Metanet Forums

Do you believe in life after death? In other words, do you believe in heaven? I would just like to make this comment. How do you know that there is a life after death (and don't give me any of the, "because the Bible says so," crap. no offense. I just want a real answer)? What if there is nothing, and only darkness and emptiness? How do you know that you will go to a better place when you die? What if it's a bad place? Or what if both good and bad people go to the same place? The only reason that Man created the idea of a life after death, is so that they would have a little comfort in 'knowing' that their deceased companions were still happy and joyous. Man only created the belief in life after death, so that when he/she dies, they 'know' that they will continue to proper and have fun. But once again I ask; What if there isn't anything? No afterlife, no reincarnation, no life after death? And that brings me to the interesting topic of reincarnation. If it is true, then no one will ever be able to prove it. Because if you become reincarnated, you will have no memories from your past life.

Discuss.

Why Me wrote:(and don't give me any of the, "because the Bible says so," crap. no offense. I just want a real answer)?

If you preculde faith based answers then what is the point of this thread?

I see no reason to believe in an after life. All evidence points toward my brain as the source of that which I think of as "me." When my brain stops functioning, my consciousness will probably stop functioning as well.

Ten years after I die, I expect to be doing what I was doing ten years before I was born (not existing).

wolfgang wrote: If you preculde faith based answers then what is the point of this thread?

I only meant that you can't have just that as an answer. You would have to give a more in-depth answer. And I'm not talking a whole huge paragraph (though you could do that), just a better explanation.

The default is "there is no afterlife." Someone propose something.

there is no proof of an afterlife. there is no disproof of an afterlife. so i personally do not know solidly whether there is or is not an afterlife. but i know that i can choose to either believe in an afterlife, or not believe in one. and there is no harm in believing in it, even though there is no truth. Christianity's assertions about an afterlife could be either true, or false. if i believe in an afterlife, and the assertions are true, then i will receive an award for it. no effort involved. but if i believe in an afterlife (and Christianity's assertions about it) and the assertions (and the afterlife's existence) are false and nonexistent, then i will have lost nothing. so with that in mind, i prefer to believe in an afterlife as Christianity defines it. i do not have proof of it, and i do not have disproof of it. but i believe that it is true, merely because there is no potential loss for doing so.
edit: i forgot to wrap this up. *however, if i do not believe in an afterlife, then i will stand to a potential loss, with no potential gain. ultimately, the situation has two options. i can either stand to a potential loss with no potential gain (not believing), or i can stand to a potential gain with no potential loss (believing). the fact that i cannot say whether there actually *will* be a loss or gain in either of these scenarios is irrelevant; whether i actually get the loss or gain is irrelevant as well. considering probabilities, belief is better.

yungerkid:
there is no proof of an afterlife.

Correct.

yungerkid:
there is no disproof of an afterlife.

Irrelevant.

yungerkid:
but i know that i can choose to either believe in an afterlife, or not believe in one.

Sure, so long as you remember that it's foolish to act as though something whose existence has not even a single shred of supporting evidence exists, especially when it has never had any influence on your life. Invisible pink unicorns are in exactly the same position -- they don't have any observable influence whatsoever on your life and there's no evidence of their existence. So barring concrete evidence, you should believe in an afterlife with approximately the same intensity as you believe in invisible pink unicorns, or any other fantastical thing you can come up with.

yungerkid:
and there is no harm in believing in it, even though there is no truth.
...
there is no potential loss for doing so.

There is harm in believing it, because its truth cannot be determined.
If you believe, for example, in the Christian heaven, then you would think that you have to regularly commit atrocities in order to save yourself from eternal torture. That's extremely unhealthy, both for you and everyone around you.

yungerkid:
if i believe in an afterlife, and the assertions are true, then i will receive an award for it. no effort involved. but if i believe in an afterlife (and Christianity's assertions about it) and the assertions (and the afterlife's existence) are false and nonexistent, then i will have lost nothing.
...
however, if i do not believe in an afterlife, then i will stand to a potential loss, with no potential gain. ultimately, the situation has two options. i can either stand to a potential loss with no potential gain (not believing), or i can stand to a potential gain with no potential loss (believing). the fact that i cannot say whether there actually *will* be a loss or gain in either of these scenarios is irrelevant; whether i actually get the loss or gain is irrelevant as well. considering probabilities, belief is better.

This argument is called Pascal's Wager, and it's widely regarded as one of the most absurd and laughable reasons for faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticisms

Irrelevant.

my point was that we do not know for certain whether an afterlife exists or not. if we could prove that it exists, we would know for certain whether it exists. so i needed to say that we cannot prove that it exists. if we could prove that it does not exist, then we would know for certain whether it exists. so i needed to say that we cannot prove that it does not exist. and if i needed to say it in order to prove my point, then by definition it is not irrelevant.

it's foolish to act as though something whose existence has not even a single shred of supporting evidence exists

i was arguing the choice. if it were stated to me that if i did believe in pink unicorns i would go to heaven, and if i didn't, i would go to hell, then i would examine the credibility behind the statement. if it were a single person or group, or even multiple groups, i would not believe them at all. but if it were, say, generations upon generations of educated men and women, then i do think that the odds would be in my favour to trust that pink unicorns exist. i guess this is a difference of personal preference. you think that believing in an afterlife, just like believing in pink unicorns, is absurd. this shows that you rely on solid evidence. whereas you need proof of something to believe in it, i merely need a valid and credible probability that believing in it will gain me something. in the end, this boils down to personal preference. in my opinion, it is more logical to be flexible in ideology, accepting probabilities and not requiring solid, provable facts.

There is harm in believing it, because its truth cannot be determined.

what type of harm am i coming to by believing in something that cannot be logically proven? mental harm? physical harm? also, how am i coming to that harm? is the mere fact that i believe what i believe, directly harming me? explain yourself.

the Christian heaven, then you would think that you have to regularly commit atrocities in order to save yourself from eternal torture.

what atrocities? morality is relative. atrocities by whose measure? yours? Gods? Sciences? don't you think that's a bit preposterous?

it's widely regarded as one of the most absurd and laughable reasons for faith.

as you inflated that statement, i will now let it deflate by itself.

yungerkid:
my point was that we do not know for certain whether an afterlife exists or not. if we could prove that it exists, we would know for certain whether it exists. so i needed to say that we cannot prove that it exists. if we could prove that it does not exist, then we would know for certain whether it exists. so i needed to say that we cannot prove that it does not exist. and if i needed to say it in order to prove my point, then by definition it is not irrelevant.

The point comes across when you say that it can't be proven. Saying that an assertion with zero supporting arguments can't be disproven is meaningless, and so is completely beside the point. Not having counter-arguments to something that has no arguments is not a failing on the side of people who don't believe in an afterlife, and you're acting like it is one.
And for the record, there is no definition by which proving a negative is necessarily relevant or meaningful.

yungerkid:
if it were a single person or group, or even multiple groups, i would not believe them at all. but if it were, say, generations upon generations of educated men and women, then i do think that the odds would be in my favour to trust that pink unicorns exist.

Generations upon generations of educated men have known and argued about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and, hell, even the ancient Greek pantheon and assorted animistic beliefs. If you're going by who appears to be most reliable, Judaism has been around far longer than Christianity, and Hinduism has been around even longer than that (and atheism has about seven orders of magnitude on all three).

yungerkid:
this shows that you rely on solid evidence. whereas you need proof of something to believe in it, i merely need a valid and credible probability that believing in it will gain me something.

Something tells me you're not picking up on this "there are plenty of other religions that make more sense than Christianity" thing I've been doing, and furthermore that you didn't read the first huge, bold title on the Wikipedia page I linked to.
What makes you think, given the hundreds, possibly thousands, of gods that have ever been conceived by the mind of man who have been debated and fought over for generations, what makes you think that Christianity has any higher probability of being right than an amount so close to nothing that it may as well be nothing?
Stop saying that probability is in your favor. It isn't. It very, very isn't.

For every reason you've given as to why you should believe in the Christian heaven, it's been very clear to me that either it isn't a reason you actually have or that you haven't thought very much about it.
You've said that you believe it because it can't be disproven -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be praying to invisible pink unicorns as well.
You've said that belief is overall safer than disbelief (Pascal's Wager) -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be a Deist and try your best to qualify for as many religions as possible instead of just the one.
You've said that age lends to credibility -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be something much older such as a Hindu or Buddhist, or at the very least a Jew.
You've said that generations of educated people can't be wrong -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be a Taoist or follow some other old and heavily-argued Eastern belief system.
You've said that you trust probability -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be an atheist or at the very least agnostic.
Stop giving reasons you don't even follow for yourself.

yungerkid:
in the end, this boils down to personal preference. in my opinion, it is more logical to be flexible in ideology, accepting probabilities and not requiring solid, provable facts.

Accepting overwhelmingly high probabilities is the reason I call myself an antitheist instead of an atheist or agnostic. Beyond lacking belief in any conception of the divine I've encountered, I further hold the belief that your God does not exist. That's me going by probability.
You need to start explaining why it is you find it more probable than "extremely improbable."

Tsukatu:
it's widely regarded as one of the most absurd and laughable reasons for faith.

yungerkid:
as you inflated that statement, i will now let it deflate by itself.

...and then you promptly fail to do so.
Look, as I've already said, it's pretty frickin' obvious that you didn't even visit the Wikipedia page. If you had, or if you Googled "Pascal's Wager," or even if you had sat down for two minutes and thought about it, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself like this. Every famous atheist since Voltaire has been in stitches over the thought that people might consider this an argument, and every theologian worth his salt since then has tried his darndest to distance himself from it.
I mean, seriously, yungerkid... not only are you quite simply and hilariously wrong in your attempt to defend your Yungerkid's Wager, but you should also learn to not run your mouth when it's so obvious you haven't done your homework. It's just embarassing. I'm embarassed for you. Everything else you've said in this thread so far has been just fine, but this... just drop it, dude. It's a war that has been won centuries ago, and there's no chance of a comeback.
Look, I even feel sort of weird that I'm the only one dignifying this. If anyone else is following this thread, could you go ahead and post a quick "Pascal's Wager is a crock" for me or something?
Ah, kids. Ahaha. That did put a smile on my face, though.
Anyway...

Tsukatu:
There is harm in believing it, because its truth cannot be determined.

yungerkid:
what type of harm am i coming to by believing in something that cannot be logically proven? mental harm? physical harm? also, how am i coming to that harm? is the mere fact that i believe what i believe, directly harming me? explain yourself.

I did. You just cut off the quote. Here, I'll quote you quoting it:

Tsukatu:
the Christian heaven, then you would think that you have to regularly commit atrocities in order to save yourself from eternal torture.

what atrocities? morality is relative. atrocities by whose measure? yours? Gods? Sciences? don't you think that's a bit preposterous?

No, I don't think it's preposterous in the slightest, and apparently neither do you: http://forum.therealn.com/viewtopic.php?p=12758#p12758
And that only covers the things Jesus Christ directly demands from you. That doesn't include any of Jesus' failure to be a good role model, anything about biblical heroes God also endorses, or anything from the Old Testament. (Also, remind me to tell you about Mike's Treehouse sometime.)
And furthermore, the very act of believing in things without a reason, accepting non-arguments, emotional appeals, and trite scare tactics in the place of reason, and choosing to act on non-knowledge over knowledge is the exact polar fucking opposite of progress. You can trust a strongly religious person to believe the musings of an uneducated shepherd who sat around guessing about things over professionals, condemn, persecute, and kill undeserving human beings for non-reasons, and sabotage the efforts of anyone not of exactly the same, closed mind regardless of what they are. And, what I consider to be the greatest crime of all, religion subdues curiosity and critical thinking, which leads to the natural conclusion of religion's intense historic hostility to science. Once you can accept and model your life and actions around something that has zero supporting reason, you become intellectually crippled, believing that it's okay to "just believe" things and to place faith where no one in their right mind would.
Bush believed that God told him to invade Iraq. A member of Reagan's cabinet believed that environmental concerns were irrelevant because the end of days was nigh. A group of young men from a country that once had a rich and glorious history thought it was objectively good to fly airplanes into America's center of business and kill as many people as possible in doing so.
And you're asking me what negative influence faith might possibly have on a person?
Oh, there's another -- religion divorces people from reality, and makes them think that problems will solve themselves (or that prayer does anything to help).

Pascal's Wager is a crock

Pascal's Wager is a crock

Here is one possible outcome to Pascal's Wager (c/o tsukatu's wiki link):

A philosopher claimed, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When the philosopher died, "he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'"

Think about that before throwing your lot in with him.

Condog wrote:Pascal's Wager is a crock

Why Me wrote:Pascal's Wager is a crock

Thank you. :p

If you look at this very technically then you could say that there is life after death. when you die your body provides food for many other lifeforms, the energy that makes up our bodies gets transferred into other life and change into different matter.

I refuse to post here until I am eighteen and am in full control of my actions.

but yes. no buts about it.

you know, Tsukatu, i think a better argument for you would be this. we really don't know how God (if there is one) will act if we ever get to an afterlife. there could be an afterlife, there could not be. if there is, then there may be a God, there may not be. there are many options of what it would be like without God. if there is a God, He could either reward theists, or punish them, or do something else. He could either reward atheists, or punish them, or do something else. He could reward *and* punish either or both of the two groups. He could just not care. my point is, that not only do we not know that there will or will not be an afterlife, we have no clue what the afterlife would be like if there is one. i'm not sure entirely how to take this. however, i do know that there will be a wager. this is true since we do not know anything about the afterlife, or about the existence of the afterlife in the first place. however, if i wager that there will be an afterlife, there could be one of many possibilities as to how that afterlife unfolds; these possibilities could be positive or negative. if i wager that there is no afterlife, then i stand the chance that there could be an afterlife; furthermore, that afterlife may be positive. basically, there are three options total. either there is a positive afterlife, or there is a negative afterlife, or there is no afterlife. edit:actually, this triple chance persists *no matter what* choice we take. anyway, back to the argument. we can't prove anything about the afterlife. because of that, i would suggest that a *random* wager is the best option. there could be one of possibly limitless possibilities awaiting us in the afterlife, if there is one. against such chaos, it is best in my opinion to choose randomly. there are two options.

do you agree with that?

also, i'm going to possibly withdraw from the debate soon; not because i'm losing ;P, but because i want to take more time to study this matter on my own, before i attempt to take and hold such a firm position. to tell the truth, i just chose my faith's stock standard side, and prepared to defend it.

Pascal's Wager is a crock of shit. There is just as likely a God that has a sense of irony, and punishes believers while rewarding non-believers. In the absence of any specific knowledge whatsoever, it is best to withhold belief. Why make a wager if you have no information to wager with? You might get screwed no matter which way you bet, so why make an arbitrary decision you don't need to make? Live your life well, and if God's a good dude, you'll get into Heaven - or at least you won't be punished. If God has a sick sense of humor, you're fucked no matter what. Don't waste your time wagering.

i theoretically, technically, and marginally, qfe demonz.

yungerkid wrote:we can't prove anything about the afterlife. because of that, i would suggest that a *random* wager is the best option. there could be one of possibly limitless possibilities awaiting us in the afterlife, if there is one. against such chaos, it is best in my opinion to choose randomly.

...And that's why I fervently believe in Quezalot-Ur, Toaster-Lord of the Ephemeral Circles. May His bread be ever crispy.

yungerkid wrote:you know, Tsukatu, i think a better argument for you would be this. we really don't know how God (if there is one) will act if we ever get to an afterlife. there could be an afterlife, there could not be. if there is, then there may be a God, there may not be. there are many options of what it would be like without God. if there is a God, He could either reward theists, or punish them, or do something else. He could either reward atheists, or punish them, or do something else. He could reward *and* punish either or both of the two groups. He could just not care. my point is, that not only do we not know that there will or will not be an afterlife, we have no clue what the afterlife would be like if there is one. i'm not sure entirely how to take this. however, i do know that there will be a wager. this is true since we do not know anything about the afterlife, or about the existence of the afterlife in the first place. however, if i wager that there will be an afterlife, there could be one of many possibilities as to how that afterlife unfolds; these possibilities could be positive or negative. if i wager that there is no afterlife, then i stand the chance that there could be an afterlife; furthermore, that afterlife may be positive. basically, there are three options total. either there is a positive afterlife, or there is a negative afterlife, or there is no afterlife. edit:actually, this triple chance persists *no matter what* choice we take. anyway, back to the argument. we can't prove anything about the afterlife. because of that, i would suggest that a *random* wager is the best option. there could be one of possibly limitless possibilities awaiting us in the afterlife, if there is one. against such chaos, it is best in my opinion to choose randomly. there are two options.

do you agree with that?

Absolutely not.

If there's any small religious part of me (other than my whole deal with the name "Lisa"), it's that I think the way I'm leading my life now will earn me the good graces of any god whose good graces I would want. I observe, question, ponder, and challenge, and I do it all for the sake of finding the truth. I use the faculties I might have been given, and I do my best to use them well. I think that any god who would have a heaven or a hell would also be smart enough to reward exactly what I try to do with my brain, and to fight for what I think is the most beneficial for my peers (while keeping an open mind; I try, anyway :p). Either way, I'm living for me.

I don't agree with the wager you're making because you're betting on a god who is so shallow that he doesn't care at all whether or not you actually believe or make an effort to understand him. Not only should you simply not be making any wagers in the first place as discussed, but what you're relying on is both inconsistent with your faith (belief in a just, benevolent, and omniscient God; as opposed to Christianity, which I surmise you don't follow because you haven't sold your computer for a sword yet) as well as insulting to the god you believe in. He's omniscient, dude. You don't wager on this sort of thing.

I think the way I'm leading my life now will earn me the good graces of any god whose good graces I would want.

you do still run the risk of punishment though. if you're living as if God (or gods) does not exist, then you stand the chance that that God (or gods) might punish you for your belief. what i'm saying is this: 1. we don't know what will happen in the (theoretical) afterlife. 2. we all live in a certain way, that assumes a particular afterlife. what i'm saying is that our actions have reasons behind them. 3. these actions may or may not lead us to a certain type of afterlife. we don't know. and because of this uncertainty, we *must* wager. all of us wager about the afterlife in some way or another. we must, because of the uncertainty over whether there is going to be an afterlife or not. tsukatu, your policy of making efforts into the pursuit of knowledge assumes that the pursuit of knowledge will be rewarded in the afterlife. it also accomodates the possibility of no afterlife. but as far as an afterlife where the pursuit of truth is punished...you're making a wager. it's irrelevant whether the god or gods are justified in punishing you. i'm saying that there is no way to appease all possible situations. because of this, there must be a wager. /repeat

...And that's why I fervently believe in Quezalot-Ur, Toaster-Lord of the Ephemeral Circles. May His bread be ever crispy.

amen. hey, now our claim has credibility; two support it. /satirize
actually, that's where my whole credibility claim comes in. we can't know for certain who is the best god to choose, but Christianity, in my opinion, has the most credibility. this is because it has the most followers, not because it has been around for the longest. actually, now that i consider it, atheism has probably had at least a comparable number of followers throughout history.

but, like i said, i have not fully thought out my side to this issue. i now withdraw from the debate, to ponder the issues at stake.

and because of this uncertainty, we *must* wager.

False.

yungerkid:
you do still run the risk of punishment though. if you're living as if God (or gods) does not exist, then you stand the chance that that God (or gods) might punish you for your belief.

Well yeah, that's why I said "any god whose good graces I would want." If there is a god out there who is so petty that he'd punish me because I didn't forsake the brain he gave me in order to blindly worship him, then I don't want to spend eternity in his presence. I think I'd be much happier without his presence, down with everyone else who used their brain where all the blindly faithful are no longer fucking up our livelihood. How badly do you have to screw up as a deity for people to prefer your Hell to your Heaven, or even to the world of the living?

yungerkid:
1. we don't know what will happen in the (theoretical) afterlife. 2. we all live in a certain way, that assumes a particular afterlife.

Again, I'm not assuming a damned thing about the afterlife. What I'm talking about is just a comforting afterthought that I'm completely willing to drop if we start talking about whether it's consistent or likely.
I've done the Blasphemy Challenge, and I'll happily do it again on request -- I've gone out of my way to inform the Christian God that I don't want a thing to do with Him, and that if He does exist as He's described in the Bible that I'd prefer Hell to His company. Other than that, there is nothing about the way I live my life or the choices I make that considers the afterlife. It's a non-issue to me. I only consider what would make me happy.

yungerkid:
3. these actions may or may not lead us to a certain type of afterlife. we don't know. and because of this uncertainty, we *must* wager.

There you go with the wagering again...
Hedging your bets is an active process; you have to be doing it intentionally. If you're unaware that you're making a wager or you're not intending to, then you aren't making any goddamned wagers. I, for one, am living in a way that doesn't assume or expect jack from an afterlife. Que será, será, motherfucker.
Stop trying to weasel the word "wager" into this. It's only going to get more contrived from here.

yungerkid:
tsukatu, your policy of making efforts into the pursuit of knowledge assumes that the pursuit of knowledge will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Au contraire, mon frére, my policy of pursuing knowledge is in place because it helps me while I'm alive. I have no expectation that it will help me after that. That's honestly my motivation for it - whatever makes improves the quality of my life. Not only do I not expect there to be an afterlife, but I also expect that there won't be an afterlife. I think it doesn't exist, so I'm not doing jack to prepare for it. You're taking one of my random musings, which I will abandon at the drop of a hat upon any serious inquiry into it, just as I would drop any of my miscellaneous musings about the personality a god would have in any serious discussion, and just running with it. It's art, not serious consideration.

yungerkid:
we can't know for certain who is the best god to choose, but Christianity, in my opinion, has the most credibility. this is because it has the most followers, not because it has been around for the longest.

I'll add this to the previous list, then:
You've said that large numbers of followers lend to credibility -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be a Muslim.

Also, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Zoroastrianism have all been around longer than Christianity. And I hope you're Catholic, because that's the largest and oldest Christian denomination, and thus clearly the most credible.

yungerkid wrote: actually, that's where my whole credibility claim comes in. we can't know for certain who is the best god to choose, but Christianity, in my opinion, has the most credibility. this is because it has the most followers, not because it has been around for the longest. actually, now that i consider it, atheism has probably had at least a comparable number of followers throughout history.

Because the majority is always right! Remember when the majority thought that the Earth was flat? Or when all those of Germans thought Jews belonged in gas chambers! Wacky fun.

Tsukatu wrote: You've said that large numbers of followers lend to credibility -- if you actually used that reasoning, you'd be a Muslim.

Sorry for being nitpicky, but Christianity does have the largest number of followers, though Islam is the fastest growing.