Thread: After life?

Originally posted by tyler

Is there any evidence to there NOT being an afterlife?

Is there any evidence that their is a heaven or reincarnation?

I'm Hindu, but I dont believe in reincarnation. Im more scientific minded.

Isn't reincarnation a significant part of Hinduism?

>Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people.

Doesn't this eliminate free will and mean that ultimately our actions are entirely predictable? Scary concept to accept.

It is very difficult to explain the existance of laws of nature (without a circular argument), there needs to exist an intial cause. For science, it's usually the big bang which if you think about it is totally against scientific reasoning.
Hume (an old philosopher) believed the same thing, human actions are just as predictable as physical objects, but have far too many variables for us to consider. But he cites God as the intial cause (which then only requires reasoning that God exists).

Neither one can be undoubtably proven, as far as I know.

>make the most of life

Indeed. Go program something.

yes, reincarnation is a significant part of Hinduism, but i mainly believe in the values set forth by the religion. For example being a vegetarian, etc.

Our actions are predictable and are unpredictable.

First people choose their own decisions, sometimes knowing fully the advantages and consequences in the future of the decision, predictable.

Second, I dont believe in fate, what happens well happens. You can get shot while at a gas station in broad daylight next to a high way, unpredictable.

But mainly i believe a persons future is based on the decisions that that person makes.

so in saying that, some people believe in God. I for one believe in my self.

and yes i agree, make the most of life. You dont know what is going to happen to you tommorow. Live life to the fullest, everyday.

"Clyde":

By "perceiving" I meant that the brain interprets our 5 senses in the only ways that we can undestand them. IE if you could "Touch" radio waves, then the brain would make you fully awhere that you were being constantly "touched" by these waves.

>>The beings around us, not animals, I meant to be other lives that we cannot sense. Hence there existances cannot be "percieved" by any senses that we have or have the technology to build.

>>Sooo... When we die....How do you know what happens when we die? Have been dead before? How long were you dead for? What was it like? Oh yeah, almost forgot, you don't know! Neither do I for sure. I think that you need to back off and be more open minded toward other peoples "opinions" because remember you don't know as much as you think you know and we don't know as much as we want to know. Alright.

"IE if you could "Touch" radio waves, then the brain would make you fully awhere that you were being constantly "touched" by these waves. "

Not nessesarily the brain filter's out "junk" information, thats how you can listen to people in noisy rooms.

"The beings around us, not animals, I meant to be other lives that we cannot sense. Hence there existances cannot be "percieved" by any senses that we have or have the technology to build. "

Oh I see, magic beings, who break all the laws of physics, of which we have no evidence. Riiiight, and errr we should believe in them.. why?

"Sooo... When we die....How do you know what happens when we die?"

.... i've already covered that question, read the thread.

" Have been dead before? How long were you dead for? What was it like?"

Actually "I" have been dead before, how long you ask? Hmm... since time appears to have a beginning I'd have to say the length I was "dead" was between the bigbang and my birth: a dozen or so billion years. What was it like? It wasn't.

"I think that you need to back off and be more open minded toward other peoples "opinions" because remember you don't know as much as you think you know and we don't know as much as we want to know"

Open minded, ... oh i see you mean ignorant. I should be more ignorant of neurology, more ignorant of physics, yea baby the path to open mindness is ignorance WOOT.

Richard Dawkins: "There is such a thing as being so "open-minded" that your brains drop out".

I'll tell you what I know: there is no after life, it is not possible, you are your brain, when your brain ceases to exist, you cease to exist. FULLSTOP.

"Doesn't this eliminate free will and mean that ultimately our actions are entirely predictable? Scary concept to accept."

Indeed it is a scary concept..... but a true one. Free-will cannot exist without breaking the laws of physics. Further-more there is direct evidence that it doesn't exist:

In a neurology experiment, people were wired to a machine that looks at brain patterns and asked to push a button, whenever they felt like it........ well the researchers looking at the brain pattern's knew when the people were going to press the button half a second BEFORE the people themselves knew! The brain decides what to do, then lets us know.

"It is very difficult to explain the existance of laws of nature (without a circular argument), there needs to exist an intial cause. For science, it's usually the big bang which if you think about it is totally against scientific reasoning."

Er... no the big bang is NOT in anyway against scientific reasoning. Where's the cause? you ask, invalid question I say. What does that mean? you ask, It means that the way we look at things and understand them is based upon the way the universe works. We look for cause and effect, because causality is etched into the properties of the universe, but it is merely a reflection of the laws of physics, hence such principles cannot be applied to the big-bang itself. Also the question is doubly invalid, since it is currently believed that time itself began with the big-bang, you cannot have a "cause" if you don't have a "before". If we ever get an "answer" it will not be one that will satisfy us and "feel" right, it will be an answer written in maths.

"Hume (an old philosopher) believed the same thing, human actions are just as predictable as physical objects, but have far too many variables for us to consider. But he cites God as the intial cause (which then only requires reasoning that God exists)"

Hume generally wrote trite, however he is correct in that human beings are merely vastly complicated chemical systems. Whether they are predictable or not is another question. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle screws alot of prediction up, we could never have a computer and plug into it all the data of the universe and expect it to predict the future.

Originally posted by Clyde

I'll tell you what I know: there is no after life, it is not possible, you are your brain, when your brain ceases to exist, you cease to exist. FULLSTOP.

aye aye

im still open minded, and accept other peoples views and beliefs, just saying so, so nobody jumps at me

"im still open minded, and accept other peoples views and beliefs"

Oh i accept other people's views and beliefs..... if they are rational.

You see there is a great hypocrisy, someone tells you that his goats are talking to him, you think "nutter", someone says he speaks to Napolean on a regular basis, you think "nutter", someone says that we are surrounded by invisable untouchable "beings", you think "I respect that".

of course, this supernatural stuff is utter bull.

If you don't have to prove the big bang, I don't have to prove God's existence.
I'm tired of thinking, I'm done.

I'll tell you what I know: there is no after life, it is not possible, you are your brain, when your brain ceases to exist, you cease to exist. FULLSTOP.

This is your personal belief. If you were an open-minded person, you would acknowledge the fact that even neurology isn't 100% perfect and such a thing as an AfterLife might exist.

Religion is the blind faith in God and Afterlife. Just because some people believe in the contrary doesn't make the blind faith any better. No matter what you believe in, all you have as a base is a big book written by a species of mankind. And s/he might have been wrong. Failing to acknowledge this is blind faith, no matter if the book is the bible, quoran or a scientific book.

>I'll tell you what I know

And you know this because of what ? Did you read the book ( please replace with appropriate book from above ) ? Great.


Whatever. I know the absolute truth: It's 42 EXCLAMATION MARK !

"This is your personal belief. If you were an open-minded person, you would acknowledge the fact that even neurology isn't 100% perfect and such a thing as an AfterLife might exist. "

It is my personal belief because it's the scientific viewpoint, for an "after-life" to exist neurology has to be completely wrong as do even the most basic laws of physics.... they might be..... and we might live in the Matrix, and tommorow gravity might stop and we might all float away....... riiight

"Religion is the blind faith in God and Afterlife"

Yup, and when people say they have "blind faith" in their goats talking to them, we say: "Nutcase" but if on the other hand they have belief in a supreme being and a magical after-life that cannot possibly exist, we say "I respect that", complete hypocrisy, the reason though is a simple one. It's one of social acceptability:

If people had been saying that goats spoke to them for a few thousand years instead of saying that there was an after-life et. al. the situation would be entirely reversed, we would be sitting here and I would be saying "Yup and when people say they have "blind faith" in magically living after dieing we would say: "Nutcase", but if on the other hand they believe goats talk to them, we say " I respect that".........

"Just because some people believe in the contrary doesn't make the blind faith any better"

Faith.... let me tell you what faith is; its a get-out clause, a particularly ingenious one. How would one go about persuading people to believe the most irrational ideas known to man, how could one not only persuade them of these ideas but also get them to stick in the face of logic? The answer is brilliant; you tell these people from an extremely early age, that the very thing that makes these ideas irrational, is to be sought after! You give it a name and voila!

Of course, again, its so socially acceptable, so ingrained into all of our collective psyche, to think of "faith" as a good thing, that realising what it actually is, comes as quite the shock.

Though even the most learned of religious people flail hideously when you ask them what they think faith is, they normally resort to double talk, and supremely circular arguments.

It is used to justify belief in the rediculously improbable, but of course it doesn't really justify anything; I believe goats are talking to me.... why?... faith...... riiiiight.

"No matter what you believe in, all you have as a base is a big book written by a species of mankind"

Well quite, but just because two things were written by man does not make them equally true: I could write a book explaining in detail why i thought the Earth was flat it would not however be even remotely comparable in terms of what is useful in terms of truth with Newton's Principia Mathamatica. So then comes the question; how do we determine which sources of human knowledge to use? Which ones to believe and which ones to chuck on the bonfire?

Logic comes to our aid once again, what is the basis in the claims of said book? Is there evidence supporting it? Do other theories with evidence supporting them support the claims in said book? Etc. etc. In-fact people are pretty good at judging........ except when indocrination and social acceptablilty rears it's ugly head, then perfectly sane, intelligent people lose their minds entirely.

"Failing to acknowledge this is blind faith, no matter if the book is the bible, quoran or a scientific book. "

Oh i love this one, yea thats right, my belief in relativity is as much blind-faith as some-one's in the bible or that a tribal dance causes rain........... or ......... not. You see, relativity, has reems of evidence supporting it, has been mathematically derived from the laws of electo-statics, which in turn have trully gargantuan amounts evidence supporting them. See: No blind faith, evidence and logic. Blind faith = irrational = not usefull in getting the truth.

"And you know this because of what ? Did you read the book ( please replace with appropriate book from above ) ? Great. "

You know, you are seriously trying to argue that because it's in a book it must therefore be as valid as information in all other books!!!!!!!! That's so rediculous its almost funny.

Because neurology is in a book, it's just as valid as my book explaining that monitors are made out of pizza!....... ya!

Neurology whether taught in a book or at a lecture has reems and reems and reems and reems of evidence supporting it, not only that but it provides tangible mechanism that explains how the phenomenon it descibes arise, that are supported by biochemistry, genetics, and a whole host of other subjects. The same applies to the basic laws of physics; consertion of energy, entropy of the universe always increasing, etc. etc.

Like I said it could all be wrong..... or ... not. If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, taste's like a horse, feels like a horse, sounds like a horse, chances are ..... its a horse.

"I know the absolute truth: It's 42 EXCLAMATION MARK !"

Adam's rocked.

on topic of religion, i believe that religion was created to rule over people. Religion was put there so people are not barbarians, created by some king to rule over people, or something. but in the end religion is just text or word of mouth, something for people to believe in, just like i believe in my self, even though i'm Hindu, i also like to think as science as my religion, so to speak...
____________
open-minded

>Blind faith = irrational = not usefull in getting the truth.

You got it. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

>Like I said it could all be wrong..... or ... not.

Right. There is no proof for the existance of a higher being.
But then, there is no proof of the absence of a higher being.
As a logical person, I would therefore conclude that both is
possible.

Same with Afterlife. Scientists say that as they have discovered
Neurology, they can say that we have no physical soul. We have
a heart, we have a brain, but noone found a soul yet. Yet.

But can it be found with physical explanations ? Who said the
soul or whatever survives this life has to be squeezed besides
the brain, that it rests in our skull until we die ? Who said
that ?

>chances are ..... its a horse.

That's right. I'm not saying that I can do anything to make you
believe in an Afterlife. It's not probable. I don't really believe
this either. But saying that there is none is simply ignorant of the
fact that even science can fail. Not acknowledging the chance that
science will know better in hundred years ( like it did for the last
10.000.000 years ) is blind belief, not better than any religion.