bias. It was your own bias that led you to accuse him of that.

 

[Koldo]

To be honest, i don't understand why i would see a knothole shaped like a man's face in every tree in the latter case but not in the former.

 

[Quagmire]

Nonsense. That would be confirmation bias if that was what happened, but not everyone falls victim to confirmation bias. Sometimes, attempts to prove a hypothesis true leads to the conclusion that it is false. Koldo did not endorse confirmation bias. It was your own bias that led you to accuse him of that.

Balderdash. It's obviously your bias that led you to conclude that my bias interpreted Koldo's bias as bias.

(you actually enjoy these kinds of conversations don't you Copernicus?)

 

[Quagmire]

To be honest, i don't understand why i would see a knothole shaped like a man's face in every tree in the latter case but not in the former.

In that case, I'm all out of analogies. :yes:

 

[Copernicus]

Balderdash. It's obviously your bias that led you to conclude that my bias interpreted Koldo's bias as bias.

(you actually enjoy these kinds of conversations don't you Copernicus?)

Not really, but they seem to be the only kinds of conversation that you are capable of having. We only talk to you so you won't feel lonely.