How I deal with no afterlife

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Strong atheists have the habit of ignoring inconvenient evidence. I am not surprised.

Yes: the fact that you have trouble convincing people with the shoddy "evidence" you peddle is because of a problem with them.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes: the fact that you have trouble convincing people with the shoddy "evidence" you peddle is because of a problem with them.

It is not 'shoddy' but very high quality if you study the professionalism and credentials of the people involved.

As I have asked you before, who is the official judge of 'shoddiness'?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Amount of time = value...........like fine wine............don't really understand how that is.

Exactly. Even fine wine has finite, measurable period where it reaches its peak, after which it gradually declines into an undrinkable muck.

 

[Revoltingest]

1-You are special and have value as a human being
2-There is afterlife
Result: No conflict.
Be happy

When I fruballed this, I read #2 as "no afterlife".
I see it as the same either way.
So you get to keep the fruble.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not 'shoddy' but very high quality if you study the professionalism and credentials of the people involved.

As I have asked you before, who is the official judge of 'shoddiness'?

We're all our own judges... but even your standard can be inferred from your stance on other, more mundane issues: if your standard of evidence for the claim "the cause of this person's experience was his soul observing from outside his body while he was dead" is significantly lower than your standard for, say, "the cause of this plane crash was fatigue cracking in the fuselage", then you have an inconsistent standard.

Your evidence has never met such a standard; you've admitted this yourself. You've argued against holding your claims to these sorts of standards. Therefore, your evidence is shoddy.

Of course, when the mechanism hasn't even be established to exist - such as in your claims - the reasonable standard would be much higher: the analog to, say, an OBE claim would be "the cause of this plane crash was a small tactical nuclear weapon that leaves no residual radiation" (... to pull a hypothetical cause out of the air that hasn't been disproven but that we have no known examples of).

 

[George-ananda]

We're all our own judges... but even your standard can be inferred from your stance on other, more mundane issues: if your standard of evidence for the claim "the cause of this person's experience was his soul observing from outside his body while he was dead" is significantly lower than your standard for, say, "the cause of this plane crash was fatigue cracking in the fuselage", then you have an inconsistent standard.

Your evidence has never met such a standard; you've admitted this yourself. You've argued against holding your claims to these sorts of standards. Therefore, your evidence is shoddy.

Of course, when the mechanism hasn't even be established to exist - such as in your claims - the reasonable standard would be much higher: the analog to, say, an OBE claim would be "the cause of this plane crash was a small tactical nuclear weapon that leaves no residual radiation" (... to pull a hypothetical cause out of the air that hasn't been disproven but that we have no known examples of).

The evidence presented previously by me certainly establishes beyond reasonable doubt the failing of the materialist view to explain consciousness. Of this point I have never wavered. Certainly the 'beyond the physical' can not be studied with the same rigorous methodology as physical things. Western science must stay agnostic to these phenomena but I as an individual am also concerned with what is the most reasonable thing to believe and this consideration includes all evidence and argumentation.

As for the mechanisms, I have found the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition to be ahead of both western religion and western science in understanding consciousness and the nature of reality. This Indian system provides a description of the 'beyond the physical' and has explanatory power that makes sense of the phenomena that are not explainable in western models.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The evidence presented previously by me certainly establishes beyond reasonable doubt the failing of the materialist view to explain consciousness. Of this point I have never wavered. Certainly the 'beyond the physical' can not be studied with the same rigorous methodology as physical things. Western science must stay agnostic to these phenomena but I as an individual am also concerned with what is the most reasonable thing to believe and this consideration includes all evidence and argumentation.

The only reason why "Western science" (also called "science", BTW) would have to stay "agnostic" to a claim is that it's unfalsifiable... i.e. it implies no testable predictions whatsoever. No only is there no evidence for these sorts of claims; there CANNOT be evidence for them.

As for the mechanisms, I have found the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition to be ahead of both western religion and western science in understanding consciousness and the nature of reality. This Indian system provides a description of the 'beyond the physical' and has explanatory power that makes sense of the phenomena that are not explainable in western models.

Not explainable in models derived from evidence, you mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly the 'beyond the physical' can not be studied with the same rigorous methodology as physical things.

I'm going to quote this sentence on its own to highlight it.

If we need a certain level of rigor to determine what's going on ("was it an electrical fault or metal fatigue that brought the plane down? How can we be sure?), then we still need that same level of rigor to make a valid conclusion even if the evidence doesn't support that level of rigor ("was it a real OBE or a hallucination? How can we be sure?"). In these cases, if we can't clearly establish one conclusion at a high level of rigor, the rational thing to do is say "we don't know", not lower our standards to let us accept the conclusion that you would prefer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Life only has meaning and value because it is finite. Endless existence would eventually become meaningless and empty - and then you would still have to exist for an infinite amount time after that.

Good thing. I'd hate to be a bald ugly ole man forever. *grin*

 

[Parchment]

If I am special and have value as a human being, that creates a major conflict for me. This conflict would be that for such a special and valuable person as myself to just forever rot and decay away would be the greatest insult to my value and specialness as a human being.

It would be utterly demeaning of my value and specialness. It would be just tossing me away like trash. So in order to resolve this conflict, I would have to deem myself as nothing special at all and of no value. However, if I am immortal and do get to live forever in heaven, then there would be no conflict.

So, in short, if there is a heaven for me to live forever in, then I would deem myself as valuable and special since that conflict would not exist. But if there is no afterlife, then I would just view myself as a piece of **** who might as well just die anyway.

This would also apply to the relationship I have with my own family and how I view other human beings.

Just worry about being a human being while you are alive, I think the rest will work itself out.

 

[George-ananda]

then

The only reason why "Western science" (also called "science", BTW)

There is also Vedic Science for one, (see link)

would have to stay "agnostic" to a claim is that it's unfalsifiable... i.e. it implies no testable predictions whatsoever. No only is there no evidence for these sorts of claims; there CANNOT be evidence for them.

Which would be the case for all non-physical things.

Not explainable in models derived from evidence, you mean.

No, I don't mean that. The evidence in Vedic Science comes from the observations of many adepts. These phenomena then become explainable through the understandings of this eastern/Indian wisdom tradition.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm going to quote this sentence on its own to highlight it.

If we need a certain level of rigor to determine what's going on ("was it an electrical fault or metal fatigue that brought the plane down? How can we be sure?), then we still need that same level of rigor to make a valid conclusion even if the evidence doesn't support that level of rigor ("was it a real OBE or a hallucination? How can we be sure?"). In these cases, if we can't clearly establish one conclusion at a high level of rigor, the rational thing to do is say "we don't know", not lower our standards to let us accept the conclusion that you would prefer.

We cannot have western scientific proof of anything beyond the physical because the physical cannot detect what lies beyond it in other dimensional space. So the best we can do is examine the evidence and argumentation and the strongest we can conclude would be (like in a murder trial); beyond reasonable doubt. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the position I am claiming for the afterlife based on evidence such as in the link I originally provided in this thread and the argumentation presented by all sides.

You call all the evidence shoddy and I disagree based on the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence and the quality of the people involved in these fields. So there we will have to end in our typical disagreement.

 

[DawudTalut]

When I fruballed this, I read #2 as "no afterlife".
I see it as the same either way.
So you get to keep the fruble.

Thanks..when I read it I read it: a good person like me (Rev) has become a great believer.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

The greatest possible life for me would be a life that is optimized for me. It would be a life where I can get anything I want. That would be the far greater life than this one. It would be a life in the distant future created through science.

But this life is all I have though. It is unfortunate and isn't much at all compared to a life where I can get everything I want, but it is all I have. But I do remain undecided as to whether there is an afterlife or not. Hopefully there is an eternal blissful afterlife for me after I die since it would be the far greater life than this unfortunate life of hardship I am living in now.

Lastly, if I could choose the type of life I wanted, then I would choose a life that is nothing but blissful, has no suffering, no misery, and no death. It would be a happy life where I can live in a mansion, have a highly expensive hdtv, etc. and don't have to worry about any suffering or problems in my life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We cannot have western scientific proof of anything beyond the physical because the physical cannot detect what lies beyond it in other dimensional space.

Then you can't be sure of anything beyond the physical, period.

And your double standard makes it almost certain that you'll accept supernatural claims for bad reasons. Take something like OBEs: what your approach ends up meaning is that you demand a very high level of support for physical causes (e.g. neurological phenomena) but only a low level of support for causes you deem "beyond the physical" (e.g. the person's soul actually left their body and made observations). Because of this double standard, evidence that should be considered inconclusive ends up being interpreted as conclusive support for the options where you've arbitrarily lowered your standards.

You've stacked the deck. It's completely unreasonable to use different standards of evidence for different hypotheses to answer the same question. When you take this approach and - surprise, surprise - your pet hypothesis comes out ahead, you haven't actually answered the question you set out to answer: "which hypothesis is the most likely explanation?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

then

There is also Vedic Science for one, (see link)

... which is about as much actual science as Christian Science is.

Which would be the case for all non-physical things.

If that were true, it would be utterly irrational to accept the existence of non-physical things.

Luckily for you, I'm not that pessimistic about your claims and other claims of the "beyond the physical." Yes, I don't think that they've been demonstrated, but I'm open to the possibility that one day they might be. If I took this position of yours, I would conclude that non-physical things are impossible to demonstrate, reject your other claims out-of-hand, and just walk away.

 

[Altfish]

I consider and approach the lack of an afterlife in this way...

I ask myself, "Where was I in 1816?" - the answer is that I didn't exist.
Well scroll forward to after my death, it will be the same, I won't exist BUT hopefully I will be remembered by family members and friends

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You've stacked the deck. It's completely unreasonable to use different standards of evidence for different hypotheses to answer the same question. When you take this approach and - surprise, surprise - your pet hypothesis comes out ahead, you haven't actually answered the question you set out to answer: "which hypothesis is the most likely explanation?"

Only, that's not actually the question these types of people had originally set out to answer. They do, in fact, answer the question they set out to answer, which is "how can I maintain the illusion of the self-identity of a rational person while assuming irrational conclusions?"

 

[George-ananda]

Then you can't be sure of anything beyond the physical, period.

Is your 'sure' another word for physical proof? In that sense, I 'can't be sure' that I am not the only sentient being in existence!

However in this world we think in terms of reasonableness and likelihoods. And to do that I take all evidence and argumentation from all sides and using my best objective reasoning, I form my opinion (without ever technically claiming certainty). For example in a murder trial I might conclude 25/75, 50/50, 90/10, 99+/0-, etc. depending on my best objective analysis of the evidence.

Really, the same objective reasoning and logic skills go into an analysis of evidence for the afterlife. On that particular issue I have judged 'beyond reasonable doubt' based on an objective analysis of the evidence and argumentation from all sides.

 

[George-ananda]

... which is about as much actual science as Christian Science is.

I think it is way, way, way beyond.

If that were true, it would be utterly irrational to accept the existence of non-physical things.

It is not irrational to consider the claims of experiencers and see how well they dovetail with one of mankind's great wisdom traditions. This wisdom tradition includes observational science of the perception of many adepts looking at the quantity, quality and consistency of their direct observations. This is observational science.

Luckily for you, I'm not that pessimistic about your claims and other claims of the "beyond the physical." Yes, I don't think that they've been demonstrated, but I'm open to the possibility that one day they might be. If I took this position of yours, I would conclude that non-physical things are impossible to demonstrate, reject your other claims out-of-hand, and just walk away.

Remember I have said these things are not outside the range of science but outside the range of science's current reach.